How good can be Kylian Mappe?

He isn't the best player in the world lol. He isn't the best player of his team . I doubt someone who watches PSG regularly and has decent amount of football understanding will say Mbappe is better than Neymar for PSG. Ronaldo's gameplay got reduced a lot since around 2015/16 i'd say. If somebody made a case that Neymar's been an overall player than Cristiano Ronaldo since leaving Barcelona and especially since 2018 i'd not disagree with him. But his problem is he gets injured again and again in the French league. Messi was close to his best version till 2019. I would say Messi dipped since the Copa America or especially last year. He went through an openplay goal drought in some portion of last year. But has been getting his goals and match performances up recently which gave the impression that he might be best player in the world still. But games like PSG one raises the doubt.
Imo, there's no clearcut candidate now , Neymar would've probably been the fairest shout for best in the world now but his injury problem and probably his finishing inside the box is the problem with him

 

As i said yesterday, giving Mbappe best in the world shout is just reactionary and hilarious. As you could see in his game vs Monaco tonight

 

Im pretty sure everyone knows that it is reactionary

 

"he might have a case" . I genuinely don't know who actually should be termed as the best player in the world. Based on recent form of runs you could've said Messi, but people might bring up the big games . If i say Neymar, people will point to him not scoring enough goals and getting injured again and again. I can't see anyone legit .

 

Man, do you know what's a hot take? It's when on ESPN some commentator say "After last night's performance, X might be the best player in the world!" It is by nature reactionary.

 

Yeah they are ridiculous. I don't even listen to these so called pundits and experts (mostly clueless ex footballers ) influenced by social media narratives these days for a reason. And also tremendous amount of bias and lack of objectivity in many cases

 

Him and Haaland are really good but watching them in these round of matches I was left feeling there was something missing despite the records they are already breaking at such young ages. Especially Mbappe in the 2nd leg vs Barca. He's scores 4 goals across 180 minutes and yet I feel something is missing beyond the stats.

 

Its just nostalgia edhardy

Its very rare bordering almost impossible that you can be going on slalom dribbling runs,dictating the passage of play and scoring the vital goals within the same match against top tier opposition

Some who you rate very highly (ie Ronaldinho) was defintely not doing that in most of his famed big game performances
It was either one or the other most of the time





Mbappe with this season's champions league exploits is a fully fledged generational talent

The only one from his generation who truly justifies that tag
His range/repertoire of finishing is always improving season upon season and so is his decision making

Id say he is 2 seasons away from solidifying himself as undisputed top dog and he can hold that title for however long he wants

 

I didn't even mention any of those things - slalom dribbles etc, but it's also no surprise that you bring them up. For what it's worth, you just described Phil Foden against Dortmund.
And I wouldn't call nostalgia, the current Kimmich is approaching a level where he is as good as any midfielder has been in modern times. KDB himself has been at that level for a while now.

When I watch Mbappe now, I'm left thinking he can run really fast, but I'm not impressed by much else and I'd go as far as to say the Mbappe that faced Bayern back in 2017 was a superior version to the one from last night.

 

Mbappe this season I think has justified the hype; absolutely legendary form against Barcelona; and again in very good form versus arguably one of the best two clubs in the world at the moment, Bayern Munich.

 

And both with vastly open defense. He will be a legendary scorer , will win loads of trophies and have a great career. Make no mistake about it . But some fools really think he is going to match the Maradona Pele Messi Cruyff level . That is where the problem with everything lies these days

 

The modern game is like a chess board where the pawns have all been converted into queens; chess would not be the beautiful game that it is, if it didn't have the eight pawns, as well as the diversity of characters; the bishops; the knights; the rooks, etc.

Football always was a team sport, but it used to be a sport where the 'pawns' could only fulfill limited functions, which is why it was enjoyable and intuitive to watch in awe, as the genius players would invariably yet creatively generate art on the pitch. In an elemental sense, the pawns could mostly or exclusively paint in limited spaces, which is precisely what allowed the abundance of spaces that the great artists could use to produce the great art.

By "abundance of spaces" I mean abundance of freedom of expression, abundance of freedom in essence; I do not literally mean abundance of literal space, even though at times abundance of expression and abundance of literal space are the same thing.

In its modern form, football is like a chess board where all eight of the pawns have been converted into an arrangement or system of bishops, knights, and rooks; the great artists do not have the abundance of spaces that they need to be relevant, at which point the sport itself largely or primarily becomes a matter of which team is more mistake-resistant; less prone to make mistakes, as one of the sides will win the battle of efficiency and intensity.

Similar to playing chess if all the pieces were all queens; the beauty of the game would be immediately destroyed, and all that would remain would be a monoculture of perfect queens, perfect athletes, at which point the only thing to do is play the most boring football of all time, literally kill the human soul and spirit, and then wait as the existential boredom will force mistakes out of the humans who will inevitably and invariably break down under the monopoly of machine-like expectations... because, after all, human beings even if they have perfect athleticism, do not have perfect brains and will tend to break down under circumstances of extreme stress.

The most boring football ever created, combined with unprecedented physical intensity: is a distinctly dystopian circumstance of extreme stress, where it is the norm to see world class players do stupid mistakes, as more often than not said stupid mistakes decide the outcomes of the games.

The era of the machines is arguably already here, and interestingly enough, it was not some artificial intelligence super-computer that suddenly decided to become divine ruler as it violently relegated humanity to a second tier; instead, humanity itself willingly and relentlessly destroyed its own soul and spirit, in an endless pursuit of perfect efficiency.

Netflix first replaced Blockbuster.

Netflix then replaced Cinema.

Amazon then replaced shopping malls.

Some super-computer in 'pilot' mode will at some point, I dare assume, discover the elusive alternative to fossil fuels, at which point humanity will possibly forever live in a comatose state of simulated computer generated dreams; because why even experience life as it really is, when you can dream the dream you'd rather have as your life?

And Football currently is played by perfect athletes with imperfect human brains; eventually, the perfect athletes will all have perfect robot brains, and perfect robot bodies, as the sport simply devolves/evolves into a grotesque postmodern spectacle of robots versus robots; humanity totally relegated to a comatose state of permanent dreams and simulations, to the point that reality itself will become undiscernible to most of us addicted and conditioned by the matrix.

I think the above existential crisis analogy of the modern game; I think it adequately explains your observation (in my opinion, a correct observation) that Kimmich and Kevin De Bruyne are arguably as good as any midfielders have been in modern times, but again, these utilitarian midfield players are arguably to blame for the lack of genuine 'goat' talent of the Mbappe Era.

Therefore, first-tier athletes with second-tier ability are the new genius-level player; Mbappe and Haaland as the most obvious examples to date... All the while, Kingsley Coman is another very good example of the ideal genius-level modern player; first-tier athleticism, but in terms of ability, he is not quite at Hazard's level; when Hazard could still play, that is.

At any rate, second-tier athletes with first-tier ability are being quickly phased out of the game, relegated to utilitarian midfield roles like that of Toni Kroos in recent years. Maybe Xavi Hernandez would still find success in the modern game, but then quite probably Andres Iniesta would quickly find himself out of a home, considered too much of an abstract complication; a luxury player unable to find a natural place in the big teams.

Why have a virtuoso like Maradona, when traditional ball retention and also traditional slalom dribbling have been rendered obsolete by modern passing and positioning?

In this regard of a spectacle for the human eye; the modern game is like watching a movie, if the movie is strictly made in some unintelligible language that no human being on this blue circular planet could possibly understand; in which case, you can always deduct what is happening by looking at the visual images only, but the language itself will always remain an unwatchable variable.

The outcome of the visuals will become self-explanatory after the fact, but the dialogue that generates said visuals will always be unintelligible, therefore you can only actually watch the game by looking at said outcomes, but never on the basis of the slow and entertaining "build up play" of the words themselves, that are at the heart of any human drama.

The "middle man" that was Maradona, is not necessary anymore, and has been rendered as an obsolete reminder of the past... The beautiful game has been destroyed into a rich man's sport; quantifiable and transactional pseudo-statistical hubris, simply because there is more money to be made by deconstructing the sport into said false compartments.

In my view, that is the defining characteristic of modern football; you can only watch the final outcomes of collective sequences (macro-sequences), but you cannot watch the dialogue of the individual players (micro-sequences) who collectively give shape and humanity to the macro-sequences.

It is a purely transactional sport, where the middle man to be systematically oppressed as an obsolete ruin of a flawed past, is interpreted as anything that doesn't completely fit into a perfectly mathematical statistical expectation; expected goals this; expected assists that; expected most probable expectation of the speculation this; covers on average a gazillion miles per game that; I could go on forever.

The modern game is obviously watchable and enjoyable compared to other sports, but it isn't as watchable nor as enjoyable compared to what football previously was, it isn't a beautiful game anymore; the previous diversity of the game was what made it beautiful, and now it is a monoculture of efficiency and intensity; a fundamentally different game.

The referees (i.e. the architects of the sport) have significantly replaced ability with automatic "soft fouls" and now you have a fundamentally different sport; instead of real ball retention by a virtuoso like Maradona, a player can simply dive into the ground after any minor contact, and that will routinely be enough to get the desired foul, penalty kick, free kick, etc.

And of course, as a direct and evolving consequence of players no longer fearing that their ankle ligaments and/or knee ligaments will get split in half by cynical defensive tactics; the game is faster than ever, which is one of the big factors that has forced the game into evolving into compartmentalized areas of utilitarian midfield players like Kevin De Bruyne or Kimmich, and players like Mbappe or Haaland who specialize in the executive branch of finishing goals and/or delivering the final pass, all the while these executive-branch players demonstrably lack in the traditional areas of ball retention and slalom dribbling.

Jose Mourinho is having serious long-term problems, probably due to that fundamental difference: the modern game is not defensive in nature, because defenders are by definition not allowed to defend... Liverpool with prime Van Dijk conceded 3 goals to an overrated Barcelona side; this would rarely ever happen back in 2006, that is, back when defensive strategy was still sufficiently allowed by referees at large.

 

First-tier athletes with second-tier ability is such a perfect way to put it!
It's a weird performance to watch, when you try to watch in its entirety.

 

I do not think I really agree with your analysis.
I do not think that there is any team in the world that could be a genuine challenger to the Barca of 2009 for example.
What we are seeing is a consequence of the selection process at the level of the academy systems. Academies are better at developing players in their roles and standardizing play, but there is less opportunity for genius and creativity to be generated.
Messi on his day is still the best player in the world - irrespective of whether he lost a step or not. This is due to his ability.
Xavi and Iniesta at their peak would walk through any of today's midfields. Proponents of your line of thought were taught an important lesson when Kroos and Modric laid the law for liverpool this weekend. A young, fast, dynamic, pacey midfield could not even play.
Jose Mourinho has issues because he hasn't managed great players. Give him Atletico or Real or Man City and you will see.

 

To be honest, & I don't watch much football now, watching Mbappe against Argentina in world cup, was the most thrilling, electric performance I've seen since the original Ronaldo when he burst onto scene with Barcelona in '95.

 

In context to this post, i would like to ask you , who are your top 5 football players in history (in order)

 

A good philosophical writing i must say. Some part of this i also discuss a lot with some other people on social medias . About the game lacking the nuances, ingenuity like before.

I have a question for you though. I didn't understand the last paragraph. Jose Mourinho , liverpool with van djik not conceding 3 goals to barcelona in previous eras. modern game is not defensive in nature.

Most of modernist fans rather will rather tell you the opposite

 

To be honest, I don't even agree with some points I made there; specifically about Netflix having destroyed Cinema, which is technically a true statement, but reality is more complex than that, and Netflix having superseded Cinema has probably served a positive purpose in terms of how it affected most working people around the world.

I mean, I guess that's one of the risks any person takes, when writing long-winded rants after a long day of work; sometimes the rant can take a life of its own, and you end up making such mistakes, by over-committing in large part as a result of the lack of time that would be required to more carefully contemplate these complex observations.

As you might have noticed, I have added two different posts of yours together, as I think both posts are more logically related to this specific Mbappe thread.

Anyways, I have posted your commentary in its original form, the above quotes, but I will be mixing both posts together as I think that would be better in terms of answering the questions you've offered to this discussion; your commentary will be written in bold letters, so as to avoid any confusion.

The analysis below is a long read; I hope I don't come off as pedantic, as that is definitely not my aim.



Jose Mourinho has issues because he hasn't managed great players. Give him Atletico or Real or Man City and you will see.

I see a lot of similarities between Hector Cuper's Inter Milan 2002/03 and Mourinho's Chelsea 2004/05; Inter Milan would generate very few, but very good chances for Vieri, who was isolated and was not assisted by traditional build up play; Mourinho's Chelsea was very similar.

Mourinho Era Chelsea; the build up play was not at all traditional, it was by design intermittent, Frank Lampard would hit two or three dangerous passes after 90 minutes, two or three dangerous shots after 90 minutes, but Lampard was not really there to create build up play nor to dominate the possession of the ball; instead, Lampard was there to score and/or assist the very few goals that Chelsea would score per game.

And that is why Terry and Carvalho were so crucial to Mourinho's system, because in the absence of coherent world class build up play, you need to be exceptionally great at defensive strategy in order to not concede more goals than the opponent in front of you... That was Mourinho's art.


Chelsea 2004/05.

11 games were 1-0 wins.

5 games were 2-0 wins.

4 games were 0-0 results.

2 games were 1-1 results.

Out of 38 league games, Chelsea in 22 games conceded only 2 goals, which is probably unparalleled in terms of defensive performance.


Liverpool 2018/19.

6 games were 2-0 wins.

4 games were 1-0 wins.

4 games were 1-1 results.

3 games were 0-0 results.

Out of 38 league games, Liverpool in 17 games conceded 4 goals, which is an excellent defensive record; but again, 4 goals conceded, is literally double the 2 goals that Chelsea conceded, and Chelsea played an additional 5 games.

Chelsea 2004/05 registered almost 3 times as many 1-0 wins, versus Jurgen Klopp's Liverpool. Of course, a greater quantity of 1-0 wins doesn't necessarily mean that Chelsea's defence was better; but it does demonstrate that Mourinho played to win by the slightest possible margin, just one or two goals, that is the system.

The "Champions League Era" data below only includes the records of the proven top tier clubs of the relevant eras; the second-tier clubs are not included so as to avoid misleading deviations from the real trends related to each era. Also, the data itself is strictly about high scoring defeats; the aim is to observe, specifically, how defensive strategy has evolved.


Hyper Press Champions League Era; 2013 - 2021.

1 - 4 defeat Real Madrid 2013 (Semi Finals).

0 - 4 defeat Barcelona 2013 (Semi Finals).

0 - 3 defeat Barcelona 2013 (Semi Finals).

0 - 4 defeat Bayern Munich 2014 (Semi Finals).

0 - 3 defeat Bayern Munich 2015 (Semi Finals).

1 - 3 defeat Juventus 2015 (Final).

2 - 4 defeat Juventus 2016 (Round of 16).

0 - 4 defeat Barcelona 2017 (Round of 16).

1 - 6 defeat Paris Saint Germain 2017 (Round of 16).

0 - 3 defeat Barcelona 2017 (Quarter Finals)

0 - 3 defeat Atletico Madrid 2017 (Semi Finals).

1 - 4 defeat Juventus 2017 (Final).

0 - 3 defeat Juventus 2018 (Group Stage).

0 - 3 defeat Chelsea 2018 (Round of 16).

0 - 3 defeat Juventus 2018 (Quarter Finals).

1 - 3 defeat Real Madrid 2018 (Quarter Finals).

1 - 4 defeat Roma 2018 (Quarter Finals).

0 - 3 defeat Barcelona 2018 (Quarter Finals).

0 - 3 defeat Manchester City 2018 (Quarter Finals).

1 - 3 defeat Real Madrid 2018 (Quarter Finals).

2 - 5 defeat Roma 2018 (Semi Finals).

2 - 4 defeat Liverpool 2018 (Semi Finals).

1 - 3 defeat Liverpool 2018 (Final).

0 - 3 defeat Atletico Madrid (Round of 16).

0 - 3 defeat Liverpool 2019 (Semi Finals).

0 - 4 defeat Barcelona 2019 (Semi Finals).

1 - 3 defeat Manchester City 2020 (Quarter Finals).

15 - 95 defeat on aggregate.

This is unprecedented tactical behavior; pin-ball football where high score defeats and/or high score defeats are the new normal...

Jose Mourinho has so far been unable to adapt to an unprecedented and fundamentally different form of football; traditional defensive strategy does not really exist anymore.


Traditional Modern Champions League Era; 2003 - 2012.

1 - 3 defeat AC Milan 2003 (Intermediate Group).

0 - 3 defeat Juventus 2003 (Intermediate Group).

1 - 3 defeat Manchester United 2003 (Quarter Finals).

1 - 3 defeat Real Madrid 2003 (Semi Finals).

1 - 3 defeat Porto 2004 (Group Stage).

1 - 3 defeat Real Madrid 2004 (Quarter Finals).

0 - 4 defeat AC Milan 2004 (Quarter Finals).

2 - 4 defeat Barcelona 2005 (Round of 16).

2 - 4 defeat Bayern Munich 2005 (Quarter Finals).

1 - 4 defeat Bayern Munich 2006 (Round of 16).

0 - 3 defeat Manchester United 2007 (Semi Finals).

0 - 4 defeat Bayern Munich 2009 (Quarter Finals).

1 - 3 defeat Liverpool 2009 (Quarter Finals).

1 - 3 defeat Barcelona 2010 (Semi Finals).

1 - 3 defeat Manchester United 2011 (Final).

13 - 50 defeat on aggregate.

* 15 - 95 defeat on aggregate.

The difference in terms of goals scored is only 2 goals, but then the difference in terms of goals conceded is a staggering 45 goals... Modern clubs are conceding goals at almost double the rate; 50 goals conceded by the traditional era versus 95 goals conceded by the modern era.

2 - 8 defeat Barcelona 2020 (Quarter Finals).

0 - 3 defeat Barcelona 2021 (Group Stage).

1 - 4 defeat Barcelona 2021 (Round of 16).

18 - 110 defeat on aggregate.

* 13 - 50 defeat on aggregate.

As the honest person I try to be most of the time, I decided not to define Barcelona 2020 nor Barcelona 2021 as top tier clubs; but keep in mind... if I included the above results, the difference in terms of goals conceded would climb to 60 goals of difference, which is literally more than the 50 goals that were conceded in the previous era.


At any rate, Mourinho cannot successfully replicate the system that made him famous in the first place; because the traditional build up play architecture does not exist anymore... ergo, the traditional architecture that defined Mourinho, that build up play literally does not exist anymore, which is essentially why Mourinho is failing.

Mourinho has not, and probably will not, find the balance nor the answer to modern football; modern football is by definition not defensive; Mourinho is by definition a defensive tactician.

I mean, if Mourinho had the capacity to reinvent himself in such radical terms; don't you think he would have done it already?

Diego Simeone is currently also crashing against the same wall that is modern football; namely, the fact that traditional defensive strategy has been, slowly but surely, superseded by the fact that defenders have been sterilized after years of the modern pressing game.

Guardiola's system has also repeatedly collapsed under the intense pressure of the hypersonic modern era; Heynckes Era Bayern Munich created the blue print to destroy Barcelona, and ever since football has become a monoculture of said blue print.

 

The modern game is reverting to fast transitions, which is more reminiscent of late 90s /early 2000s. Football is cyclical. We went through a decade of slower, possession play. Now, a lot is based on physical speed and quick transitions.

I probably would've completely agreed with that back in 2015 or 2016; and in fact, I would much prefer to believe that that is the case, because if the current generation is a reversible cycle, it will by definition eventually circle back to the type of football that I prefer to watch...

But again, the idea that modern football is just another normal cycle, is just something I have a very difficult time agreeing with; it is what I hope to be the case; but I just don't see, as much as I'd like to.

When you sum all the identifiable parts that make modern football tick... I mean... I just cannot see the creative counter-argument to the wholesale destruction that is modern football, as I understand it. I hope that this is just another cycle that will come and go, but honestly, I do not see how football can come back from this cycle.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the sport I think was primarily driven by the fact that referee protection improved quickly and quite dramatically after 1994, arguably using the World Cup 1994 in the United States as a stepping stone to the new modern era.

In other words, football in the late 1990s and early 200s was arguably primarily driven by what was now suddenly possible, by individual players, primarily as a result of the dramatic improvement in terms of referee protection; which is in my view what made it such a diverse and fantastic era of football.

The selected dates are my personal estimate in terms of when these players were at their relative best.

Diego Maradona; 1988.

Lothar Matthaus; 1988.

Franco Baresi; 1988.

Marco van Basten; 1988.

Ruud Gullit; 1988.

Frank Rijkaard; 1988.

Carlos Valderrama; 1990.

Laurent Blanc; 1990.

Jean-Pierre Papin; 1990.

Chris Waddle; 1990.

Enzo Francescoli; 1990.

Dragan Stojkovic; 1990.

Jurgen Klinsmann; 1990.

Jurgen Kohler; 1990.

Gheorghe Hagi; 1992.

Michel; 1992.

Ronald Koeman; 1992.

Michael Laudrup; 1992.

Hristo Stoichkov; 1993.

Roberto Baggio; 1993.

Romario; 1994.

Bebeto; 1994.

Dunga; 1994.

Mauro Silva; 1994.

Eric Cantona; 1994.

Matt Le Tissier; 1994.

Dejan Savicevic; 1994.

Demetrio Albertini; 1994.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////// mid 1990s.

Fernando Hierro; 1996.

Paolo Maldini; 1996.

Marcel Desailly; 1996.

Dennis Bergkamp; 1996.

Fernando Redondo; 1996.

Gabriel Batistuta; 1996.

Pep Guardiola; 1997.

Ronaldo Nazario; 1997.

Alessandro Del Piero; 1998.

Roberto Carlos; 1998.

Sebastian Veron; 1998.

Lilian Thuram; 1998.

Rivaldo; 1999.

Jaap Stam; 1999.

Zinedine Zidane; 2000.

Luis Figo; 2000.

Rui Costa; 2000.

Fabio Cannavaro; 2000.

David Beckham; 2001.

Paul Scholes; 2001.

Ryan Giggs; 2001.

Michael Ballack; 2002.

Claude Makelele; 2002.

Clarence Seedorf; 2003.

Francesco Totti; 2004.

Andrea Pirlo; 2004.

Thierry Henry; 2004.

Patrick Vieira; 2004.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////// mid 2000s.

Xavi Hernandez; 2005.

Carles Puyol; 2005.

Rio Ferdinand; 2005.

John Terry; 2005.

Ricardo Carvalho; 2005.

Jamie Carragher; 2005.

Sami Hyypia; 2005.

Ronaldinho; 2005.

Deco; 2005.

Samuel Eto'o; 2005.

Roman Riquelme; 2005.

Kaka; 2005.

Frank Lampard; 2005.

Steven Gerrard; 2005.

Didier Drogba; 2006.

Philipp Lahm; 2008.

Cristiano Ronaldo; 2008.

Fernando Torres; 2008.

Andres Iniesta; 2009.

Dani Alves; 2009.

Nemanja Vidic; 2009.

David Villa; 2010.

Gerard Pique; 2010.

Arjen Robben; 2010.

Franck Ribery; 2010.

Messi; 2011.

Zlatan Ibrahimovic; 2012.

Mesut Ozil; 2012.

Giorgio Chiellini; 2012.

Luis Suarez; 2013.

Sergio Ramos; 2014.

Luka Modric; 2014.

Toni Kroos; 2014.

Angel Di Maria; 2014.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// mid 2010s.

Neymar; 2015.

Eden Hazard; 2018.

Mohamed Salah; 2018.

Sadio Mane; 2019.

Virgil van Dijk; 2019.

Raheem Sterling; 2019.

Kingsley Coman; 2020.

Joshua Kimmich; 2020.

Harry Kane; 2021.

Kylian Mbappe; 2021.

Erling Haaland; 2021.

There's no doubt in my mind that I have missed some players who deserve to be in the above list; but my greater point is that football in the late 1990s and early 2000s was an extremely diverse era where many different type of players achieved world class success.

Again, because the late 1990s and early 2000s was primarily driven by the individuality of the players, and the new tactics that could be created around a more diverse and expansive generation of football, in terms of the architecture of the time, and how it could adapt to the needs of many different players, from Riquelme, to Gerrard, to Kaka, to Ronaldinho, etc.

Diversity and creativity begins to dry up quickly and dramatically after 2014; football is now arguably an exclusionary, non-diverse, monoculture of intensity and pressing, and only the supreme athletes can realistically achieve relevance as elite players.

Personally, I find it rather surreal and bizarre that in a societal culture of unprecedented inclusivity, be that gays, the trans community, the me too movement, and so on; at the same time, we unequivocally have the most exclusionary or non-inclusive era of all time in football.

That fundamental evolution from a diverse sport into a non-diverse sport, is nothing short of shocking to the naked eye; the great players of the modern game, are all extremely speed-blessed, but are not at all impressive in terms of traditional arts such as ball retention and/or slalom dribbling.


1. Every minor contact is an automatic foul these days.

2. The above revolutionary seismic change allows extremely athletic forwards like Salah or Mbappe to literally out-defend and out-bully the actual defenders, who have now been systematically sterilized into players who are primarily there, not to do actual defending, but to be comfortable with the ball, which is the only weapon that they have to protect themselves against the saturation of the modern forward press; forward players who will come to bully the defenders, actively and relentlessly exposing the outdated defenders who are anything less than adequate when on the ball.

3. Lately I have seen encouraging signs that referees are beginning to correct their mistake of over-protecting the star players. Hopefully, if this is a long-term plan as opposed to just random referees who have better skill or judgment for identifying the difference between a real foul and a simulated foul; this could be the thing to revive the interest in traditional abilities such as ball retention and/or slalom dribbling.


That last point is a much needed encouraging sign, but honestly, I have serious doubts that the game can be sufficiently reversed in terms of the unprecedented decline in ball retention and slalom dribbling.

I think the crux of the problem probably is that the central defenders and the wide defenders are so efficiently dominated by the likes of Mohamed Salah, who is amazing at the modern art of bullying the central defenders and/or the wide defenders.

The strategy of bullying defenders is so efficient, that traditional ball retention and slalom dribbling have lost a great deal of their value; Mohamed Salah wins the ball, passes the ball quickly, and the goal is scored a few seconds after the crucial defensive contribution by Salah.

Traditional ball retention and slalom dribbling do not fit into that architecture, which is essentially why the game has been divided into utilitarian midfield players who are very good at the traditional art of ball retention, and then you have the executive-branch players who are very good at scoring goals and/or delivering the final pass.

I mean, when you take out the 'pawns' in chess; my point is not primarily that limited 'pawn' players make the game beautiful, because limited players are precisely that silent factor that generates the surplus of creative freedom that the great players need; instead, my point primarily is that 'pawns' slow down the game of chess, and that that is precisely what allows the beautiful build up play of the game of chess.

The diversity not only of players, but perhaps more importantly, of time itself when understood as the architecture that shapes the entirety of the game; the players; the tactics; and so on.

In this regard I think that football essentially is a sport where the architecture strictly follows the function; that is, when the human eye can only see the final outcome, the executive-branch that are players like Mbappe, Haaland, Sterling, and so on; the sport itself tends to be shaped according to what the human eye can most consistently confirm, through bias confirmation, as the best solution to the modern game.

This is in essence why Cristiano Ronaldo fanboys cannot come to terms with the reality that Juventus became a worse team with Ronaldo, because Ronaldo requires a specific service distribution; a specific tactical architecture, for lack of a better term.

Ronaldo fanboys actually believe that scoring goals is the most difficult skill, which is why all the service should go to Ronaldo, because Ronaldo is the goat at doing the most difficult thing; but then when Juventus with Ronaldo literally scores less goals than Juventus without Ronaldo... This is when said Ronaldo fanboys will simply say that Juventus is not good enough for Ronaldo, does not deserve Ronaldo, etc.

In sharp contrast, the opposite consequence arguably occurred when football had 'pawns' in its veins; the abundance of actually perceivable build up play, which is to say, build up play that was slow enough that the human eye could realistically perceive it in real time; then the architecture followed the function, as the sport was primarily shaped by the abstract bias confirmation that the eye could perceive.

The sport was primarily absorbed through the identity and expression of build up play, which is slow and rhythmic enough that the human eye can actually observe it in real time; it becomes abundantly obvious that players like Gerd Muller or poacher-version Cristiano Ronaldo, as valuable as they were at the crucial task of scoring goals, should never seriously be mentioned as equals to Cruyff, Maradona, Platini, Zidane, Messi, etc.

And as a direct and immediate consequence of the above architecture or culture, Cristiano Ronaldo in his poacher-form would have never been held in the same regard as Lionel Messi; because the sport would not have been primarily perceived through the arbitrary and convenient context of who was best at exclusively scoring goals.

And the architecture followed the function; Johan Cruyff, Platini, Zico, Maradona, Zidane; these abstract and virtuoso 'playmakers' were widely regarded as the most valuable players, because the slower build up play allowed the human eye to see and to appreciate, both in real time and in the real collective context of the game; the slower build up play made a spectacle out of the fact that there are a lot of important micro-events that happen in the trenches of the midfield battle... and that the executive-branch that comes only and exclusively at the end of successful sequences, is not at all the foundation upon which the temple is built.

The real collective context of the game, refers to the real time experience of being able to observe both the individual action of an individual player, as well as the collective reaction that the actual team has with regards to said individual skills, of said individual player.

The modern misleading youtube videos that only show the actions by an individual player, but without showing the essential collective reaction that the actual team has with regards to the individual skills, of said individual player; the modern game simply has no efficient and no realistic alternative to arm itself with the ability to neutralize the demonstrable loss of tradition, diversity, and ultimately culture, that has occurred as a result of the speed of the game in its modern form i.e. an excessively fast game relative to the very flawed eyesight of human beings.

The beautiful game in its current form is significantly unwatchable, incoherent, and incompatible, in its relation to the limited eyesight of humans; the average person can, in the best of times, perceive the handful of successful sequences that occur... which can become boring very quickly.

Of course, in the worst of times, there are hardly any successful sequences to watch in the first place, at which point it becomes clear that there is something fundamentally wrong, decadent, about the inherent direction or inclination that is driving the modern game.

At any rate, football in any era appears to be essentially defined by the bias confirmation of what the human eye can most consistently see; today that is the executive branch; in any other era before the current one, it was traditionally the abstract playmakers who were identified as the players with the most influence, and therefore the most value.

The majority of modern fans under the age of 28, will readily tend to discredit the above "architecture follows function" argument as nothing less, and nothing more, than foolish and misguided nostalgia; according to them, I am assigning ability on the basis of aesthetic subjective quality, not on the basis of statistically objective quality.

I mean, that is my quintessential problem with modern football; what happens after the beauty of the game completely dries up, and all you have left is a false reality guided purely by the modern religion of statistics, and the narrow-minded bias confirmation that will increasingly and perhaps permanently reinforce itself as the sport becomes faster and faster; with the human eye only able to see the final outcome, the executive-branch, as everything else gets canceled since it is not statistically objective in the eyes of the modern religion.

 

I do not think that there is any team in the world that could be a genuine challenger to the Barca of 2009 for example.

Xavi and Iniesta at their peak would walk through any of today's midfields. Proponents of your line of thought were taught an important lesson when Kroos and Modric laid the law for liverpool this weekend. A young, fast, dynamic, pacey midfield could not even play.

Reading your statements above, it became immediately clear to me that you have fundamentally misinterpreted my argument; I do not blame you for that; my long-winded rant lacked coherence, context, and substance, and as such was very easy to misinterpret.

My argument has never been that dynamic, pacey midfielders absolutely dominate the modern era; instead, my argument has consistently been that second-tier athletes with first-tier ability dominate the modern era, but at the cost of destroying the crucial freedom that had previously defined this sport as a beautiful game.

Luka Modric.

Toni Kroos.

Xavi Hernandez.

Xabi Alonso.

Andrea Pirlo.

Fernando Redondo.

Clarence Seedorf.

The above players would all be ideal utilitarian "midfield playmakers" of the modern era, but at the cost of the significant and perhaps definitive extinction of the same players themselves; that is to say, I do not think that modern football is another cyclical trend...

The big failure of the Modern System in my opinion, is that it systematically destroys the freedoms that create the type of players that said modern system itself needs in order to be successful at the Champions League stage.

For example, Guardiola was nothing short of extraordinary when he successfully inherited and then incorporated players like Messi, Iniesta, and Xavi, into an innovative system of hyper-intensity, short-passing, tiki-taka, possession football. But again, Messi, Iniesta, and Xavi were all fully or significantly developed in the Rijkaard Era; an underrated era of creative abundance that I think paved the way for both Barcelona's and Spain's success in the near future.

The fundamental problem of the Guardiola System manifests itself when Guardiola needs to make the system work in the absence of players of the quality of Messi, Iniesta, or Xavi. The fundamental problem being the premise that the system is by definition incapable of creating and of offering the real world freedom that is required in order to create players of the class of Messi, Iniesta, and Xavi.

Guardiola can successfully replicate his signature dominance in the league format, which is an absolutely extraordinary talent for a coach to have... but understandably, Guardiola's unparalleled success in the league format, comes with the negative connotation in terms of how it further fuels the skepticism that (increasingly) surrounds Guardiola's lack of success in the cup format that is the Champions League.


Rijkaard Era Barcelona; 2005 - 2008.

Barcelona won both La Liga and the Champions League in 2006; I think this Barcelona side played some of the best football you will ever see; in terms of both attack and defence it was an entertaining team to watch. Ronaldinho in the attack was surreal. Puyol in the defence appeared to have supernatural ability in terms of sheer physical power. It was a spectacular watch in both ends of the game.

Deco was magnificent as the midfielder playmaker of the team; in my view, easily in the same tier as Luka Modric in his prime with Real Madrid. All the while, Ronaldinho was arguably in the same tier as Maradona. And Puyol was as impressive as any defender I can think of. This Barcelona side was arguably the perfect fusion between modern and traditional.

Then there was the very impressive young Messi and young Iniesta, both of whom consistently impressed. Xavi suffered a serious knee injury in December 2005, but this Barcelona side was so great that it still won both La Liga and the Champions League in 2006; Xavi was rushed back to World Cup 2006, but not fully fit as was clear to see.

Also underrated about the Rijkaard Era is the fact that Barcelona was never destroyed by the top sides of the era; not in the Champions League, at least.

Liverpool 2007 eliminated Barcelona on the basis of, not even one goal between the sides, as it was a 2-2 result, but of course the away goal rule eliminated Barcelona. At any rate, Barcelona's result versus Liverpool was a respectable result, especially in light of the fact that this Liverpool generation had a proven edge at the Champions League, having won it in 2005, and again reaching the final in 2007.

Manchester United 2008, by many considered to be the greatest Manchester United of all time; Barcelona 2008 only conceded one goal after two legs, and that was the only goal scored by either team. Barcelona also did a great job in terms of nullifying Cristiano Ronaldo, who was devastating against every other team in the competition, yet against Barcelona, Ronaldo was by most accounts not even the best player in his own team.

Most Barcelona fans knew, simply from first-hand observation, that both Ronaldinho and Deco had declined significantly, quickly after 2006. But the situation appears to have been even worse than was previously thought, as Alexander Hleb in an interview said that Deco and Ronaldinho would show up drunk for the training sessions; so the reality was apparently even worse than most fans would've dared assume.


"Ronaldinho and Deco turned up drunk to train," said Hleb. "You know why Barca sold them in 2008? Because they were afraid they would ruin Messi."


Absolutely horrible working conditions for any coach, and yet Frank Rijkaard was still getting respectable results against Liverpool 2007 (Champions League Final) and Manchester United 2008 (Champions League Final); I mean, how is it that this telling fact is as widely ignored as it is?

Even with the aggregate dead weight that was Ronaldinho and Deco in their post-2006 days, Barcelona remained a fundamentally competitive side that could hold its own against the elite Champions League teams of the time; and then Spain won Euro 2008 (June 2008), exactly two months after Barcelona vs. Manchester United 2008 had happened.


Aragones Era Spain; World Cup 2006 and Euro 2008.

Spain was refreshing and impressive at World Cup 2006, with Aragones as coach; a fact that is routinely forgotten as a result of Spain getting eliminated early in the knock out stage.

Spain won Euro 2008; this was in style, generation, and essence, the same Spanish side that had impressed at World Cup 2006... but this time Xavi was fully fit, Iniesta was older and more mature, and the rest of the team was also older and more mature. Puyol was past his prime, but remained a world class central defender, and added that abstract extra edge of mental fortitude.

The importance of Aragones not only to Euro 2008, but to the dynasty that followed; cannot be overstated, as Aragones was the coach who insisted on Xavi, back when Xavi was increasingly being viewed as the Guti of Barcelona; that is, a very promising talent who, for whatever the reason, could not establish himself as Barcelona's primary playmaker.

Deco was that great, that even Xavi at his best was not great enough to steal away the playmaker role out of Deco's firm grip.

Although, of course, it must be noted that the enormous difference between Xavi versus Guti, is that Xavi was amazing as the defensive midfielder or as the playmaker, Xavi was incredibly flexible as a midfielder, and could successfully play fundamentally different roles; in sharp contrast, Guti could only play as the attacking midfielder.

I mean, unfortunately for Guti, the attacking midfielder role was already filled by the aggregate creative abilities of Zinedine Zidane and Luis Figo.


Del Bosque Era Spain; World Cup 2010, Euro 2012, World Cup 2014, and Euro 2016.

Spain won World Cup 2010, with Del Bosque as coach, as Inter won the Champions League; Guardiola's Barcelona eliminated by Mourinho's Inter; Champions League Semi Finals.

Spain won Euro 2012, with Del Bosque as coach, as Chelsea won the Champions League; Guardiola's Barcelona eliminated by Di Matteo's Chelsea; Champions League Semi Finals.


Guardiola Era Barcelona; 2009 - 2012.

We have to acknowledge the good with the good: when Guardiola's Barcelona was in full flight, it was one of the most iconic sides of all time, reminiscent of AC Milan in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

But we also have to acknowledge the bad with the bad: when Guardiola's Barcelona was one single step below full-flight-mode, it repeatedly failed to get the job done against demonstrably inferior sides such as Chelsea 2009, Inter Milan 2010, and Chelsea 2012.

You can analyze Guardiola's Barcelona from every conceivable angle, but the inevitable conclusion that should be drawn is that Barcelona 2009 arguably should have been eliminated by Chelsea; Barcelona 2010 was eliminated by Mourinho's Inter Milan; and on a similar note, Barcelona 2012 was eliminated by Di Matteo's Chelsea.

Out of Guardiola's 4 seasons with Barcelona, the one and only time that Barcelona was well and truly dominant in the Champions League, was in season 2010/11; Barcelona comprehensively dominated all opponents, from start to finish...

But again, it is almost like an unwritten rule for the big traditional clubs of Europe to have at least one extremely dominant season in the Champions League:

Trapattoni Era Juventus 1984/85.

Sacchi Era AC Milan 1988/89.

Rijkaard Era Barcelona 2005/06.

Mourinho Era Inter Milan 2009/10.

Guardiola Era Barcelona 2010/11.

Heynckes Era Bayern Munich 2012/13.

Zidane Era Real Madrid 2016/17.

Klopp Era Liverpool 2018/19.

Flick Era Bayern Munich 2019/20.

I mean, I'm definitely forgetting some memorable sides that deserve to be there; at any rate, the point is that one dominant season like Guardiola, is arguably the norm for clubs of that standing.

Frank Rijkaard and Luis Aragones both proved to be competitive in the most prestigious tournaments; Vicente del Bosque also proved to be competitive in the most prestigious tournaments... Pep Guardiola's only unique feature is that he is the goat league manager; but again, in terms of the cup format that is the Champions League, Guardiola does not really offer anything that Rijkaard could not also offer.

Upon revisiting the great Barcelona side of the Guardiola Era, I was surprised by just how fragile and overrated Guardiola's Barcelona arguably was, looking back at it now that I am more experienced; for example, Barcelona 2009 could barely even get past vs. Chelsea 2009, and then there was the last minute goal by Iniesta, and then there was the infamous Ovrebo factor which at least denied one clear-cut penalty kick for Chelsea.

At any rate, the claim that Barcelona 2009 would arguably have no genuine challengers in 2021, does not appear to be an accurate assessment of the true competitive edge of Guardiola's Barcelona; I mean, to begin with, it would be difficult to ignore the fact that Barcelona 2009 almost failed to advance against Chelsea; and on a similar note, it is impossible to ignore the fact that Barcelona 2012 literally failed to advance against Chelsea.

Pressing questions should be asked, such as:

Was Chelsea 2009 even as good as Chelsea 2005 and/or Chelsea 2006?

Was Chelsea 2012 even as good as Chelsea 2005 and/or Chelsea 2006?

Then there is the fact that Barcelona 2011/12 did not do well in La Liga when Iniesta could not play, as demonstrated by the fact that Barcelona only won 24 out of 36 points in league games when Iniesta could not play; Barcelona failed to win 12 points in games without Iniesta, and said 12 points is almost two times the quantity of the 7 points difference between Barcelona versus Real Madrid by Round 34 (La Liga 2011/12).

Or the fact that Barcelona 2009/10 could not advance past Mourinho's Inter; Andres Iniesta could not play in either of the two semi final legs, and Barcelona failed to advance.

Barcelona 2019 was eliminated by a depleted Liverpool.

Barcelona 2017 was eliminated by Juventus.

Barcelona 2016 was eliminated by Atletico Madrid.

Barcelona 2014 was eliminated by Atletico Madrid.

Barcelona 2013 was destroyed by Bayern Munich.

Barcelona 2012 was eliminated by a very old Chelsea.

Barcelona 2010 was eliminated by Inter.

Barcelona 2009 was almost eliminated by a flawed Chelsea.

The above references are all remarkably similar outcomes; I do not think that Xavi, Iniesta, or Messi, would have made a significant difference to the results; the modern game just doesn't appear to be significantly influenced or impacted by traditional ability.

I think that the coach and the team by far supersedes whatever perceived edge the genius players can generate; that is the fundamental difference between the past versus the present, as I understand it.

Guardiola played the Champions League Final in 2009 and 2011; in other words, Guardiola has played 2 out of 11 Champions League Finals, between 2009 and 2021.

Jurgen Klopp played the Champions League Final in 2013, 2018, and 2019; between 2013 and 2020, Klopp played 3 out of 8 Champions League Finals; a better record than that of Guardiola.

And we cannot say that Klopp enjoyed the benefit of better teams versus Guardiola. And as a matter of fact, it is the opposite case; it is Guardiola who enjoyed the benefit of the better teams, and it is precisely Guardiola who has not played a Champions League Final since 2011, almost a complete decade ago.

Carlo Ancelotti played the Champions League Final in 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2014; between 2003 and 2014, Ancelotti played 4 out of 11 Champions League Finals; which is literally double the quantity when compared against Guardiola's 2 out of 11 Champions League Finals, between 2009 and 2020.

Rafa Benitez played the Champions League Final in 2005 and 2007, with Liverpool, a club that was arguably not even the most talented in its own league, let alone versus the top clubs from the other top leagues. At any rate, Rafa Benitez in 5 years managed to play as many Champions League Finals as Guardiola did after 11 years of coaching the best and most talented clubs in the world.

Diego Simeone played the Champions League Final in 2014 and 2016, with Atletico Madrid, a club that definitely wasn't the most talent-blessed in La Liga, let alone when compared against the top clubs from the other top leagues; but to be fair, this was a period of unprecedented dominance by one league, which undoubtedly helped Atletico Madrid.

Diego Simeone has played as many Champions League Finals as Guardiola, but Simeone began in 2013, whereas Guardiola began in 2009; with a proven competitive generation of Barcelona players to add.

The conclusion that I've drawn here is that Guardiola's Barcelona was never uniquely dominant in the Champions League; it was uniquely dominant in La Liga, but then again, Guardiola consistently has been an uniquely dominant coach in all the leagues he has worked at, be that La Liga, the Premier League, or the Bundesliga.

Guardiola's great accomplishment is that he can replicate the same level of dominance in any league; which is by all means an amazing skill to have as a coach... but again, at what cost, and is it worth it when you see the long-term consequences of it?

I mean, Barcelona now gets routinely destroyed in most of any away game against any remotely competitive club... And I do not think that that is random unlucky coincidence; I think it is the long term effect of thinking that Guardiola's system brought about Barcelona's golden era, when in reality it was Rijkaard's fundamentally different era that brought about the key players that won it all with both Barcelona and Spain.

0 - 4 away defeat vs. Bayern Munich 2013...

0 - 3 home defeat vs. Bayern Munich 2013...

0 - 4 away defeat vs. Paris Saint Germain 2017...

0 - 3 away defeat vs. Juventus 2017...

0 - 3 away defeat vs. Roma 2018...

0 - 4 away defeat vs. Liverpool 2019...

2 - 8 neutral defeat vs. Bayern Munich 2020...

1 - 4 home defeat vs. Paris Saint Germain 2021...

3 - 33 aggregate defeat in the handful of Champions League games that actually matter...

The above steep decline would appear to be what happens, when a club mistakenly believes that basically a "miracle system" would, by virtue of what might best be described as tactical enhancement; that the system itself could become the platform itself... instead of the system doing what a system should do, which is to successfully accommodate for the available talent in any given generation.

The Guardiola System was immediately credited for allegedly transforming Xavi, from a good player in the years before Guardiola, to an all time great midfielder in the years after Guardiola.

Xavi already was an all time great midfielder before Guardiola's system, and Guardiola's system was mistakenly perceived as the definitive miracle system that transformed Xavi into an all time great midfielder; I think that that is how Guardiola's system arguably sterilized or nullified Barcelona's talent pool. Of course, Barcelona also made the mistake of thinking that imported talents like Coutinho and Griezmann could simply be transformed into even better versions of themselves.

 

Thanks for your well-thought out response Leadleader. I read it in full, but I'm afraid I will have to be more succint.
I agree with your analysis of the transformation of football, but the question I ask is why?
Is this a natural evolution of the sport, a state that is more successful than the previous?
If so, are today's top teams better and more competitive than the teams prior?
I am not sure.
Thank you for your analysis of the Barca 2009-2016 legend. It is a mythologized team but they struggled a lot more than we remember. Domestic dominance, but in the CL there was more controversy and parity. Irrespective of that, we can agree that Barca of that era was an indisputably all-time team. I would even say that Real of 2011 was one of the best. Would those teams struggle against Liverpool and Man City and Bayern of today?
I do not think that the latter teams are superior. We just saw a very old Real Madrid dominate a youthful, speedy, energetic Liverpool for example.

I think what we are seeing is a byproduct of the selection process in the academies. The methods are more regimented, homogenous, and anchored on "total football" principles. This has produced a generation of players who have certain athletic and technical traits. Today's center backs are better than ever with the ball, as are the goalkeepers.
We are however missing genius-type, creative players, technical virtuosos, which Mbappe is not for example. I think that is more a failure of the system than a testament of the superior efficacy of the latter.

 

I agree with your analysis of the transformation of football, but the question I ask is why?

Is this a natural evolution of the sport, a state that is more successful than the previous?

If so, are today's top teams better and more competitive than the teams prior?

I am not sure.

The evolution appears to be natural, but the condition appears to be parasitical and therefore potentially fatal, as opposed to just another cycle in the history of the game.

I think even the best clubs of previous eras would struggle against modern day Bayern Munich, Liverpool, Manchester City, etc. The essence of the problem, as I understand it, is that it is actually not a difficult thing at all for great players to adapt to the modern game; that is, after one or two seasons of adapting to the modern game, I think that a good number of the top sides of the late 1990s and early 2000s would enjoy top tier status.

But again, my biggest concern is that modern football appears to be fundamentally incapable of creating the virtuoso players, in other words, modern football would inevitably end up creating the same monoculture of efficiency and pressing that we see today... At any rate, I just cannot see how football could be revived after such destruction of diversity, creativity, identity, and culture.

In that regard, modern football in its essence reminds me of the Cold War concept of "MAD" (Mutually Assured Destruction); the top tier clubs have all armed themselves with nuclear weapons, and the top tier clubs have already used said weaponry against each other, and now we see the real world long term consequences of the mad concept; the destruction of diversity, and the modern era of machine-like monoculture objectivism.

At any rate, it is nothing short of tragic to see that the creative players of past eras, such as Zinedine Zidane as perhaps the greatest example of the modern mind set; one of the most creative players of all time, yet lacking the inclination and/or the vision that would be required to create the counter-argument to the monotonous modern religion of statistical objectivism.

I mean, modern football can be enjoyable in the best of times, and modern football is not totally unwatchable most of the time, but again, my greater point is that modern football is fundamentally a different sport altogether... I mean, it just is, as far as I can see.

Modern Football reminds me of American Football; you have a second-tier athlete with first-tier ability playmaker like Tom Brady, and then you have the super athletes with second-tier ability playing in the executive branch forward roles.

You can either join the system or be destroyed by the system; there is no diversity and no identity; the soul of the sport which used to be artistic and abstract in nature, is now a mere statistical synthetic equation, as the great managers of the modern religion only need to be great at making said one equation work as efficiently as it possibly can.


I think what we are seeing is a byproduct of the selection process in the academies. The methods are more regimented, homogenous, and anchored on "total football" principles. This has produced a generation of players who have certain athletic and technical traits. Today's center backs are better than ever with the ball, as are the goalkeepers.

Johan Cruyff's influence as a football player was similar to that of Mozart as a music composer; all the while, Cruyff's influence as the visionary who created, first the untested theory, then the successful philosophy and reality that defined the golden years of Barcelona; Cruyff is almost like the father of relativity, Albert Einstein, in this regard.

Johan Cruyff, arguably Mozart and Einstein rolled into one, in terms of his influence on this sport; it is remarkably bizarre to think that it was Cruyff who identified Guardiola as a potentially great defensive midfielder, and that it was again Cruyff who patented Guardiola's entire tactical ideology, and that it is Guardiola's hyper-intensity version of said ideology that has slowly but surely killed the soul of this sport.

As so many ideas that were created with the best of intentions, the concept of Total Football arguably killed the soul and diversity of the beautiful game. And again, how surreal and bizarre is it, that one of the most visionary players of all time, Johan Cruyff, is arguably at the heart of said destruction...

Perhaps evidence that even the most visionary and intelligent philosophers, tend to get a lot of things wrong when their ideas are eventually understood through the prism of time; after it eventually draws the lines of perception and hindsight.

I don't think Johan Cruyff, the man who incorporated Romario into his total football system; I mean, I don't think that Cruyff would be happy with the fact that Romario has been superseded by arguably perfect forwards, most of whom lack the innate ability that Cruyff himself ash as a player, and that Cruyff himself liked as a manager.

At any rate, I think that Germans arguably are the only ones with a long and tested tradition of having a distinct identity of their own, yet without sacrificing the efficiency of the collective, in order to accommodate for one extraordinary talent like Maradona, Michel Platini, Johan Cruyff, Zinedine Zidane, etc. For example, Lothar Matthaus and Michael Ballack are total footballers, but lack in that area of 'goat' ability.

It's impossible to argue against Germany's results across the eras, but at the same time, it is nothing short of a tragedy how all of football has become just the one system of intensity and pressure; one ring to rule them all, which quite literally is the premise of the villain in The Lord of the Rings books.

At any rate, I think that my made-up concept of Constant Football could be a legitimate counter-argument to Total Football. Constant Football revolves around the idea that some players are more constant than others, because some players specialize in sub-categories of abilities that are more constant or resilient; largely unaffected by the efficiency of tactics.

Lionel Messi dribbling past 2 or 3 defenders, and then scoring a goal or delivering the final assist; is by definition not a particularly constant ability; top tier clubs have a long history of being good at nullifying macroscopic physical ability, that is, the ability to cover long miles of the pitch, when on the ball, and yet without getting dispossessed in due process.

The problem with the above macroscopic physical ability, or macroscopic technical ability, is that it can be consistently devastating in the unique modern context of unprecedented disparity between the rich clubs that hoard all of the available talent, and the peasant clubs that have to make due with the players that have not yet been snatched away.

But then, the macroscopic physical ability, or macroscopic technical ability, repeatedly fails in the handful of Champions League games that actually matter (almost exclusive territory of the rich super clubs), in the World Cup, in the Euro, and in the Copa America; where the super club edge sufficiently evaporates, as evidenced by the fact that neither Messi nor Ronaldo proved to be as influential as Zidane was in the previous era, in the context of the World Cup and the Euro (or Copa America for South American players) combined.

Messi and Ronaldo are arguably no better than Zidane when the modern architecture of the super club evaporates; and at the same time, it is arguably undeniable that both Messi and Ronaldo are a lot better than Zidane in terms of collecting rudimentary statistics that are almost exclusively farmed against the significantly inferior "peasant clubs" of the modern era.

In contrast, Michel Platini's signature ball retention (a microscopic physical ability) against 1 or 2 defenders, quickly or simultaneously followed by Platini's signature passing ability; is by definition a constant ability; neither traditional tactics nor modern tactics have ever proven to be uniquely nor distinctly reliable at nullifying microscopic physical ability.

Zinedine Zidane is perhaps the greatest example of this principle; Zidane was primarily mobility-based (microscopic physical ability); Zidane was not primarily speed-based (macroscopic physical ability), even if speed was an underrated factor to his technical ability, both in terms of ball retention and slalom dribbling.

I think that that is why Zidane was as constant as he was in his era; his primary physical strength was not significantly affected by tactics, so when David Beckham was likely to become just another world class player when Brazil vs. England happened, in the same difficult circumstances Zidane tended to stand out as his technical ability was mobility-based, and therefore not significantly shaped nor coerced by the improved tactics of top tier sides.

Football when built primarily around the microscopic physical mobility of the players who are born with that rare innate ability i.e. Constant Football; I think a similar mobility-based branch of football could be the system to revive the interest in the dying arts of ball retention and slalom dribbling, both of which have already been superseded by rudimentary ball carrying, passing, positioning, pressing, and intensity.

In conclusion, I think that modern football is in desperate need of a modern day Johan Cruyff; that is, a true visionary capable of inventing the counter-argument to the modern monoculture of efficiency above all else.


Thank you for your analysis of the Barca 2009-2016 legend. It is a mythologized team but they struggled a lot more than we remember. Domestic dominance, but in the CL there was more controversy and parity. Irrespective of that, we can agree that Barca of that era was an indisputably all-time team.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I think Guardiola Era Barcelona is the greatest team of all time; 2 out of 4 Champions League titles, 3 out of 4 La Liga titles, which then must be considered in the context of Barcelona winning Euro 2008, World Cup 2010, and Euro 2012.

At any rate, I do not think that any other club has had the cultural relevance nor the aggregate success of Guardiola Era Barcelona; 2009 - 2012.

But yes, I think that Guardiola Era Barcelona was at the same time an overrated team, far more fragile than most fans today would be willing to admit.


We are however missing genius-type, creative players, technical virtuosos, which Mbappe is not for example. I think that is more a failure of the system than a testament of the superior efficacy of the latter.

Mbappe offers the sheer physical power of Ronaldo Nazario in his prime, but without Ronaldo's injury problems, and yes without Ronaldo's goat-tier skill on the ball, but again, Mbappe is still skillful enough to create consistent problems for just about any defender who ever lived...

I mean, I would probably include Mbappe into my ideal team of all time; it is difficult to think of any other player who could be of better use to passers like Platini or Maradona.

At any rate, I think that Mbappe is the real deal, but the tragedy is that modern football thoroughly fails to offer the spectacle that Maradona-Mbappe could be if the best of both worlds could be merged together, as was the case not that long ago.

 

@leadleader

Would you agree with my viewpoint that the current Paris Saint-Germain side resembles a classical team more than a modern team?

Neymar is a technical genius and the closest player we have to Ronaldinho today
Angel Di Maria is a grossly underrated technician, with elite dribbling and elite passing ability.
Marco Verratti is a second-tier athlete with first-tier technical ability
Leandro Paredes is a third-tier athlete with first-tier technical ability

Unlike the rigid, systematic machines that define modern teams (Bayern Munich, Liverpool, Manchester City). PSG is a team that is primarily build around the individual brilliance and expression of their players.

PSG are one of the few teams who do not press relentlessly and are not stacked with athletic machines in every position. Their build up play also is simplistic enough for the naked eye to appreciate.

Thoughts?

 

Neymar.

I think you are, in essence, correct; that being said, I don't know if it's Paris Saint Germain's actual tactical design, or if it's Neymar who has successfully imposed his individualistic idealism on the rest of the team, but in either case, Paris Saint Germain tries to play first and foremost on the basis of traditional individuality.

However, I disagree with the implicit idea that Neymar's ball retention was a factor in the first leg vs. Bayern Munich... If you watch the first leg, Neymar's many failed attempts at traditional ball retention proved to be destructive and disruptive against Paris Saint Germain; not at all positive creative ability, and in fact, evidence of the fact that traditional ball retention has become obsolete-like in the modern game.

At any rate, Neymar's only positive contributions in the first leg were rudimentary skills; great in terms of carrying the ball (which has superseded slalom dribbling, in the modern game), which is how Neymar delivered the assist for the 1-0 goal; good passing; good positioning; sufficient defensive pressing, etc. In terms of ball retention, Neymar was arguably a net negative for his team.

The second leg is a completely different story, Neymar was great in terms of traditional arts like ball retention and slalom dribbling; but at the same time, Paris Saint Germain did not scored one single goal, and not only that, it was none other than Neymar himself who failed to score 2 or 3 clear-cut chances, etc. In sharp contrast, Paris Saint Germain scored 3 goals in the first leg, coincidentally or not the same game where Neymar's ball retention offered a net negative.

I had mentioned to @SayWhatIWant something about Constant Football as opposed to Total Football, as a potential alternative tactical genre that could help revive the dying traditional arts of ball retention and slalom dribbling. But when I watched Paris Saint Germain vs. Bayern Munich, it became clear to me that the biggest problem with modern football is, not necessarily how fast it is (after all, football was already very fast in 1997), but how the yellow card and the red card have proven to be comprehensively insufficient, obsolete perhaps, in terms of their original regulative functions.

Neymar was fouled systematically as Bayern Munich players rotated in their task to break down Neymar, which means that Neymar accumulated a lot of fouls, but then Bayern Munich did not accumulated any yellow cards, because different Bayern Munich players are taking turns (rotation) as they foul Neymar. This art of defensive rotation has evolved to a point, where the yellow card and red card are simply not enough.

Modern tactics have out-lived and out-witted the functional life expectancy of the yellow cards and red cards.


Traditional Ball Retention.

Back in the days of Diego Maradona, most of the relevant clubs had players who were very good at ball retention and/or at slalom dribbling; Juventus had Platini, who didn't have the physique to be a slalom dribbler, but who was goat-tier in terms of his unique ability to combine ball retention and passing; Napoli had Maradona, who was goat-tier in terms of both ball retention and slalom dribbling; AC Milan had Ruud Gullit, who was elite in terms of both ball retention and slalom dribbling; Barcelona had Laudrup, who was elite in terms of both ball retention and slalom dribbling, etc.

Ball retention and slalom dribbling were a necessity more often not; ball retention was not some stylish alternative 'ideology' that the top tier clubs could easily do without. In other words, tactical cohesion in the late 1980s was not good enough, in fact nowhere near good enough, that most of the top tier clubs could enjoy consistent success in the absence of players with great individual ability.

And again, the late 1980s were the early stages of zonal marking, which is probably why tactical cohesion had not yet been perfected into the machine-like science that is modern football.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, I think we begin to see how the game was divided into two foundational branches; the utilitarian-branch, which mostly consists of midfield players with first-tier ball retention ability e.g. Redondo, Zidane, Scholes, Seedorf, Deco, Pirlo, Xavi; and the executive-branch, which mostly consists of intermittent creative forward players who are nowhere near as participative as Maradona or Platini.

Playmakers with Maradona-like ability were converted into utilitarian midfield players like Zidane or Scholes, and at the same time, the new Maradona was Ronaldinho; that is, nowhere near as participative as Platini or Maradona, but just as skillful as Platini or Maradona in the final phase of delivering the assist and/or scoring the goal. Ronaldinho, Kaka, Cristiano Ronaldo, Messi, etc.

As the game continued to evolve, we see that Zidane was replaced by less creative midfielders; Modric and Kroos are perhaps the best examples, as both are excellent in terms of ball retention (more so Modric than Kroos, in my view), but both lack the 'genius' technique-based inventiveness of players like Zidane or Redondo.

It is the same type of 'evolution' for the executive branch; Ronaldinho was superseded by Neymar; and then Neymar was superseded by a less inventive version of himself, essentially.


Yellow Resistant Rotation Fouls.

In the context of the modern game, Diego Maradona's ball retention would become almost obsolete, of no important value; in part, because ball retention itself is no longer a rare ability that only a handful of skillful players can master; but by far the driving factor that has canceled goat-tier ball retention, is the fact that yellow-resistant rotation fouls have created a fundamental imbalance to the game; rotation fouls have out-witted the original functional limit of the yellow card, and ergo the red card.

Neymar's ball retention is more often than not, not useful to Paris Saint Germain, as his fouls do not create yellow cards for the opposing team, at the same time that said accumulation of fouls increases the probability that Neymar will get half-injured (and will therefore slow down as a result of said half-injury) during the game.

At any rate, traditional ball retention just doesn't make much sense in the modern context; the yellow card factor becomes obsolete, because yellow-resistant rotation fouls are a better, superior strategy; and simultaneously, ball retention also does not successfully serve the function of dictating the tempo of play...

When yellow cards do not or cannot proportionally protect ball retention, the modern clubs quickly cut down Neymar, and in the best of cases this can create a good free kick, but in most cases, this simply kills the flow of momentum, it destroys Neymar's ability to dictate the tempo or momentum, and all Neymar gets is an insignificant spot-kick, at the cost of possibly getting himself injured after so many accumulated 'tactical' fouls.

In the simplest possible terms: the modern game is excessively fast, not necessarily because it is literally fast in physical terms, but primarily because traditional ball retention cannot realistically serve the function of slowing down the tempo of play, which is not a realistic function as a consequence of yellow-resistant rotation fouls, which have superseded ball retention.


The Green Card.

With all of the above sentiments in mind; I think the not-so-beautiful modern game is in desperate need of a constitutional alteration, it needs a third card that can realistically do what the yellow card and red card cannot do; it needs a green card to incentivize traditional ball retention... The green card is literally the only thing that could realistically regulate and balance the game, so that rotation fouls that are yellow-resistant, get proportional punishment in the form of green card accumulation; two green cards equal a yellow card; two yellow cards equal a red card.

Rotation fouling would still be yellow-resistant, but the new green card would serve the much needed function of protecting and incentivizing traditional ball retention; the modern game would be slowed down as a consequence of said revitalization of traditional ball retention, on the basis of architecture itself as the external factor to shape the game. But again, in the absence of the green card, the modern game kills the momentum on the basis of rotation fouls, and that kills traditional ability, and that is what allows the end-to-end high score intensity game of recent years.

The green card would fundamentally change the game, converting the game into a momentum-based game, as had always been the case until Heynckes Era Bayern Munich 2013 created the blue print to stop Guardiola's Barcelona, after which point football quickly deteriorated into the modern condition that is the monoculture of intensity; the era of the machines and machine-like players; and simultaneously the death of traditional goat-tier ability.


Paris Saint Germain.

Paris Saint Germain is the team that I'd like to see win, if anything else, because it would revive an interest in more traditional players like Neymar, whom are quickly becoming extinct as the era of the machines progresses into deeper territory...

But unfortunately, what will most probably happen is that Manchester City or Real Madrid will neutralize Neymar on the basis of yellow-resistance rotation fouls; Neymar will not always be at his absolute best, which is why in 1 out of 3 remaining games Neymar will have one of those games where he just isn't at his absolute best, and that is the difference at this level.

I hope I am wrong, but that is my honest opinion.

 

I recall a moment around the 70th minute, where Di Maria and Neymar were toying with Bayern players and made them look silly. There was another moment at the beginning of the second half, where Neymar made Kimmich and Muller look like complete fools, an action which lead to a big chance for Di Maria (that was cleared by Boateng)

In any case, I will be rooting for PSG in this campaign, because PSG is the only top team left in Europe that plays with the swagger and individuality of an old-school team. I dislike the systematic and methodological manner in which Real Madrid and Man City play. I prefer the fluid football from PSG where the individual brilliance of one of the most talented players ever (not just of this era, but all-time) is allowed to shine.

On a side note, Angel Di Maria is a player who has always been criminally underrated throughout his career. In his prime, he was an elite dribbler who combined fantastic mobility with explosive acceleration. He has a vast passing range and his assists are extremely diverse. He is also a very adaptable forward who can play effectively on the left, right, or through the middle.

I think that Di Maria is a player who, like Franck Ribery, suffers from his misfortunate appearance. Humans conform to many unconscious biases, and bias towards attractive people is one of the most well-known and powerful biases. Football fans are no different from everyday folk, so there is no reason to believe why this bias also does not exist in football. That might also explain why Florentino Perez sold a prime Angel Di Maria for the more handsome and marketable James Rodriguez.

Edit: I was able to find the action between Di Maria and Neymar, it was in minute 64: