Neymar vs Atlético Goianiense 2011 (19 yo) Neymar vs Reims 2018 (26 yo) Neymar vs Botafogo 2010 (18 yo)
Garrincha could very well be a GOAT ball carrier https://www.theguardian.com/books/2004/aug/14/featuresreviews.guardianreview2
Neymar is a case study of how mentality and character are just as important as athleticism and talent In theory Neymar is not worse than Zico Their respective strenghts when operating at optimum version cancel out eachother Neymar is a better athlete/dribbler with just about as much vision Zico is a More varied and dangerous finisher and also more durable I think Neymar 2017=Zico 1980 or 1981 but Zico had a few more of those years Messi la liga 2011 calendar year 8.71 Neymar 2017 calender year (la liga+ligue 1) 8.79 Neymar is the star man in our European team of 2017, with the Brazil star excelling for both Barcelona and PSG over the calendar year pic.twitter.com/dNuu7YiZ4s— WhoScored.com (@WhoScored) January 2, 2018 Cristiano Ronaldo 2014 calender year(la liga) 8.79 Only higher rated years are Messi 2012 calender year (8.9- 9.0) And Messi la liga 2015 If Zico is Defintely an inferior talent to Messi (end product and individual qualities)than his peak has to be in the CR/Neymar range as it is only logical
I am saddened by the fact that the entertaining and refreshing Bayern Munich of 2020 and 2021 is now eliminated; but at the same time, I am happy for Neymar, who has had the mental strength of a lion, coming back from injury after injury ever since his move to Paris Saint Germain; two very good performances against one of the two most difficult clubs in the world... I think Mbappe was the man of the match in the first leg, but only slightly over Neymar who was very good himself, but in the second leg, it was Neymar who stole the show, even if his finishing was more or less mediocre at best. I don't think Neymar gets enough credit for his mobility; he appears to be fundamentally elusive in physical terms, specifically or primarily in terms of mobility itself, even if you were to significantly downplay or ignore the speed factor... Neymar's slalom dribbling and/or ball carrying appears to be primarily based on his signature mobility; what might best be described as side-ways-mobility at the start of the run, similar to Iniesta's dribbling technique, but obviously with a lot more top speed than Iniesta ever had... Neymar rarely or never begins his runs with a square-shouldered physical stance, he is always moving in an angle or side-ways, and it is clear to see that most defenders have a difficult time when trying to nullify said elusive mobility. Anyways, I still think Luis Figo is the better player, but Neymar is more direct and devastating as a player. Figo's two legs vs. Chelsea 1999/00. Neymar's two legs vs. Bayern Munich 2020/21. If somebody could make complete "all touches" videos of the above performances, I think we would get a clearer perspective with regards to the Neymar v Figo argument. There's very little between them, and both of them were arguably unlucky in that both of them were injured at crucial moments of their respective careers; Figo was not fully fit neither for Euro 2000 nor for World Cup 2002; all the while, Neymar has not been fully fit for any important game in recent years.
Isn't Figo overrated here? Neymar has maintained a great level of performance since 2009, with a ~45% goal contribution in his clubs and for Brazil, a high average contribution in goals per 90 even in the Champions League and against the TOP15 clubs in the world while being at least as creative as Figo if not more, as Neymar can float anywhere on the pitch since always, while Figo has always been a player known to be more of side of the pitch type of player. Anyway, Figo was also a attacker and needs to judged for his goal contribution share and rate too. In only two seasons Figo was statistically very good for his club and NT, 1999/2000 and 2000/2001. Ronaldinho has more seasons than that, and Neymar even more than Ronaldinho.
The argument that Neymar is better than Figo is reasonable, of course. On the other hand, the argument that Neymar is better than Figo, because Neymar has maintained a high level of performance since 2009... ignores the reality of relativity through the eras; for example, the fact that very few players of Figo's generation, maintained a high level of performance for 12 consecutive years? I mean, 12 consecutive years of great form is just not a thing when you look at any other era that isn't the current modern era. By that logic, new is by definition always better... in which case, Neymar should be better than Maradona, and by the same logic, Mbappe should be better than Neymar. Ronaldinho played at a high level in 2003/04, declined in 2004/05, and then played at a high level in 2005/06, after which he permanently declined. At any rate, Ronaldinho was never great for 3 consecutive Le Liga campaigns, not to mention the fact that Ronaldinho's lack of professionalism is why he declined at the young age of 28. Figo played at a high level in 1998/99, 1999/00, 2000/01, and 2002/03; three consecutive seasons of great performance between 1999 and 2001, season 2001/02 where he struggled with injury problems throughout the campaign, and season 2002/03 where he was crucial as Real Madrid won La Liga. When Figo was fit, he won 3 out of 4 La Liga titles; 1999, 2001, and 2003. And the one La Liga he did not win, in 2000, he was the unanimous best player in La Liga. The only outlier is La Liga 2002, which is the only season where Figo had persistent injury problems. Relative to the era, Figo arguably is as consistent a player as you will find. Neymar never completed 3 consecutive seasons of great form in La Liga; Neymar always was a mixed bag, periods of great highs, and then periods of lesser form; also the period where he gets injured, which happens basically every single year. Relative to players of the era; Neymar never proved himself as an uniquely consistent player in La Liga. Again, the argument that Neymar is better than Figo is reasonable; in fact, I think most fans will tend to agree that Neymar is the better player. But at the same time, the argument that Figo produced less world class seasons than Ronaldinho... does not appear to have much, if any, basis in reality. All the while, the premise that Neymar was a lot more longevity-blessed than Figo, also does not appear to be substantiated by an argument that can stand up to the relativity of the eras. Figo was distinctly consistent per his era; versus Neymar, who never was distinctly consistent in his time in La Liga, relative to his era.
In the 1998 portion of la liga 98/99 Luis figo contributed with 1 goal+4 assists in 14 matches In the 1999 portion of that exact same campaign he contributed with 6 goals+13 assists in 20 appearences Of course many people will say football is not just statistics but something like this is a clear cut case of a mixed bag Neymar has had relative dips in form but nothing remotely like this ever( or at least since the 2013 arrival in Europe) Figo was not a real world class player until 1999 most likely Before this he was a player who can be categorised as being world class 'on his day'(ie Paul pogba or even C.Ronaldo before January 2006) I think Figo/Neymar can be directly compared in terms of end product as their respective advantages/disadvantages are balanced out Figo did not play for high scoring clubs as current day superteams Real Madrid/Barcelona/Bayern/PSG/Manchester city But he was at times his teams number 1 penalty taker(2000/01 for real Madrid) Neymar was never that for Barcelona-except during brief spells were Messi was absent and even then he had to share with Suarez He just never held a complete monopoly over set pieces at Barcelona (as he currently does at PSG) So if neymars end product is inflated As a direct result of Messis passing genuis and Suarezs underrated link up play then figos was also inflated by the many set piece opportunities(pen and Fk) he was afforded and his end product would've been alot lower had Raul been the number 1 designated set piece taker at real Madrid Another disregarded fact is alot in fact I'd argue a disproportionate amount of Luis figos assists were cross assists (and not the David Beckham/KDB type either) many here seem to suggest crossing isn't indicative of passing genius (which is especially true if you see the types of cross assists Figo was providing in la liga 2000/01) The quality of those crosses is alot closer to a pavel Nedved than it is to a real genuis crosser like Beckham/KDB And it is a fair point to raise that figo did not possess the creative vision of the best number 10s in the world and was nowhere near as comfortable as Neymar playing through the middle In addition to this it cannot be overstated that however mediocre Neymar can appear to be at finishing he is still markedly more effective than Luis Figo I don't make this up Neymar in his career has played been played as a attacking midfielder,LW and second striker Has not reached his 30th birthday and has scored 325 goals in 519 appearances David Beckham and Luis figo scored a combined total of 265 goals in 1511 appearances Better than this George best scored 179 goals in 470 appearances for manchester United in a era of 4+ goal averages(the 60s more than the 70s to be fair) He was played as a midfielder,a inverted winger and as forward Since 2017 Neymar has statistically been dribbling on par with Messi(his best phases) Combining this with the goalscoring of a top level striker of the 1990s/2000s era averaging 0.6 to 0.7 goals per game Combining that with being perhaps the most effective final passer alongside 2 or 3 other guys in Europe's top 5 leagues Combining that with providing close to 1 assist every 2 games which is something insane even by modern day standards Without wanting to digress too much It is simply not remotely true Figo was a more consistent league performer as Neymar Not in la liga and not ever Best case to argue(in favour of Luis Figo) is a 1 season peak(or maybe 2 at a stretch) La liga 1999/00+Euro 2000 I could mildly entertain the possibility that he was comparable to Neymar Jr here When Neymar has played for PSG he has been ultra consistent Machine like 🤯 Neymar has scored or assisted in all but six of his last 40 league matches for PSG. He has played a direct hand in 58 goals in that time.🤔 But has the last three years been a complete waste of time? @_WrightJosh has looked at what the stats say 👇https://t.co/XU9qBFsmXP— WhoScored.com (@WhoScored) May 6, 2020 And his last 3 seasons in la liga produced 59 goals+39 assists in 8279 minutes(92~ matches) George best is a very good historical comparison for Neymar at this point of his career(he has already surpassed Ronaldinho) And sorry Neymar is a vastly vastly more effective final third passer/finisher/and dribbler than dinho You cannot dispute the raw data/facts In Europe's premier competition there is just absolutely no comparison Dinho slept his way through the vast majority of champions league groupstage fixtures and came alive during a handful of champions league games (5 at best) It's nice to see someone like dearman showing great appreciation of Neymar by ranking him in the top echelon of great international club competition performers
Neymar's numbers acc Transfermarkt: compared to Figo's numbers: They aren't even close in terms either rate or direct participation. The only two seasons where Figo had numbers who could match Neymar in terms of influence with Neymar's worst seasons (around 35% share contribution in his team goals) are the season of 99/00 and 00/01, two seasons (three including his last season at Sporting in 1995) compared to Neymar's 12 seasons. Again, Figo was one attacker and one attacker needs to be judge by his goal contribution (goals and assists) specially. They are almost 17% off historically, not 5%. Important to say that Neymar had good to excellent average ratings according DBS Calcio if compared even to Ronaldinho's best seasons (and easily better than the data of Figo's I have), good to excellent ratings in Sofascore, Whoscored etc... even playing in a sub optimum position for him, as a more positional hardworker left winger and not playing with as much freedom as Messi. Even with that the site Macro Football rated Neymar as the best offensive play driver of Barcelona (and the world's best offensive player) in all his last three seasons at Barcelona. No data for Figo of course, but data from Neymar here: https://macro-football.com/team/barcelona1415/ https://macro-football.com/team/barcelona1516/ https://macro-football.com/team/barcelona1617/ Meaning Neymar wasn't just about numbers, but he is a great facilitator as well, so perhaps Neymar isn't as inconsistent as many think or his peak level was above Figo or both (my bet).
Good post my friend. I do not have the time right now, to respond to it with the detailed counter-argument that I have in mind, but I will say this: I think you might have actually convinced me that Neymar is better than Figo, I'm just not completely sold on the idea that Neymar is the superior player versus Figo; again, Neymar being the player who only has proven to be consistent with a club that literally would still win the league title without Neymar. But credit where credit is due, that is a good argument.
I still don't really have time to adequately respond to the wall of text above, but reading it a second time, your argument is plagued by inconsistencies and basic mistakes; pro-Neymar propaganda, and as most propaganda, it is uniquely built on false grounds. Another disregarded fact is alot in fact I'd argue a disproportionate amount of Luis figos assists were cross assists (and not the David Beckham/KDB type either) Your argument above is bad and reductive; at any rate, the fact is that Figo is arguably the 'goat' in terms of creating passing angles. On the other hand, David Beckham and Kevin De Bruyne are very inconsistent as passers when playing against top tier clubs, because top tier clubs tend to be very good at canceling space, and because Beckham and De Bruyne are not at all good in terms of creating space when there is no space. Figo could use his ball retention skill and/or slalom dribbling ability to create passing angles out of nothing, which is what puts him a tier above passers like Beckham and De Bruyne, both of whom need team edge to create the space for them, because if not, they basically cannot use their passing ability, as they will not create passing angles out of nothing. Your argument would be essentially the same as saying that a lot of Diego Maradona's service; Maradona's legendary playmaking in his career with Napoli, could be discredited as mere cross service, no different than David Beckham; even though Maradona could create passing angles out of nothing to a far greater degree than David Beckham and Kevin De Bruyne ever could've dreamed of. This is, as ever, the fundamental weakness of statistics: Statistics are not context-sensitive... Statistics do not cherry-pick what happens against the top tier clubs and/or top tier national teams; instead, statistics conveniently obscure the limits of what happens in easy games where Kevin De Bruyne benefits from team edge, and what happens in difficult games where Kevin De Bruyne does not benefit from team edge. Kevin De Bruyne vs. Brazil 2018. Kevin De Bruyne vs. France 2018. How many 'genius' passes did Kevin De Bruyne completed after the 180 minutes above? Kevin De Bruyne has never in career done what Luis Figo did to Chelsea 1999/00, in difficult circumstances, and after the first leg defeat to Chelsea. Figo comprehensively destroyed Chelsea; Figo literally could have had 3 assists in this game, in addition to the penalty kick that he created, in which case Figo could've finished this game with 4 assists and 1 goal, after already having scored 1 goal in the first leg. David Beckham vs. Argentina 1998. David Beckham vs. Bayern Munich 1999. David Beckham vs. Real Madrid 2000. David Beckham vs. Argentina 2002. David Beckham vs. Brazil 2002. David Beckham vs. France 2004. How many 'genius' passes did David Beckham completed after the 540 minutes above? You are criminally underrating Luis Figo here. You are deliberately or just ignorantly, ignoring the traditional ball retention and/or slalom dribbling that makes Figo a better and more consistent passer than the likes of Beckham or De Bruyne, both of whom (because they lack in the traditional skills) consistently fail to deliver the passing end product against the top tier clubs and/or the top tier national teams. Then again, statistics can be conveniently manipulated so that just about anything at all sounds convincing; including the false argument that Figo is just another Beckham... In the 1998 portion of la liga 98/99 Luis figo contributed with 1 goal+4 assists in 14 matches In the 1999 portion of that exact same campaign he contributed with 6 goals+13 assists in 20 appearences Of course many people will say football is not just statistics but something like this is a clear cut case of a mixed bag The fundamental problem with the above narrative, is that you will be the first person to say that that is great when Neymar does it; and at the same time, you will be the first person to say that that is not great, in fact the textbook definition of a mixed bag, when Figo does it. Figo was instrumental as Barcelona won La Liga in 1999, in an era in which Barcelona was not a dominant club. Figo then was the best player in La Liga in 2000. Figo then won La Liga again, in 2001; and again, he was widely regarded as the best player in La Liga. Figo then won La Liga again in 2003, and again he was one of the better players, but by now he was old news so other players received more attention. La Liga 2000 and La Liga 2002 were the only campaigns that Figo could not win; he was unanimously considered as the best player in La Liga 2000; all the while, he was playing injured most of the time in La Liga 2002. 2nd place / Barcelona 1997. 1st place / Real Madrid 1997. (Ronaldo Nazario is signed by Inter Milan.) (Rivaldo is signed by Barcelona.) 1st place / Barcelona 1998. 4th place / Real Madrid 1998. 1st place / Barcelona 1999. 2nd place / Real Madrid 1999. 2nd place / Barcelona 2000. 5th place / Real Madrid 2000. (Luis Figo is signed by Real Madrid.) 4th place / Barcelona 2001. 1st place / Real Madrid 2001. 4th place / Barcelona 2002. 3rd place / Real Madrid 2003. 6th place / Barcelona 2003. 1st place / Real Madrid 2003. The trend is very one-sided: 1. Real Madrid finished in 5th place (La Liga 2000), as Figo delivered what was unequivocally his best La Liga campaign. 2. Real Madrid finished in 1st place (La Liga 2001), as Figo was in great form for a second consecutive La Liga campaign. 3. Real Madrid finished in 3rd place (La Liga 2002), as Figo was playing injured or half-injured most of the time. 4. Real Madrid finished in 1st place (La Liga 2003), as Figo delivered another very complete La Liga campaign, similar to 2000 and 2001. 5. Barcelona without Figo, immediately deteriorated into a team that was competing for 4th place in the league. 6. Rivaldo was overrated at the time, as had in fact already been the case throughout La Liga 1999/00, where it was Figo who almost single-handedly carried Barcelona to a 2nd place finish. 7. Barcelona 1999/00 repeatedly had bad results, when Figo was not available to play (injured or not available due to yellow card accumulation): 1 - 2 defeat vs. Alaves, La Liga Round 4. 0 - 1 defeat vs. Alaves, La Liga Round 23. 1 - 4 defeat vs. Valencia, Champions League Semi Finals. I mean, with the 6 points lost to Alaves; Barcelona would have literally won La Liga with those 6 points. Barcelona would've finished the league with 70 points, literally 1 point more than Deportivo La Coruna. And similarly, if Rivaldo had been good enough to inspire Barcelona into a respectable result vs. Valencia in the first leg of the semi finals, as opposed to getting destroyed by Valencia... I mean, again, Barcelona probably makes it to the Champions League Final vs. Real Madrid. 8. And furthermore, all of the above, is without even taking into account the many good performances by Figo in games that Barcelona did not win. 1 - 2 defeat vs. Deportivo La Coruna, La Liga Round 10. 2 - 3 defeat vs. Sevilla, La Liga Round 15. 0 - 0 draw vs. Real Zaragoza, La Liga Round 20. 1 - 2 defeat vs. Real Betis, La Liga Round 24. Luis Figo was arguably, if not literally, the man of the match in all of the above games; in other words, Barcelona failed to win 11 points out of 13 points, as a result of Barcelona (specifically, Rivaldo) being carried by one player; football is a team sport after all... In summary: 11 points lost in games that Barcelona should have either drawn or won; and another 6 points lost in games that Figo could not play... Figo's La Liga 1999/00 could be directly compared against Ronaldo Nazario's La Liga 1996/97, but then again, statistics will always inflate Ronaldo, because statistics are there to make money, money is by far the priority of statistics, not necessarily to be objective. What happened to Barcelona after Figo dumped them? One of the Worst Eras of Barcelona; Gaspart Era Barcelona. The only good things to come out of it were Carles Puyol, Xavi Hernandez, and Andres Iniesta. In conclusion: Neymar never had the impact in La Liga, that Luis Figo clearly had. In fact, Neymar has only been consistent with Paris Saint Germain, a club that would literally win the league without Neymar. But then again.... Statistics have inflated Neymar, so that Neymar is perceived as a vastly superior player versus Figo; just like statistics also inflated Ronaldo Nazario 1996/97 (or for that matter, Ronaldo Nazario 1997/98), as a Maradona-tier talent, when Luis Figo 1999/00 was more or less as good as Ronaldo was in the best of times. Rivaldo was never actually better in La Liga, than Figo was in La Liga 1999/00. But again, statistics inflated Rivaldo, just like statistics inflated Ronaldo Nazario, just like statistics inflated Neymar, etc. The obvious conclusion to be drawn? Statistics primarily serve the basic function of reinforcing tradition itself; the traditional (yet mistaken) premise that scoring goals is by far the most difficult ability, and that therefore Rivado and Neymar are obviously superior players versus Figo; but then... How to explain that Barcelona with Rivaldo, without Figo, was merely a 4th place club? How to explain that Cristiano Ronaldo Era Juventus, literally scored less goals than Juventus pre-Ronaldo? Statistics are very religious and subjective, in my experience; and especially when used in the unique context of this team-based sport. You cannot dispute the raw data/facts So conveniently ignoring that Figo can create passing angles out of nothing (which statistics have never measured), is irrefutable raw data and fact in your opinion?? We might as well also say that Maradona in his Napoli career was merely a cross assister, same as Figo, same as Beckham, etc. But of course, when it comes to Maradona, you will use a different arbitrary standard; obviously as a direct consequence of the fact that you revere Maradona... You do not extend the same generosity nor appreciation towards Figo, as you discredit Figo as some form of overrated Beckham. That is the problem with the statistical era of the machines and machine-like players... You get fans with a very flawed understanding of what statistics are, who then act like statistics are some form of irrefutable, undisputable, absolute, objective truth. 1. Neymar was not as good as Figo in terms of La Liga impact. 2. Neymar was not as good as Hagi in terms of World Cup impact. 3. Neymar was not as good as Valderrama or Francescoli in terms of Copa America impact. 4. Neymar's only complete Champions League was in 2015; at any rate, he is consistent at the Champions League, but the idea that he is in the same tier as Maradona and Pele, is just not sufficiently substantiated by any long-term trend; not even in the Champions League, which is Neymar's best and only argument. All of the above facts will be readily disregarded by a machine-like generation of 'modern' fans who will use statistics are the ultimate truth. Figo was not a real world class player until 1999 most likely Before this he was a player who can be categorised as being world class 'on his day'(ie Paul pogba or even C.Ronaldo before January 2006) Luis Figo in 1996/97 was already a lot more mature than Cristiano Ronaldo was at any point before 2006/07. 1. Figo defended two times more than Cristiano Ronaldo. 2. Figo was much better at creating passing angles out of nothing, in other words, Figo was a much more consistent passer than Ronaldo. 3. Figo did not have Ronaldo's silly and immature habit of trying ridiculous shots all the time. 4. Figo did not have a team built around, as Barcelona 1996/97 was built around Ronaldo Nazario as the main star attraction. In contrast, Cristiano Ronaldo was the main star attraction at Manchester United, but Alex Ferguson could not transform him into a world class player until Ronaldo came of age in 2006/07. I mean, just try to count how many key passes Figo delivered in the 1996/97 La Liga campaign? That is a lot of key passes from a player who was allegedly not even a real world class player at the time, according to you. How exactly did a player who was allegedly "not a real world class player before 1999" become that dominant in La Liga? The most logical probability, is that Luis Figo already was a world class player before 1999; for reference, La Liga 1996/97, which Barcelona very nearly won, would seem to strongly suggest that Figo was world class already in 1997 and/or 1996.
Luis figo Barcelona/real Madrid la liga+champions league 89 goals(30 penalties)+122 wide assists 34611 minutes(384~ matches) 0.15 open play goals per 90 0.31 assists per 90 0.46 open play goals+assists per 90 David Beckham Manchester United/Real Madrid Premiership/la liga/champions league 91 goals(3 penalties)+140 assists 39224 minutes(435~ matches) 0.20 open play goals per 90 0.32 assists per 90 0.52 open play goals+assists per 90 The sample size of figo is smaller so should actually favour him He just wasn't as effective over the course of his career Not compared to traditional wide men/midfielders in his era and less so compared to this era Neymar with all his inconsistencies in la liga and being worse than carlos valderama in the Copa America has the third highest goal+assist per 90 rate of his generation https://www.bundesliga.com/en/news/...en-on-a-par-with-ronaldo-and-messi-467540.jsp Figo could maybe dream of equalling CRs production in PL 2005/06(particularly from January 2006 where he was as good as he's ever been in a Manchester United shirt) https://www.transfermarkt.com/crist...daten/spieler/8198/saison/2005/wettbewerb/GB1 Small team Big team
Neymar's peak impact (blue line) in football is rated as 215 per GI (probably underrated because of the lack of historical data from South American teams) while Figo reached 190 in 1995/1996 (same tier as Zidane in his time, but below R9s 245 GI, not underrated because they had more data for European competitions) It means that Neymar in fact probably had more impact than on those players mentioned for leadleader in La Liga, World Cup, Copa America, in the UCL, against top teams and top national teams etc. In general I mean. His on-off is better generally. It means that Neymar could carry that Barcelona better than Figo or Rivaldo could (not as R9s tho), as Neymar in fact carried Santos while there being by far their more impactul player and in PSG he still usually is the best PSG player against top teams as well, here his first season impact: PSG didn't won the Ligue 1 2016-2017, when Neymar arrived they won it. PSG 2016-2017 (one year before Neymar with the ones of Di Maria and Cavani in their peaks) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016–17_Ligue_1#League_table 2.29 points per game, 1.47 goal difference. PSG 2017-2018 with Neymar. (20 matches) 2.75 points per game, 2.65 goal difference. PSG 2017-2018 without Neymar. (18 matches) 2.11 points per game, 1.44 goal difference. You can say that Mbappe was hired by PSG too and not only Neymar, but Macro Football credits PSG improvement to Neymar actually, that is peak Neymar elevating an already very good team. https://macro-football.com/team/psg1718/ Figo, Valderrama or Hagi could never. Neymar could have perfectly replaced Lionel Messi too as Barcelona's main guy and won some La Liga there, but that was a matter of role, the team was basically built around Messi and not around Ney. In Messi absence he was usually great and more consistent than as a role player - a level ahead Figo quite easily, in fact is that while Figo was a good player on his day (very good between 1999-2000) they aren't in the same level. Huge how Neymar is disrespected here. Also a guy like Mbappe nowadays is better than Figo (or Hazard) even was as well.
Where is this taken from? Is it the same algorithm version as the one for Neymar? By the way, your premise that no data is included from Neymar his time in South America (esp. Brasileiro and international level) is totally wrong.
Their official account. It is the same methodology I guess. Here another: Yes, they have the data. But I think they only have the most recent data and for the professional level (not sure if youth data, state leagues, cups etc), while they certainly have more coverage in Europe. The part of having less historical data about the country and less coverage perhaps can make the data of Brazilian players somewhat underestimated. An interesting analysis would be to analyze the curve of progress of Brazilian players when they move from Brazil to some European country, I think their GI increase faster than Europeans moving between different European leagues for example, but it is just my opinion.
This was from the legendary October-december 2015 spell playing against River plate in the club world cup 13 goals+8 assists in 11 matches with a with 8 MOTM awards in the league and champions league Whoscored average:9.24 Very very few players are capable of this in all honesty Ronaldo had a few spells like this in 2009/10,2014/15 and 2017/18 Messi a few more but its not like anyone has ever been a markedly superior player than Neymar was during his best phases Not even Pele When he brings it together(the flair and end product)for relatively sustained periods of time he is at least one level above a Luis figo 2000/ribery 2013 type player
The last time we saw peak Neymar December 2019- January 2020 9 goals+5 assists 41 dribbles completed 32 key passes 627 minutes played(7~ matches) https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/neymar/leistungsdaten/spieler/68290/saison/2019/plus/1 2 goals+assists per 90 5.8 dribbles per 90 4.5 key passes per 90 WS average rating 9.13 This isn't even taking into account the monster performance against galatasary in the groupstage https://www.whoscored.com/Matches/1...gue-2019-2020-Paris-Saint-Germain-Galatasaray MOTM 10/10 This version of Neymar is the best Brazilian player since Ronaldo de lima in October 1996
Messi didn't replicated his Barcelona form for into Argentina imo: Messi: 56 non-PK goals, 51 assists, 11835 minutes (131.5 90s), rate: 0.814 per 90 Neymar: 51 non-PK goals, 45 assists, 8621 minutes (95.8 90s), rate: 1.002 per 90 Brazil scored at the rate of 2.19 when Neymar played, so his proportional share contribution is 45.75% Argentina scored at the rate of 1.81 when Messi played, so his proportional share contribution is 44.90% Both are elite ball progressors, I would say Neymar even a bit more so for Brazil. Argentina had the better team, for me, between 2007-2015 2016 they both had good teams. Since 2017 Brazil is the best NT, but still Argentina is not as mediocre as they think, not even in the midfield. Messi had his highest moments with Argentina in the WC 2014 and in the Copa América 2016 with Copa América 2011 behind. Neymar his best moments in the Confederations Cup 2013 and in the Qualifiers, but I do think his WCs are good too. At the moment, Neymar is rated 9.23 in South American qualifiers while Brazil - the best rated team - is 7.10: https://www.sofascore.com/team/football/brazil/4748 While Messi is rated 7.70 in South American qualifiers while Argentina - the second best rated team - is 6.87: https://www.sofascore.com/team/football/argentina/4819 Now, two days to start the Copa América, I think if Neymar and Brazil wins this Copa América in a good way Neymar could be considered a better National Team player than Messi most definitely. Again, it is not Messi's peak but he still had a awesome 2021 and it is not Neymar peak anymore too, but he is still playing very well for Brazil. one match to remember: Young Neymar (21 yo) had 66 touches (the most in Brazil's side), 4 key passes, 6 dribbles completed, 4 fouls won, 1 red card, 1 goal against Spain 2013: You can't play that good with this type of stats if you aren't a generational talent, specially with that Spain who was still the best national team in the world back then.
1412730841353105410 is not a valid tweet id The level of Messi's fanboys.... Messi is being arguably better than Neymar in this Copa América because of his finishing ability (while he is one of the worlds best at it, Neymar is being the worst finisher in Europe since 2019 - probably due to his foot injuries and other diverse injuries, mostly related with the formers foot injuries)... But "deep" influential numbers Brazil is being much more Neymar based on this CA than Argentina Messi based. Shot Actions Creation (counting fouls won, pre key passes, rebound shots etc) Messi 6.25 per 90 / Argentina 24 = 26% Influential in the World Cup 2018 Messi 6.63 per 90 / Argentina 21.32 = 31% Influential in the Copa América 2021 Neymar 8.40 per 90 / Brazil 33 = 25,5% Influential in the World Cup 2018 Neymar 6.80 per 90 / Brazil 20.67 = 33% Influential in the Copa América 2021 Now, Expected Non-PK Goals/Assists per 90 and his team Expected Goals while the player in on the pitch. Neymar: 1.46 per 90 / Brazil 2.38 = 61.3% Influential in the World Cup 2018 Neymar: 1.35 per 90 / Brazil 2.34 = 57,7% Influential in the Copa América 2021 Messi: 0.45 per 90 / Argentina 1.23 = 36.6% Influential in the World Cup 2018 Messi: 0.75 per 90 / Argentina 2.10 = 35.7% Influential in the Copa América 2021 Data: Statsbomb. This taking into account only shots and key passes of course (xA + npxG) Now, that is a big difference, specially if you consider it values actually expected goals numbers, but also because Neymar actually runs more (better off-the-ball movement), touches more on the ball, won more fouls, did even a bit more of ball progression (definitely more so in 2018, but also in 2021) and also is active defensively: https://www.fotmob.com/leagues/44/stats/season/15148/players/poss_won_att_3rd/copa-america Note that Neymar played one match less than Messi. So while Messi and Argentina statpadded against the miserable Bolivia... results: 4.3 expected goals for Argentina vs 0.3 expected goals for Bolivia; (Argentina was already in the KO round there) Brasil faced Ecuador without Neymar... results: 0.7 expected goals for Brazil vs 0.6 expected goals for Ecuador (Brazil still had good players on the pitch) The same Argentina managed to have 2.9 expected goals for and 1.0 against vs Ecuador. So, Is Argentina weaker than Brazil? Really? I don't think so. Brazil can be more solid defensively, but in terms of attacking talent/ball progression, Argentina is easily the better side and has been for years (except 2016/2018 perhaps when Coutinho was on fire). I would say it is 50-50 (Argentina in fact dominated the match vs Brazil in 2019 and won some friendly after) the final and the "Home advantage" isn't really a home advantage without crowds, as they are a lot of studies about it. Messi's fans cry too much, but the fact is Argentina has been a historical underachiever national team with him on the pitch due to the level of talent Argentina had in the last 15 years (which is very arguably bigger than Brazil). Btw, data shows that Messi never replicated his peak level at Barcelona (neither his finishing ability for the most part) with the Argentina shirt, but specially his supposed big "floor raising" ability. If you retire the shooting part of the game (and even if you include it...), you can very well argue that Neymar has been a more dominant player relative to his teammates and more a floor raiser player than Messi for Brazil, with Brazil also being a more rated team than Argentina in the past decade. That is your "GOAT" level player compared to someone who isn't TOP50 all-timer for most people.
I always suspected Scolari's troubled relationship with Figo was part of the reason why Portugal lost the final with Greece in 2004. The Portuguese players all respected Figo and he could persuade many of the players to take his side in any dispute with Scolari. There was a rumored rift between Figo and Scolari that had been growing for sometime. The issues between finally came to a head in quarter-final against England. Portugal were down a goal with time winding down. Portugal were 15 minutes away from being knocked out of the competition. Scolari made the very difficult decision to sub Figo out for Postiga. It proved a master stroke. Postiga would equalize for Portugal thanks to a cross from another substitute, Simao. It's important to note that Simao came on earlier in full anticipation that Scolari would sub out Figo or Cristiano eventually since Portugal were at that stage playing with three wingers and one of them was destined to be the odd man out. I'm not sure why Scolari picked Figo instead of Cristiano, but Figo didn't even try to hide his disappoint after the substitution. He didn't acknowledge Postiga who came on in his place and he ignored Scolari as he walked past him down the tunnel. What's more interesting is in the final against Greece, Scolari didn't turn to the same tactics that had worked against England. Bobby Robson after the game acknowledged that Scolari should have played a second center-forward and that not doing so was a mistake. It was believed that Scolari was being stubborn, that he wanted to make a point that his tactics in the opening game were the right tactics, but that Greece had only won by fluke. Perhaps that's true; however, I don't think it was that simple. The fact is Scolari respected Greece, maybe more than he needed to. After all, Greece managed to beat France and Czechia, two teams that played with two center-forwards. The Greeks seemed well prepared to cope with the challenges of having to defend against two forwards. But I had another suspicion that part of Scolari's reluctance was to prove a point with Figo, except this time to win him over rather than put Figo in his place. Scolari was showing Figo faith and trust to put the team on Figo's back and lead Portugal to victory. He didn't want Postiga to win the game, he wanted Figo to win it. I have a suspicious this was Scolari's way of finally winning him over given how much difficulty the pair had prior to the England game. Both men were mature enough to recognize they needed each other to win trophies with Portugal.
Do you know that xGoals measure the probability of a shot to become a goal right? It only make sense if you consider the actual goals scored by the player, so if the expected goals of a player are low that's a good thing. Just to clarify the numbers in this Copa America so far Messi scored 3 Non-PK goals and made 5 assists, Argentina scored 10 goals (Non-PK), so Messi participated in the 80% of the goals, that's an insane number even for Messi, and he is 34 years old. Neymar scored 1 Non-PK goal and made 3 assists, Brasil scored 10 goals (Non-PK) in the games Neymar played, so Neymar participated in the 40% of the goals. And about Neymar as a player, I think he is really underrated, for me without a doubt he is at least top-3 of this generation, I don't know if Figo could say something like that at his time.
When does his generation start in your opinion Is ibrahimovic part of it(only 19 months younger then Ronaldinho gaucho which puts into perspective his longevity) Neymars generation IMO is the one of Eden hazard,KDB,Thomas muller,Mo salah,griezman etc and he is number 1(uncontested) 25 - Since making his competition debut in the 2013-14 campaign, Neymar has assisted 25 goals in the UEFA Champions League, the most of any player in this time. Source. pic.twitter.com/UXmqKB8vKr— OptaJoe (@OptaJoe) April 7, 2021
Yeah, it is not easy to determine when a generation begins and ends, maybe we can think of it as a decade (90s, 2000s, 2010s) and a player's career could span two or three generations. I also like how it is analyzed in this blog, where the decades are divided into two parts http://xtraimmortal.blogspot.com/2012/12/Era-Ranking.html The First Half 2010s Forward 1. Lionel Messi (Barcelona, Argentina) 2. Cristiano Ronaldo (Real Madrid, Portugal) 3. Luis Alberto Suarez (Liverpool, Uruguay) 4. Zlatan Ibrahimovic (AC Milan, Paris-SG, Sweden) 5. Neymar (Santos, Barcelona, Brazil) 6. Thimas Muller (Bayern, Germany) 7. Robin Van Persie (Man Utd, Holland) 8. Wayne Rooney (Man Utd, England) 9. Antonio Di Natale (Udinese, Italy) The Second Half 2010s Forward 1. Cristiano Ronaldo (Real Madrid, Portugal) 2. Lionel Messi (Barcelona, Argentina) 3. Neymar (Paris-SG, Brazil) 4. Antoine Griezmann (Atletico Madrid, France) 5. Luis Alberto Suarez (Barcelona, Uruguay) 6. Kylian Mbappe (Paris-SG, France) 7. Mohammed Salah (Liverpool, Egypt)
Even then, it is not ideal because there are players whose best form come in the middle of the decade. For example, I'm not sure Suarez was really the 3rd best player in the world in the first half of the 2010s. Was he really that impressive in 11-12, for example? If you take his form from 2012-2017, however, then he's got a much clearer claim as the 3rd best player in the world, even if Neymar arguably still comes out on top of him.