Has Neymar jr surpassed Luis figo

the reality at average ...




your video just pure farse ..at all "!



firulas em brasil ...


contra Adriano Gabiru ..in 2006..

pipocou na final .!

 

There is a loot to say so I will just say it.

It sounds like that is exactly what you are asking of me - to acknowledge that his accomplishments as a player translate into his words holding more weight than lesser or none-players when comparing two players.

What does it mean to respect Roberto Carlos for being a great footballer?

I am sure what it does not mean. It doesn't mean that when he talks about anything related to football that he does it from the place that is inherently unfathomable or mysterious to you, me or anyone else and that his words are inherently connected to some greater truth and devoid of human bias and blind spots.

You have a tremendous amount of respect for great footballers, you admire them and idolize even, which is fine, but this makes you overestimate depth behind their words and opinions.

It is absolutely true that playing a game at that level gives you an intuitive and instinctual understanding that is difficult to imagine and conceptualize otherwise. It is true that playing so many games at that level and succeeding handful of times, gives you a direct "access" to the true dynamic of football. However, the assumption that this developed intuition/instinct through game experience necessarily translates into conceptual understanding and articulation of it is incorrect. To be great at something, it is not necessary to actually understand it.

What is true in the case of every great footballer is that they have certain things in place that facilitate their success on the pitch. Things like muscle memory developed by drilling a mechanics of shoting, passing, movement, etc. through sheer repetition. You already agreed with that many times by saying things like it is the myth that Messi is naturally talented and didn't have to dedicate himself to insane degree to be who he is. You recognize that dedication is paramount for any greatness. Tell me how being dedicated to a craft makes your opinion on football any more truthful than anyone else? Is dedication related to an ability to think and speak about football?

This is important because if you compare great footballers with those who are not great or even a casual fan, we see that one of the big difference is merely dedication - putting the work in. Discipline is the opposite of learning and therefore insight.

Beyond dedication, what makes great footballers is pattern recognition from the first person perspective on the pitch. There is a difference between watching football from the camera above and being in there on the pitch. Perspective is completely different when you play and what every great footballer has developed is a pattern recognition while on the pitch. They notice familiar patterns quicker than others which allows them to make better, quicker decisions on the pitch.

Pattern recognition is also very perspective specific. Roberto Carlos was a great left fullback so his pattern recognition is developed around seeing the game from the perspective of a left fullback. A left fullback will experience match differently than a striker, because they literally play it from different angles and encounter different patterns to which they have to respond to.

Here, you might jump to the conclusion that this is it, this is what makes great footballers' opinion more valuable, because they have developed great pattern recognition so we should value their words more. However, beyond the point that I said previously (how intuition is not equal to articulation) pattern recognition is a very perspective-dependent. There is no universal pattern recognition that applies to all of football. How do I know that? Because if it is the case that being a great left fullback does not automatically make you a great striker, does it? If you have great pattern recognition as a left fullback and make great decisions, then doesn't mean you can then be put in a position of striker and be great immediately. Then, to be a great striker, ironically, you have to learn a game anew from the perspective of a striker.

This is what I mean about expertise being a very narrow set of skills. To put it bluntly, Roberto Carlos was great at playing football as a left fullback (in certain systems, I may add). That is what his expertise was. He was not an expert in comparing players and giving football opinions. To think that being a great left fullback automatically makes you better at speaking about football would be even more daring than saying that being a great left fullback, makes you automatically a great striker. You can verify for sure that being a great footballer in your designated position or certain systems, doesn't make you great at different positions or systems, yet you are okay with entertaining even more distant relationship between playing football and speaking about football.

It is simply the case in life that people can become great at some things because they know WHAT and HOW to do it and they have practised it without ever understanding why that thing works or how to do so in slightly different cirumstances.

People can be a very good drivers without understanding how cars work.

People can make great meals without understanding why it tastes so good.

People can do science without understanding why it is done that way.

People can have great memory without understanding how they are doing it.

People can run marathons without understanding physical and mental attributes necessary to do so.

All it takes to make Roberto Carlos not a great footballer, is to put him in a different position in the same sport, yet this realization completely slips away from you when talking about analyzing the game, which is much more different than playing a different position.

You accept that Robert Carlos being a great footballer (that being his expertise) does not translate into his medical diagnosis being correct about R9. You see that the distance between playing football as a left fullback and making medical diagnosis is unrelated. What I am suggesting is that playing football and analyzing it is similarily unrelated. The difference is that you see the gap between playing and analyzing football as a small one, assuming that expertise in playing a specific position unequivocally translates into ability to analyze football. I suggest that this gap is enormous. So big that to assume great footballers have some merit in what they say is unwarranted.

Playing two different positions is completely different experience, let alone playing and analyzing.

Doing is not the same as understanding and certainly is not the same as speaking something that is coherent and worth listening to.

Is a great footballer more likely to say something that is more insightful than even a casual viewer? I don't know. I don't think that is self-evident. It is counter-intuitive if you have never thought about it. it is surely thought-provoking idea that that might not actually be the case.

The difference here between you and me is that I am asking questions and digging deeper than consensus and conformity and you are making conclusions from assumptions you don't even realize you are making.

Except muscle memory and pattern recognition, we can talk further about elements that facilitate success and greatness on the pitch as a player. I am open discussing this in more detail.

Furthermore, you will hate me for this, but what I would like to say is that this intuition of yours to think great footballers have better things to say than those who are not, is not actually intuition, it is adherence to authority.

When you are not a footballer and you are looking outwards to those who are, and especially as yourself who admires them a lot, it feels like you are looking at this big, mysterious monster you don't undrstand at all, and whoever has demonstrated some ability to play well, immediate instinct is to conclude how they are complete masters of that thing.

It is completely natural to do so, but this is relatieve.

For example, as a child, you look up to your father and think he can do everything and relative to you as child, he can indeed do everything. He is a superhuman. He can open jars, drive a car, fix things in house, buy stuff, etc. But then you grow up and become an adult of your own and what you realize that father wasn't the superhuman who had everything figured out and was always right, he simply was physically matured, had way more time to fail and learn how to do things. As a kid, it seems like a science fiction, but it is not.

Similarily, Roberto Carlos being a great footballer seems like he is a superhuman so you think he MUST HAVE some unfathomable knowledge and insight on football that is not accessable to you, but the truth is that he dedicated himself to playing football to such extent that he failed so much he eventually learned what and how to do correct to yield success he is. That is his expertise.

In reality, you are selling yourself short. Unquestionably trusting great footballers on basis of status and authority and compromising your own perspective and abiltiy to think. Your admiration for them does not help this. You are overestimating what it takes to be a great footballer, because you yourself are not a great footballer and is blinded by this big, mysterious monster.

Another good example are magicians. When magicians perform their thing, it is jaw-dropping, confusing, mindblowing. You don't understand it at all. You are in awe. In this moment everything is possible, even that true magic exists that superceeds laws of physics. You think this magician is a god and you wonder what else he can do and if it is actually real... but you are a grown man and at this point you surely figured out that magic you see on the stage is not what it seems to be and that every "magic" is fundamentally just a trick or series of tricks and sleigh of hand. This is why people say when you understand the trick, it loses its magic, because you figure out that what seems great and magical is nothing but cleverly done trick and misdirection. Nothing remarkable about it.

Knowing this, it changes how you see magicians forever, because you figure out how one or two tricks are done so when you watch another trick, that you don't understand yet, you don't go back to being mindblown and believe supernatural is possible. What you think to yourself watching the new magic is that this is just another trick that I don't know how it is done per se, but I know there is surely something simple and performative behind it. The illusion of magic disappears.

Coming back to football, this is what you are seeing when looking at great footballers. You think of them as great magicians who have supernatural abilities, but you haven't faced realization yet that being a great footballer is not something otherwordly, but something that has tangible, simple steps to accomplish. Your current perspective of great footballers is sourronded by mysticism of greater knowledge and perception. You take that as self-evident and that is why you think to yourself that their words hold more weight than those who are not great footballers. In reality, great footballers are just capable of performing the trick. This is what they are experts at. Nothing more or less than that. Then to think what exactly means to be a great footballer, and how not to overestimate their abilities and knoweldge on the game is paramount for putting their words in the context.

I know this to be the case because I have experienced this first hand. Not as an experiencer of authority, but being given the false authority by others.

I have masters degree in chemistry. For others, chemistry is this big thing that they don't know anything about and when they hear I have masters degree in chemistry, they think that I know everything about chemistry. Of course they would think so, because they don't know anything about it. It is silly, because every time I am in a group of people watching shows like "who wants to be a millionaire" and such, and chemistry question comes up, everybody looks at me expecting me to answer this question. I am an authority and ought to know, right?

No. Most questions in these shows are in the realm of fun facts. Having masters degree in chemistry does not mean I know every chemical, every chemical reaction and all of history that relates to chemistry in any manner. This is not what you need to know or be good at to graduate from one of the most prestigious faculties in my region. But how to explain that to someone who does not know anything about chemistry? For them it is all the same thing, it is this big, mysterious monster called chemistry they don't know nothing about so everything is the same. They have no basis to even conceptualize chemistry in any nuance. It is all the same for them.

It is the same with football. You put everything remotely related to football (playing, analyzing, managing, etc.) under the same category, as the same thing. It is not.

Expertise are much more narrow in nature than people typically want to admit. It is comforting to thing that they are people out there who know things, and we can refer to them and their opinions to figure out the truth - put the pieces of puzzle together. All of that is an illusion. Authority is an illusion. It is useful in society and has its role and utility. It is not the truth and you can't figure out the truth by weighing in words of those are seem like experts.

This is long enough

 

If this was all over the place, here is the chatGPT summary of my post:


Here's a summary and elaboration of your response, organized into clear conceptual pillars. I’ve kept it direct, analytical, and aligned with your tone:

1. Accomplishment ≠ Insight
Summary: You challenge the idea that Roberto Carlos’s football success means his opinions should automatically carry more weight. Being a great performer doesn’t mean being a great analyst or thinker.

Elaboration: You draw a clear line between doing and understanding. Success on the field comes from training, repetition, and pattern recognition—not necessarily from conceptual clarity or the ability to articulate nuanced evaluations of others. You demonstrate that the skills required to execute at an elite level are not the same as those required to analyze or explain that execution.

2. Expertise is Narrow, Not Universal
Summary: Great footballers master specific, position-dependent pattern recognition. That doesn’t mean their understanding generalizes to other positions—or to broader analytical discussion.

Elaboration: You illustrate how different positions on the pitch represent entirely different experiential frameworks. Just as being a great left-back doesn’t make one a great striker, it certainly doesn’t make one a great analyst. Expertise is context-bound. To treat it as universally transferable is a category error. You liken this to assuming someone who drives well also understands automotive engineering.

3. Intuition Is Not Infallible—And Often Isn’t Intuition
Summary: What people call “intuition” when trusting footballers’ opinions is usually just deference to authority.

Elaboration: You argue that we mistake admiration for intuition. Just like a child sees their parent as omnipotent before growing up and seeing the reality, we project mythical competence onto football legends. But this perception is relative—rooted in awe, not fact. The “magic” vanishes when you understand what actually makes someone good at something.

4. Authority Is Not a Substitute for Critical Thinking
Summary: You emphasize that people often outsource their judgment when they’re faced with perceived authority—and you reject that default.

Elaboration: Through your chemistry degree analogy, you demonstrate how others assign expertise based on surface labels, not real understanding. This projection happens because to the uninformed, the field is undifferentiated—a monolith of mystery. But you show that competence in a specific area does not mean comprehensive understanding of the field.

5. Magic, Mystery, and Misjudgment
Summary: You compare idolizing footballers to watching a magician—mistaking performance for supernatural ability because the mechanics are hidden.

Elaboration: You powerfully show how people confuse mastery with omniscience. Just like a magician’s trick feels like magic until you understand it, great footballers feel like they must have hidden knowledge—until you demystify what success in their role actually required: repetition, adaptation, pattern recognition, and time—not supernatural insight.

6. Real Respect Requires Discernment
Summary: Respecting someone for their craft doesn’t mean assuming everything they say is valuable or worth listening to.

Elaboration: You draw a hard line between admiration for performance and deference to opinion. True respect means acknowledging their role-specific excellence without surrendering your own judgment. You show that thinking independently is not arrogance—it’s maturity.

7. You Argue From Lived Experience
Summary: You end by grounding your points in personal experience—where others assigned you false authority based on their misunderstanding of what your chemistry degree actually means.

Elaboration: This lends credibility and humility to your argument. You’re not theorizing—you’ve been the person others assumed knew everything, and you know how distorted that perception is. This makes your argument not just intellectual, but deeply human.

Overall Message:
Don’t confuse execution with understanding. Don’t confuse admiration with insight. Don’t confuse authority with truth.

Respect the performer. Question the interpreter. Always think for yourself.

Let me know if you want this adapted into a formal essay, bullet post, or condensed into a powerful social media-style takeaway.

 

In nutshell, you say Roberto Carlos' words should hold more weight than a fan because he is a great footballer.

Not true.

Great footballers are better at apeaking about football by virtue of being great.

Not true.

You (or someone else not sure) also said that Figo > Messi should not be taken literally, but it might suggest the gap is closer than it is.

Not true. This is completely reinterpreting his words to justify assumption that great footballers have some valuable insight. Reading too much into it and essentially changing meaning of his words to perserve credibility.

"Oh, he really didnt mean that. He meant X."

Failing to face the fact that Roberto Carlos is a great footballer and said something that nobody agrees on.

Calling it 'exception" to the rule that great footballers are more knowledgable or insightful.

Never questioning why this exception happened in the first place.

You cnat jsut call something an exception and ignore it later.

"Oh he is completely wrong about X, but everything else should be listened to because he is a great footballer."

If he says a complete nonsense, then anything he says afterwards loses all of its credibility.

For example, his opinion on Figo > Neymar holds zero credibility and should not be categorically listened to.

He can not be so wrong about oen thing and then "have a point" about another thing that is the same type of analysis.

What Robert Carlos demonstrated is that he is a completely unreliable and untrustworthy commentator on football and that being a great footballer doesnt make you good at analyzing and commentating on football. He is a literal proof.

Calling it exception is avoiding the hard questions.

We are not saying the same thing. You simply dont understand.

Ask chatgpt this word for word:

"Okay. I seemingly won. But what if he is actually 100% right and has a deep point I am not actually seeing? What would it be? Please be brutally honest here, because i really want to understand this in more depth. No fluff."

And then get back to me. Take care

 

Giving ChatGPT to people who dont know how to use it is like giving a machine gun to a monkey: nobody knows what is going to happen, but it wont be nice.

 

Ironically, using ChatGPT to tell you you won a debate is just another extension of you blindly adhering to authority... just saying.

You dont trust your judgement even in this case. You should trust yourself more and thinking critically more.

 

Respect is oriented exclusively towards his achievments on the pitch playing as a left fullback. Respect is also related to character and even morality and has nothing to do with reason. Respect is an emotion and a way to conduct yourself socially, not an argument or in any way related to logic. Different conversation.

Respect is not equal to being qualified. You can respect someone without qualifying them in any way. For example, you respect Roberto Carlos for being a great footballer but do not qualify his words about the R9 diagnosis as meaningful at all. Different things. You are trying to undermine my words by calling me disrespectful. It is irrelevant if you think I am direspectful.

The bigger point is that being qualified only makes sense in the framework of authority being a proper way to look at the world in the first place. It is a socially constructed illusion. Evolutionary adaptation. It doesnt exist tho, it is not the only way to look at the world (in terms of qualified and unqualified people) and it is fundamentally not aligned with critical thinking and the truth seeking.

I've touched on that a bit in a longer post but havent really addressed it because it would make the post even longer.

I dont agree he is more qualified, because I dont play this game. I dont take people for who they are, but what they say. The context of who the person is has no merit on whether what he said is true or not.

The truth is outside of ranks, status, authority, accomplishments.

I dont see proof that great footballers making any more sense speaking about football than others. Even if they did, it would be irrelevant for any specific case.

Having this framework of who is qualified or not back in your mind is pointless to assess a statement. At the end of the day, if someone makes sense, they simply make sense. Their words will demonstrate the qualification. You dont have to pre-qualify them to engage with a content. You can directly assess the content of what is being said without the guessing game.

The guessing game (the authority game) is pointless and redundant. The one would only need it if they cant think for themselfs.

 

If you input bs into ChatGPT, it will output bs.

ChatGPT is not an arbiter of the truth. It doesnt even think crticially. It an LLM that predicts a response you would mostly likely want to hear then outpurs that.

You can torture it to agree with anything.

 

I mean yeah, I would take the guy who has direct experiential information about playing with and against players while playing the sport at the highest level and therefore understanding the professional game (a different sport from your sunday league / competitive / collegial) over your opinion completely dismissing it because it makes you upset
Roberto carlos' opinion is not the literal truth but it is an important data point to be taken seriously

 

And I completely disagree. That is okay tho. You can believe whatever you want and you dont have to question anything about your belief system. It is possible to live like that

 

My guess would be that if compilations of the best plays by Messi and Figo were shown to adults who have never watched football in their life, the most would be more right in this case than Roberto Carlos.. actually sad when thinking about it. Dedicating so much of his life just to say something so unreasonable that would be self-evident to random people.

As I said, and we can leave it at that, I dont accept the premise of being "qualified/unqualified" to speak. So no, I dont agree with this statement and the statement is not as benign and obvious as you think it is.

We dont think the same. I am not repackaging what you are saying. I am flat out rejecting your premise on multiple fronts.

 

Your belief system is superior to mine
You are the superiornintellect because you do not ascribe to my belief sydtem?
What are younsaying ?