Euro 08 in this case. Also compared with other GKs in the tournament and the bad performance of Italy (which can favour or goalkeeper or work against him).
Honestly because Italy was quite a non-factor the only thing I remember was his PK save against Romania which sure bumped up his rating. Correct me if I'm wrong, he pretty much got his job done but wasn't outstanding in the other games I guess.
That is a good call. For Müller10 vs Romario94 it might be the case that Romario his non performance in the final took a hit isn't it? He barely touched a ball. Same for David Villa. Why would that be higher? The hero in the 2008 final was Torres of course. Low rating of Baggio isn't surprising. He was injured and disappointed in the group stage without heroics.
Yes it would be interesting to see the numbers for individual games... Müller was quite inconsistent rated by Kicker (I assume other magazines also rated him low in 2 games and high in 3) 1 1 1,5 2,5 4,5 4,5 And also played one game less than Romario. With just 6 games one extra bad game - which he was capable of having apparently - makes or breaks a player avg. Short tournaments as the 'gold standard' today are quite deceptive, but I know it won't change ever.
This shouldn't even be a comparison, Romario or Baggio inWC94 are a good echeleon above Muller in WC10.
Like I always said I am not so crazy to base my opinion on those ratings (so different from one source to another) Castrol did a very good initiative to have introduce STATS in offcial FIFA games , but I think they need much more invest in to criteria, points and a "special team" to come up with. Romario94 was great and he only got minus (not able to score in final) if compared to others great forwards at WC only (named Muller70, Jairzinho70, Ronaldo02, Eusebio66 ...) To compare his performance against Thomas Muller 10 or Villa Euro08 is a DISGRACE. UNTHINKABLE Villa 08 or 10 were very very good, from group to quarter or semi max. He was NOT a big game player. Thomas Muller was just a one time wonder in a shaky WC. Baggio was rated low (not because he did not do much in group) but I think he did not connect well with midfield (most his goals were sheer individual skill shot) . Look at Rossi82 and Kempes78 they were the SAME like Baggio - not so impressive in group stage if not saying disappeared. Did they have same rating or even much higher? =========================================================== Now for GK: I rated Barthez98 = Kahn02 = Buffon06 (or maybe Kahn got a slight edge between them) Buffon Euro08 was just good for his name < Cassilas WC2010 and Toldo Euro2000 Many (bitters) blamed Kahn in the final 2002 for no clear reasons or for they lack of knowledge in football playing = they FORGOT many things (but howling after the facts): 1- Kahn did some great saves against Ronaldo in first half (3) and the last save he did was to rob the ball within Ronaldo's reach. Hence later he claimed he got a finger injured 2- If Ronaldo could not get a goal out of 5,6 chances (his stats) then he was NO RONALDO. Even one could tell Ronaldo was also "shaky" (first half) when facing Kahn (2 times failed in 1 vs 1 ) and that was very surprising and annnoying since Ronaldo was among the best 1v1 (never miss or extremely seldom missed) 3- The 2 goals happened in 2nd half on the COUNTER , in such case of course it's not a good scenario for a gk (note that Khan was also injured not fully fit). Deepdown, Rivaldo's left foot was often seen as "wicked shot" and Ronaldo's precision shot was among the very best in history. NO SHAME
I agree on Romário having an excellent 1994 WC. But while his performance there was rather representative for his "normal" level (when he wanted to perform, of course!), especially Thomas Müller played way over his normal standard in 2010. And Germany were absolutely brilliant at times: scoring eight goals vs England and Argentina is science fiction in modern football, and it was possible mainly thanks to Müller's exceptional form.
You are forgetting to take in count the teams they played. Brazil94 was a extremely defensive side. Romário only had Bebeto to link with him up front. Mazinho and Zinho played defensive roles, while Mauro Silva and Dunga were DM who eventually could help the attack. Now, Germany10 was a offensive side, and played a great collective football. Since I started to watch WC, I have never seen a brazilian side so dependent on a single player to deliver offensively like Brazil94. If we take in count all brazilian glories in WC, only Garrincha62 could be regarded as more crucial than Romario94 for the victory.
Well you're right (after the fact) but not precisely correct. First, Brazil94 were not that defensive to start with. It was just a "brilliant adjustment" that Parreira made AFTER round 16. The team started as 4 4 2 with 2 DM in center (Dunga + Mauro) and 2 AM on the side (Rai and Leonardo) to back Romario and Bebeto in front - up to round 16. However Parreira realized that Rai and Leonard did not contribute good in attack and potential to hurt defense off their back. So in Quarter final he started to add Mazinho, Zinho and Branco to replace Rai and Leonardo. NOTES: Rai was a "playmaker type" at center (like Socrates, Zidane ) he was not so well adapted to play as a left side MF. Leonardo was a fullback promoted into midfield ) Hence the last 3games became more defensive oriented than it was originally planned. Last bold of yours, it was a very very " brazilian" view ... (not worldwidely) to give too much credits of Garrincha and Romario at winning WC. (for example most folks inside brazil thought Garrincha > Pele and Romario > Ronaldo) They both did STEP UP to compensate of the unbalanced team during the tournament (Pele injured at 62 and Rai/Leonardo so-so form at 94) . Most people uNDERATED pele's contribution at WC58 (as main striker) and 70 (as main playmaker).
Some of your facts are off, James. First, Rai only started in WC94 for the first match against Russia, he did not perform as expeced and was benched in favor of Mazinho, who lacked technical skills but was a workhorse runner, which Parrerira preferred. Also, Leonardo started as leftback, not in midfield, the first four matches, then was dropped only because he was suspended. His replacement was Branco at leftback. With Rai gone from the starting lineup, this was indeed a very defensive Brazil, only Romario, Bebeto and Zinho were attacking players, and the latter showed very poor level after the group phase. The attack however was greatly helped by the excellent form of Jorginho and Leonardo, until he was banned, as fullbacks. With Branco they lost some of that edge, although he gave the team its best dead ball option. Finally, if we look at single individual performances, it is correct to rank Garrincha 62 higher than any of Pele's, and likewise Romario 94 much better than any by Ronaldo.
Here are all Brazil´s goals in WC94. The team scored 11 goals. Romário scored 5 goals, produced a penalty in the first match, set up Bebeto´s goal in the second match (Romario´s shot was deflected by goalkeeper) and gave 1 great assist for Bebeto in Round 16. He was involved in 8 of 11 goals. Take a look at the quality of his goals. In the end, I don´t think we can compare his performance with Muller10, it´s a ilogical comparison.
It was above all a very effective one, despite all the propaganda by the media. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00037/ttsthereview_37432a.pdf With Müller a key element of that effectiveness. He needed 10 shots to score 5 goals. Romario needed 33 to score 5 goals too. A difference I'd say.
Your own link already said everything. Germany10 was able to create too many openings inside the box, facilitating the job for attacking players. Of course Muller had influence on creating these openings, but so had Schweinsteiger, Ozil, Lahm, Podolski, Klose, etc. On the other hand, Brazil94 delegated that task for Romário and Bebeto only, because their AM (Zinho) didn´t deliver in anyway. As a consequence, when the duo couldn´t open spaces inside the box by themselves, they were forced to try some long shots (like in the games against Sweden), which explain Romário´s 33 shots.
I said you're right. I just want to add to the fact that Brazil NT 94 were NOT meant to be defensive ... until the competition started. Rai and Leonardo did not perform as expected. Romario won the Golden Ball for his performance there as he "STEPPED UP" to be the key player to win that cup - agree. Besides the fact he connected very well with Bebeto. You can claim what you want but a player who got 30+ chances (in shooting) did NOT represent a 'bad and defensive" team at all. Unless you say Romario created all those 30shots??? Last bold, I disagree somewhat.... Garrincha 62 was "arguably" better than Pele 58 (as sub) and Pele70 - not like day and nite. Only Pele played as sub (6goals/4games and 4goals were winner ). Garrincha shone bright in that WC where many stars DID NOT shine ... like last few WC's . Pele 58 shone out of many great names in Didi Kopa Juste fontaine ... * much difference I don;t want to turn this in another Romario vs Ronaldo. The STATS told the story and Ronaldo had BETTER STATS at WC02 than Romario 94 PERIOD. - Shooting percentage - chances creations - number of goals and especially 3goals in last 2 most important games. EVERYONE see that except some (Brazilians) inside Brazil
Leonardo played well until his ban, why do you say he did not perform as expected? Rai and Zinho disappointed of course. I would say the 30 shots by Romario is kind of average for a striker over the course of seven matches (4 shots per match). Also bear in mind Bebeto was also brilliant and created many chances for Romario, plus not a few of them were from long distance when the team could not create them on its own. In regards to Ronaldo in WC02, you need to apply the same context as you do to Garrincha in WC62. The WC02 was marred by injured players and many who simply did not peform as expected (due to exhaustion, internal conflicts, etc). Ronaldo's rivals in WC02 are of a lesser quality than Romario's in WC94. Italy 94 >> Germany 02 Sweden 94 > Turkey 02 Holland 94 > England 02 USA 94 = Belgium 02 Sweden 94 > Costa Rica 02 Cameroon 94 >> China 02 Russia 94 < Turkey 02 Five of the seven respective rivals for Brazil are better in WC94 than WC02, two of them considerably so. Only one was better in WC02.
I respect your opinion, but as most of brazilians, disagree. I think when a team is offensively better, the forwards´s individual stats also get better (look Messi in Barça, his stats in the last 4 years put him in Pele level). IMO, it´s the same situation here. Brazil02 > Brazil94 in offensive aspects and, like said earlier, Brazil02 rivals < Brazil94 rivals, which made things easier for the 3 R´s up front.
First, the era is different here (while I was talking oranges to Oranges WC58 vs WC62, and you talked of WC62 with 02 a 50years apart). Nevertheless, ONLY Zidane was injured at WC02, and you GENERALIZED that all stars are not fit? Let me hint you: zidane, Veron, Figo, Henry, Raul, Del Piero Rivaldo Ballack Beckham Owen... were the NAMES supposed to SHINE at that WC02 (not a Ronaldo who just returned from hospital >2years, with 10games played before the tournament) You sound correct in THEORY, but Football is complex. You can NOT put the name of a nation and say this or that - until the end result. 1- Why NOT you said France or Portugal >>> Greece at Euro04? Yet they lost with NO EXCUSE! 2- France 02 were regarded as the TOP candidate to win that WC, yet without a Zidane, they lost to Senegal, could not win over Uruguay, and even with a not fully fit Zidane they lost to Denmark! Why NOT you put France02 >> Senegal and Uruguay and Denmark??? 3- 99% thought Holland74 would win WC and they lost to Germany. 99% thought Brazil82 would win the WC and the lost to Italy82. SO???? Only the KIDS would put names next to each other and say WHO IS BETTER! According to your "theory" then Greece04 would be the BEST winner over all WC or Euro winners since they beat all the "BETTER teams" in names???? The MAIN point is that as a GREAT player you SHONE when your team needed - no excuse (unless you're injured like Zidane 02, or not fit like Ronaldo 98 final game, Zico WC86 ...)
This is Brazil 94 team (starting XI) 4 4 2 or 4 2 2 2 (to be exact) (I somehow mistakenly named Leonardo instead of Zinho as AM earlier) up to round 16: round 16/QF to final (more like 5 3 2 = more defensive then planned)
There is one ability, most of all one, that no one has ever had like Leo and myself: speed of thought. Diego Maradona http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/news/newsid=1605194.html Is he right? Was Pele or any other footballer on that level of speed of thought? Or it's another fluffy interview?
Hey James, do you think that Romario's speed of thought at box could be fastest speed of mind that any footballer on any position anytime had? Or somebody surpass him?
In term of "speed of thought" - usually called quick mind and intelligent decision, Pele, Puskas , Cruijff and Zico were surely on par with Maradona. I would not be sure of Messi as he was not a "full time" playmaker ... to judge him correctly. I would say Pele had "quicker mind" and more variety of games than Maradona's in term of "playmaking" and intelligent passes. But Maradona's ball skills were so good to make up for his so they are both on par with each other. For example, Kaka represents Pele's quick mind while Ronaldinho was like a Maradona's quick mind, if you know what I meant. Now in same context (quick mind) for forwards (not playmaker), Ronaldo9, Messi are at least on par with Romario - Van Basten, Muller were also very close behind. I would say no one could surpass Pele (and Maradona, Cruijff Zico Platini ) in term of quick mind - Zidane might have a very quick mind, but his ball control is slow so it's hard to justify if he really had a "quick mind". One should NOT be confused between "quick mind' and "INSTINCT". Romario (like Muller) was among the gifted instinct striker in the box. Sometimes he just did things unexpected (without thought) more like reflex = instinct.
I do respect yours as well. However you should put 'most Brazilian in Brazil' who watched MORE of Romario (than Ronaldo) thought Romario was better! BUT NOT the rest of the world (Brazil fans and other NT fans) that had watched both there in their peak. 1- I had made several post regarding WC2002 event. It was nOT Ronaldo fault that France, Argentina, Italy went down (against low teams) and that made Roanldo's goals less "valued". Look, it's FUNNY if some would say Ronaldo scored easy goals against Turkey, China, Ivory coast, Japan ... but they FORGOT, many good strikers of Argentina, Italy ,France , Portugal FAILED to score to win against Senegal, Swden, S.Korea ... in same event!!! Is it a "double standard"? What about some say Romario failed to score against tough defense team in Italy (final) is it the same context with your point against Ronaldo? 2- Now, besides the fact we could NOT change which teams Brazil02 faced, lets' see how they both DID IN BIG GAMES thru out career, one can see Romario banging goals more than Ronaldo in NT but those were most "friendly games" ... in big games, no doubt, Ronaldo was among the BEST. I posted thsi before but re[post for you 1- Decisive goals / big games 2- Effectiveness in big games (number of scoring games/total big games)
zico scored twiceas goals as maradona. 68 goals for brazil.maradona just 34 for argentina.Same number of games. 94.Zico was complete in all fundaments.So the goal average ratio is enough to make him better than maradona.