James has two team mates who will be Hall of Famers themselves: Wade and Bosh. And he did not stick around, like Jordan did, with the cards he was given at Cleveland (which in addition is his hometown, yet he could not show the same loyalty as Jordan did with Chicago). Your analogy of James with Cruyff is completely misplaced, Cruyff built a legacy with a then unknown club whereas James searched and searched until he found the perfect place to finally win championships. Completely agree and I am glad that you continued on my post - to be honest, I really never followed basketball to discuss it beyond the general and obvious. By the way, I believe other greats such as Magic Johnson, Bird, Thomas, Olajuwon, and Duncan stuck around their initial clubs through thick and thin until they finally took them to a few championships. Yes, I can agree with that. I was more referring to comparing championships with players of equal status, Robertson versus Magic is a good one, the two greatest players at the point guard position. Is Parker considered of the same caliber as Nash? However your point is correct, I believe Russell with the Celtics won a huge number of championships, more than any other legend, but he is not close as a great player to Jordan or Bryant. Between Jordan and James, a big difference I see is Jordan is a more clutch performer, and by a wide margin at that. Jordan also beat rivals that were in themselves legendary sides, which I believe you mentioned this before: Boston with Bird and McHale, Lakers with Magic and Worthy, Detroit with Thomas and Dumars, Utah with Stockton and Malone, New York with Ewing and Oakley, Seattle with Payton and Kemp, and Orlando with O'Neal and Hardaway (who many claimed at the time were going to supersede Chicago as the team to beat).
Well, to be fair about those names you mentioned, Magic, Bird and Duncan enjoyed success pretty early in their careers, so they did not really need to stick through thick and thin to get a title. You could indeed say that about Isiah Thomas and Olajuwon, though I will always wonder if the latter gets his two consecutive titles had Jordan not been out of the picture.
I see, but I thought Bird and Duncan really made those teams, good but not great until they showed up, into winners - even if it didn't take them too long to win a championship. Yes, Magic came into an already very good team with Abdul-Jabbar and Wilkes, but one that was somehow always falling short of winning the league or even reaching the final until he got there. But the underlying point is we can truly appreciate, in the context of NBA basketball with its draft pick rules and salary restrictions for trading players, that the Dr. J's, Birds, Magics, Thomases, Jordans, Olajuwons, Duncans of the sport stuck around with clubs that threw out the kitchen sink in order to build a project around them, they did not just bolt for the most convenient place at the first signs of struggles.
new old does not matter ... I always go for the TRUE TALENT I rated new guys like Messi Ronaldo Zidane ... are better than older of Van Basten, Bobby Charlton, and arguably Eusebio
Well yes and no .... Like Messi had two names (Xaviesta as Barca hall of fame and both won 2Euros + 1WC) and so? what and how many trophies did they win together if compared to Di STefano + Gento + Puskas + Kopa + .... Santa maria (ironically none had a WC medal) Yeah may be I was too quick to put Le Bron as Cruijff ... may be more like Puskas So Jordan was like Di Stefano and Le Bron was like a Puskas ... (most POP votes would go immediately to Jordan/Di Stefano) but I can tell ... there is a MINIMAL difference between them- that's my POINT and for the RECORD: I never said Lebron was/is/will be betetr than Jordan! But indeed they both are very very comparable in same breadth
I don't think Chicago was as loaded, especially during their first run of three straight championships, as Real Madrid. The Merengues had at least 3/4 of its starting lineup as "Hall of Famers" (if there was a soccerl hall of fame). Jordan only has Pippen as a fellow Hall of Famer, for the second run of championships it's more comparable with Rodman and Kukoc in the team. I would put Jordan as a Puskas, who made history with Honved and Real Madrid, while James is to me at best at the level of a Cristiano Ronaldo, an all-time great but not in contention for being the best ever.
Honved was also a loaded team. Gustav Sebes, the NT manager and deputy Minister of Sport, made sure that practically all starters of the NT played at Honved, with almost all reserves playing at MTK Budapest. Among other things, Sebes asked/ordered to the Hungarian referees to keep their eyes open for potential new recruits. Source of this above, where it is literally stated, is the "Puskas on Puskas" book.
Fair enough, then Jordan's career context is unique and not really analogous to any legendary footballer. I feel that his first run of three championships may have some inklings with Maradona's WC86, particularly had Passarella played (a legendary teammate similar to Pippen). I really can't remember their names anymore, I was never a basketball fan, but I do remember Jordan played alongside a bunch of zombies during those years before his temporary retirement in 93, they were big, bulky, lumbering players, with about the same the grace of my fridge and completely useless for the objective of winning a match. Apparently, the general manager of the team loved this kind of players, mainly because they were relatively inexpensive, to the chagrin of Jordan, who had no respect for them.
In Sally & Anderson their bestseller book there's a developed argument/observation that football is just not the same as basketball. Basketball is a 'strong link' game, as they short-handedly dub it. Meaning: one strong player (Michael Jordan), a 'strong link', does make a major difference. Football on the other hand is a 'weak link' game. Meaning: the weakest link makes more of a difference than the strongest link, in comparison with basketball (and many other team sports). Upgrading the weak link gives generally more of a boost than replacing the '2nd best' link (Puskas at Madrid), with a new strongest link (say, a transfer of Pelé to Real Madrid). So replacing 'Robin' with a better 'Robin' or a 'Batman' is often not the best idea, in comparison with other team sports. Or buying Neymar rather than replacing your worst player for a (slightly) better one. The authors demonstrate how a weak link upgrade provides a larger results boost as a strong link upgrade. That's not really a new insight; people like Lobanovski, Beckenbauer and Cruijff already saw it 40 years ago, but they give the argument content with 'facts' like data analysis. Therefore, and related to this, good players tend to play with other good players (today even more so than in previous decades). The 11th best player of Real Madrid is better than the best player of a mid-table team. That's a state the game has developed to. Don't get it wrong: a weak link matters in basketball as well, but not to the same degree. As they write in the same chapter, football also differs in the sense that wealthier clubs and national teams can hire more & better scouts, data analysts, physiotherapists, trainers and other equipments. The facilitating services of a top EPL club is already enormous in comparison with a mid-table EPL club. Better equipped staffing simply results in better prepared players and thus overall better players - all at one and the same team (= good players play with other good ones). They make that argument, and why the differences in facilities are so important in the football sport (using data, interviews and other methods). Once again, also this factor is different in some other team sports, including NBA-level basketball. That basketball is played with 5 players rather 11 players already presses a greater burden on the single individual.
I agree with the "strong link" and "weak link" theories, they make sense. However, not sure how different quality of the facilities and ancillary staff is between a club like Manchester United and Stoke City. All professional clubs have enough infrastructure for a state of the art gym and well-compensated trainers, physios, etc. Man United is actually a good example, they went from champions to eighth place in the space of a year. Did the facilities or staff suddenly deteriorate, or more likely they had to replace a strong link (Ferguson) with a weak one (Moyes).
While I agree with Puck in the context of "strong link" (Basketball) vs "weaker link" in football, and in that sense a player can exert more influence to the game (1/5 against other 5 is clearly easier then 1/11 vs otehr 11) But my other point was that: "trophies count" is still a very subjective to BACK or DISMISS a player great talent. Like football or other "TEAM work" sports, the team depends HEAVILY on 3 major things: 1- Best individual contribution 2- Best team work in SYNC with each other 3- Best coaching to guide a team vs other teams ... Like one can remember , the greatest NBA superstar teams DO NOT win the Olympic in every time ...
Good example in the counter ... Refer to my earlier points .... one can tell ManU under Moyes lacked of number 2 (team in sync with each otehr) and number 3 (under new coaching guide) - as they still have number 1 (Rooney, Wellbeck, Van Persie ...Evra ... still performed oK as before )
Well, figures (the budget and just counting numbers) tell that the difference is not small. Question is not this difference, but to what extent it accounts for differences in product/performances (which is a 'golden egg' question because it'll give a clue about what gives the best value for money, if you are a club director). The aforementioned authors think it does make an important difference (for ex. major national team associations utilize 40+ data analysts) and accounts for a part why good, in-form, players play with other good players. But it is something they don't demonstrate as convincingly as other parts of the chapter, though. It's certain though that in NBA basketball those facilitators are very much evened out across most teams (in case it's important, it is less of a difference maker). Moyes/Ferguson is a bit of both. They're part of the facilitators (supporting circumstances), but because of their position in the hierarchy also a clear weak link, potentially. Btw, in comparison with the last Ferguson season also a few of their strong links became much weaker (Van Persie, in 2012-13 a strong link), and their weak links too (book states that a good manager/staff can optimize weak links, and create synergies essentially).
A good example of differences in preparation and facilities: Brazil took many months in 1970, putting club interests aside, while other sides (Europeans) had a club season taking precedence (that often finished in early June 1970). The important question is to what extent this actually matters. Like I said, Sally & Anderson seem to think it does, while it can be credibly thought, too, that Brazil would have been superior under any conditions and fine-tuning - or lack thereof. That there is a big difference between # of employees at Manchester United and Stoke City (among other things), isn't a question. It is more doubtful whether it's relevant and is a key component in why good in-form players play with other in-form players (in comp. with basketball).
Well to compare a short tournament like WC (one month with a few weeks training together) to Clubs (12months length with everyweek training together) is so different WC70: It's so easy when people say "oh well he got a great team behind" - yes and no - that was a great team, but they need PELE to gel them altogether in SYNC within a very short time - Pele got the advantage that: all of 20 other team mates RESPECT him as a true spirit leader in win games. Now, let's remind the good team of 66, 74, 82, 86, 06 all failed with many stars together PROVED its not easy. Outside of Brazil, there were Holland 74, Hungary 54, France 82-86, Argentina 98-02 ... also failed with big starstudded teams =================================================== Back to ManU: It's a different animal. WHile the club level had teh advantage of TIME and FACILITIES to prepare well (weekly) and adjusting tactics (coaching) to win, the complication of POLITICS and FINANCE is much greater then National team. - Politics = power, ego, celebrity that effect coaching and player style - Finance - marketing, money from sponsors ... affecting the players in selection, style
The July 1979 issue of World Soccer mentions that 'El Grafico' held a poll "among managers, players, retired players, football personalities and journalists, most of them South America." About the greatest club team of all-time. This was the result: 1. Santos (1960s) 193 2. Real Madrid (1950s-60) 103 3. Internazionale (1964-65) 49 4. Ajax (1970-73) 47 5. River Plate (1942-45) 43 6. Racing BA (1966-67) 32 7. Independiente (1972-75) 28 8. Honved (1952-54) 22 It's clear that Santos as a team was highly regarded.
That's so strange ... but it's all because of Pele Within Brazil ONLY, *all regional from Sao Paolo to Carioca to others, Santos club was in middle ranking in 60's below TOP5 surely So in all SA ... Santos would not make top10 or barely .. (- counted after 62,63 that Pele won 2 libertadores + 2 intercontinental cups to bring them much higher then that)
I re-read that part today and now I remember what type of general insights they discuss. That is: when players are kids, and even mature, they learn the most from playing with and against other top players. In a way that many moves become pure intuition. When they're still kids and growing, the brain is developing and changing enormously, of course. Also, as a mature player, the psychology works in such a way that 'weaker' links want to keep up with the better ones. That's also why the better ones have to provide the good example; they are often - without both sides being aware of this - a great motivation and impetus for the 'weaker' links. And the 'weak' definitely do not want to let the others down, that they're the fool among the other 20+ squad players moving around him. The authors discuss research showing an improvement in performances (incl. stamina!) just because they want to keep up with their peers. So, that football is a 'weak link' game (more than basketball) and 'good players play with good players' is very much related with each other, also psychologically. Anyway @Pipiolo it doesn't surprise me a lot that no football player's career can be compared with the one of Michael Jordan. Because basketball is intrinsically more of a game where a strong link (or two strong links) make a big difference.
@Puck - when did I say that? I can think of a few footballers who can compare with Jordan's basketball career, such as Eusebio's exploits with Benfica and Portugal.
"Fair enough, then Jordan's career context is unique and not really analogous to any legendary footballer." http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/pele-vs-michael-jordan.1359219/page-27#post-30166234
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...atest-ever-footballer-has-been-overhyped.html Wow. Rarely seen such character murder in a 'quality paper'.
not sure of the label "quality" ... Jonathan Liew, who? look at him and age ... I think he knows more of crickets and think Football is same LOL