@lessthanjake In the 3 games that Zidane didn't play, France scored 40 shots from inside the box, which leaves France with 100 shots from inside the box in the games he played. This raises his % of shots inside the area to exactly 18%. I'm not putting Messi numbers in CA because we don't have Zidane numbers in EC so it's a bit unfair with Zidane
I’m not sure how it’s “unfair” to Zidane, since I’m not critiquing Zidane. What we’re talking about is critiques of Messi’s scoring in pre-WC 2022 major tournaments for Argentina, which includes World Cup and Copa America. And my point was that the role he played for Argentina in these tournaments was much more of an AM role. The fact that his percent of his team’s inside the box shots in major tournaments looks essentially identical to that of Zidane (an undeniable AM) in the World Cup is just indicative of that point. I’m not critiquing Zidane in any particular way, such that something could be unfair to him. Just am using his numbers as a baseline for what a definite AM has had. It would be even better/more complete a comparison if we had Zidane’s Euro numbers as well, of course. But Messi’s Copa America stats are obviously relevant here because the critiques I’m addressing here relate to his Copa America performances/goalscoring as well!
Yes, but let's assume Zidane's % of shots inside the box in EC is around 10% (we don't know how much it was) This would directly affect the final result of the comparison. I looked at Iniesta's numbers and he lost 1 game in the 2010 cup. In the games he played Spain made 40 shots inside the box and he made 5. Which leaves him with a % of 12,5
Yeah, of course the Euro could potentially change the numbers either way (hence why it’d be better to have those numbers, as would it also be better to have stats for a few of Messi’s tournaments we don’t have this data for), but we can certainly say that the data that we do have supports the point I’ve made. I suppose maybe if we had complete data for both, it might not support my point as much, but that’s obviously just speculation (more complete data could just as easily support my point even more), and it certainly seems important that the fairly substantial data we do have supports it. As for Iniesta, I think there’s no question that Iniesta will be lower in this measure. Even though he scored the WC final winner, he really wasn’t a goalscorer (as in, abnormally weak at this even as compared to other players that could be described as attacking midfielders), and so he didn’t try to do things like late runs into the box and whatnot as much as even a normal AM would, and when he did he didn’t tend to position himself well enough to be the one who actually is picked out with a pass or gets on the end of a ball/deflection/etc. Even if he played a similar role, Messi would have more shots in the box than Iniesta (as would Zidane and many other players).
This may have been a bit of a cheeky response, but, while I generally don’t rate older performances as highly as I think @PDG1978 does, I do actually think there’s some truth to this, since I think about my top WC performances and they actually do skew a lot towards older tournaments (as do the higher SofaScore ratings, for instance). But honestly, I think there’s a fairly obvious general reason for this: There pretty obviously and logically weren’t as many truly great footballers in the past, so the players who were truly great could more easily stand out and dominate their opposition. The fact is that, in the past: - Populations were lower in general which obviously means fewer great talents get produced. - Football was not quite as popular or as widespread a sport around the world and nor was it as lucrative for players, which naturally means a lower number of people who could be great talents actually ended up playing the sport in the past. - There were more developing nations, and, even amongst developing nations, the economic difference between the developing world now and several decades ago is legitimately completely enormous. This allows talents from those countries to be way more likely to be cultivated now. For one thing, their own country is much more likely to have the infrastructure to cultivate great players there (which helps smaller nations be stronger now). And for another thing, there’s a lot of players who play for top NT’s whose parents immigrated to those countries from developing nations, but what needs to be understood is that a family generally needs to have a baseline level of means/money in order to be able to immigrate to Europe in the first place. This is something that is a lot more commonly the case for people in the developing world now and in the last couple decades—since the economic situation of the average person in those nations is much higher. The result of all this is that the vastly superior economic condition of the developing world now allows a higher percent of great talents from those countries to actually be cultivated—which ends up increasing the talent level on both those countries’ teams but also top NTs as well. - Even the countries that have always been relatively rich are much more sophisticated and organized today in their scouting (including from very early ages) and talent development than they were in the past. In other words, a great talent in a richer nation is substantially more likely to be discovered, discovered early, and cultivated than in the past. The result is that the number of truly great talents that get adequately cultivated to end up becoming truly great players is surely WAY higher now than it was in the past. Given that, we’d expect the average level of player on NT’s to be significantly lower in the past than it is now—when a higher number of truly top-tier talents exist in the world (higher population) and top-tier talents that exist are more likely to be adequately cultivated. And ultimately, with a lower average level of player on NTs, the players that are truly great can more easily dominate their opposition. I know some will want to fight this point, but I honestly think it logically must be correct. Obviously, there’s also some statistical randomness here. For instance, the fact that there’s more truly great talents now in general doesn’t mean that every current NT is more talented than that same NT was in the past (for instance, the 1950’s Hungary was surely more talented than Hungary today). But the average level of talent of an opposing player in the World Cup is surely substantially higher now, and that means an all-time great player would find it harder to dominate the opposition now. ________________ EDIT: To clarify, I’m not particularly inclined to try to take into account any of the above in evaluating who has had the best WC performances. I think we can evaluate performances based on comparing what happened on the pitch, since it’s too complicated to try to evaluate exactly what the effect of the above had on the performances. That said, it might perhaps lead to a conclusion that we should talk about the best WC performances of a given era, rather than comparing WC performances across vastly different eras. And on that point, I do actually think there’s a good argument that Messi’s 2022 WC is the best WC performance of this era, even very broadly speaking (i.e. I think there’s a good argument it’s the best one since 1986).
Messi match ratings - FIFA World Cup 2014 vs. Germany (Final) 6 - In a way, this game summed up his World Cup. Messi sparkled at times with a couple of early runs but missed his big moment when sent clear at the start of the second half. He looked utterly exhausted in extra time and could not offer a defining moment for the final, least of all the tournament. Highest mark went to Mascherano with 8/10. (per BBC) 7 - Surged forward to create opportunities but was well policed. Drove past post early in second half and shot wide but again faded in influence. Tied for highest mark with Romero, Mascherano, Zabaleta, Demichelis, Higuain. (Per The Independent). 7 - Was again kept quieter than he would have liked, but showed flashes of his brilliance. Squandered his chance to be a World Cup final match winner, however, as he put a golden opening wide that he would normally have buried. Won the Golden Ball after the match for the tournament's best player, but he was not on top form tonight. HIghest mark went to Mascherano with 9/10. 6 players from Argentina rated above Messi. (Per Sportsmole) 6 - Went on a few excellent runs, and looked dangerous whenever he got the ball. So close to scoring just after half-time, but only managed to influence the game intermittently. Highest mark went to Mascherano with 7. (Per The Standard) No rating for NBCSports, but Mascherano is rated the best performer for Argentina. They make mention of "Messi won the Golden Ball for player of the tournament (more on that ridiculous decision later) but Mascherano was the best player on the Argentinian team. vs. Netherlands (Semi) 6 - Fired free-kick straight at Cillessen but shadowed by Nigel de Jong. Sent fine ball to Perez before ballooning over and faded badly after interval. 8 Argentinian players rated above. Highest mark (8) went to Mascherano and Demichelis. (Per The Independent) 6 - Showed glimpses of his talent, but struggled to influence proceedings for long spells against a well-drilled Dutch defense. (6/10). Highest mark went to Mascherano with 9/10. (per Sportsmole) 5- Fouled almost every time he got the ball and for once could not make telling contribution. Converted cool penalty in the shoot-out. (per The Standard) 4 - A shocking performance from Messi, nowhere near his standard or where he needs to be if he’s to guide his country to glory. Looked frustrated, lost dribbles and didn’t seem bothered by the fact that he wasn’t seeing enough of the ball. Highest mark went to Mascherano with 9/10. (per NBCSport) vs. Belgium (Quarters) 6 - Not his best night and missed a glorious chance at the death to settle it. He will need to return to his top form in the semi-final. (Per The Independent) Highest mark went to Demichelis and Higuain (9/10). 6 Argentina players rated above Messi. (Mascherano is rated 7) 7 - Threatened a fifth goal of the tournament, but was unable to strike the decisive blow. Constantly had Belgium on the back foot. Highest mark went to Mascherano and Higuain with 8/10. (Per Sportsmole) Cannot find other popular sources. I found: https://www.thesportreview.com/arti...player-ratings-as-arsenal-target-nets-winner/ which rates the performance at 7, behind Higuain and Demichelis. Mascherano rated 7. vs. Switzerland (RO16) 8 - Had a tough time of things with two or three markers on him at any given time, but regularly managed to squeeze into space and his part in the winning goal was sensational. Highest rated player equal with Garay, Mascherano, also 8. (Per Sportsmole) 8 - Given close physical attention throughout, yet still managed to find the legs to spark late drama. Highest rated player. Mascharano, Garay, Rojo, Zabaleta all 7. (Per The Independent) 6 - Fired in some excellent shots and dangerous crosses, and it was his trademark burst and pass that set up the winning goal. Some slides missing, but Rojo, Garay, Di Maria all rated 6. (Per The Standard) If we compiled the number of articles calling into question the Golden ball award for 2014, I would be up all night. But this is strong evidence that Messi had muted performances past Switzerland in the 3 most critical games - and that the strongest performer on that team was Mascherano. Which makes sense as they made it through the sheer endurance and tenacity of their defense.
Yeah, maybe we don't disagree in essence a huge amount, because as you'll have noticed I was using the word close a lot in my post, so regardless of where I slot Messi 22 in so to speak there would be quite a bit of uncertainty. And there might have been around a handful of those options I put him ahead of kind of decisively if that's the best way to put it (though it may be a lower number compared to you and/or contain some different options). Interestingly Sofascore ratings put Zidane 98 over Zidane 06 don't they actually. I think in theory he was a more capable player in 98, and comparing the two Brazil performances I'd pick the 98 one as the better (without it being purely because of the goals), but I do think he had a very good run of knockout stage performances in 2006 (the Brazil game being the creme de la creme of them, but not the only very good one...and whether I'd rate Vieira over Zidane vs Spain I'd not be really sure right now, but it wouldn't change how I'd see the Zidane performance in itself I suppose anyway). On your other post that referred to my reply (maybe I was going for non-confrontational/easy going rather than cheeky lol...while not giving a dishonest reply that goes against previous comments I made or whatever, just for an easier time or something!), I don't think it would be a matter of agree to disagree quite so much as agree and disagree, because some of your points about developing nations, scouting/training of top level players shouldn't be disagreed with I think....not to say there can't be another side in some respects, like you touched on with the Hungary example and I could expand to relatively more recent times for some nations who had 'Golden periods' in their history in the 80s or 90s perhaps like Romania or Yugoslavia (albeit there isn't a Yugoslavia team now anyway - on a small point maybe that is a dilution of a contending team as a whole though arguably, and there can be other examples like USSR, Czechoslovakia etc...but that's not to do with numbers of great players in itself), or a Cameroon or Nigeria from Africa arguably. I'm not as decided as you on the 'greater pool of general top level players' side rather than the 'better pool of absolute top level players' (at times in the past) side though - there's a question I think in terms of how much players will appear better due to easier circumstances (but that question also applies in reverse - at club level there are easier circumstances now as parts of super teams, with rules that are harsher than before, in general, on fouling, and with more favourable offside laws) and whether for example if a Dragan Stojkovic as a player appears better than a Dusan Tadic it's because he literally was (I think Tadic is a very good player I should say, and had a very good World Cup, but I'm just using a kind of like-for-like example; like I say the same kind of questions can apply in reverse at club level - if a Messi appears to find it easier to score goals and get assists than a Maradona is that because he's better at it than Maradona ever was for example?). The topic has maybe been over-discussed and argued about already on the forum anyway, but one point that might have relevance to your reply is this The world population is changing: For the first time there are more people over 64 than children younger than 5 - Our World in Data I think maybe this is another possible avenue (in argument against the continual inevitable improvement idea) IQ scores are falling and have been for decades | CNN Then there is the question about how kids might have developed their skills at a young age and/or how intently they practiced certain skills and techniques (I know players like Best and Charlton were said to spend a lot of time working on their two-footedness, and Platini regularly spent many hours practicing free-kicks for example). And another counter-argument might be that when players stayed in their home countries longer they benefitted from developing before getting big money moves, and that when more players stayed in their home countries there was more cohesion in national teams of certain nations, with more players playing for the same clubs who had in some cases developed into excellent contenders and iconic teams in club competition (like Ajax, Red Star Belgrade, Dynamo Kyiv etc). Anyway, after trying to keep it brief I've maybe said more than intended lol on that. I guess I'm saying though that there are two sides to the 'theory' element (as well as to the 'eye test' element like I alluded to, in judging how many really exceptional players there are and/or appear to be at any particular time).
The world population is getting older on average, but it is unquestionably still true that there has been an increasing number of people of footballing age as the decades have gone on. So, for example, you can see there that the world’s population of men in the 20-30 years old age range in 2018 was about twice that of what it was in 1970 (looks like slightly more than twice to me, but it’s around twice either way). And, to be clear, I’m not arguing at all that there’s “continual inevitable improvement” of peoples’ quality at football at an individual level. It’s just that with more people and better cultivation of talent around the world, you’ll end up with more great players, even if people on average do not possess any higher level of innate footballing talent than in the past. We simply have more people (which means a higher number of innately super talented people) and are much better at finding great talents around the world and cultivating that talent so that they have a chance to become great players. The logical result is that we’d expect there to be quite a lot more great players now. The argument otherwise would have to be some kind of cockamamie argument that somehow individuals are substantially less likely to possess footballing talent now, or that actually, despite the manifestly greater resources put into it nowadays and the greater popularity of the sport, we actually find and/or cultivate footballing talents substantially less well overall than before. None of that strikes me as remotely plausible. And I think it’s also worth stepping back and noting that the reason I’m bringing this up here is that the point actually comports completely with what we have seen. It is actually true IMO that really dominant individual World Cup performances were more common several decades ago than they are now. And that is exactly what we’d expect if the average level of player was lower back then—the all-time-great level players that did exist would be able to stand out more individually. There could be a tendency for some to instead look at those more-stand-out performances in the past and simply conclude that very top players in the past must’ve somehow just been better than very top players now. But there’s no compelling reason why that’d systematically be the case. Meanwhile, the explanation I’m providing (lower average quality of player) would cause this same phenomenon (i.e. more stand-out performances by all-time greats in the past), and actually does have many compelling reasons why it’d be true (i.e. the points I made in my prior post—which were largely comprised of objective facts that we know about how the world has changed a great deal in very relevant ways). Ultimately, though, I want to be clear that my point here isn’t to make this come to some sort of “Messi is the best player now and this is an era with the most great players so being the best of this era means Messi must be the GOAT” conclusion. I actually think that sort of conclusion would be quite flawed, because I think there’s surely statistical randomness in terms of how good the very best player is, such that we cannot say with a high degree of confidence that the very best player in an era with more great players must be better than the very best player in an era with fewer great players. Rather, to the extent I’m discussing this in order to make any argument relating to the topic of this thread, it’s merely that it may make sense to separate our ranking of World Cup performances by era (since I think there’s certainly reason to believe that it was easier to dominate the WC individually in prior eras). In terms of endeavoring to do that, I’m not sure exactly what the demarcation lines of different eras should be, but even talking about eras in a very broad sense, I do think that Messi’s WC 2022 performance has a good shout for being #1 in the post-1986 era. And obviously the smaller the era, the more clear that conclusion gets (for instance, I don’t think it would be controversial at all to say Messi’s WC 2022 performance was the best WC performance of anyone during his era as a player).
Of course, all of that is the truth. Quick look at sofascore ratings show how field has been leveling more and more over the years.. number of hattricks has declined, etc. Although it makes no sense to hold that against players from the past, it makes sense to look at things relatively.. which player in recent history has managed to be very good and decisive in every KO match and virtually every single game? In that sense Messis 22 wc performance is absolute anomally which holds onto some value while comparing it to rest. Maradona was better in 86, but fractionally.. if Messi scored that 90+ minute winner against France (slightly better shot) he surpasses Maradona 86 in my opinion. Perhaps not in absolute sense in terms of stats, but in a relative sense that would be overall by far the best performance weve seen in last god knows how many wc editions.
Newspapers hold Messi to his impossible to reach standards. Any player in the world with the performance against Switzerland gets an easy 8/10, but Messi wasnt "decisive". Only Messi performs bad if he doesnt score a goal in a match. Its true that Messi didnt have decisive plays in games vs Netherlands and Germany, but if he did his performance would be considered amongst the greatest ever. Till R16, inlcuding R16 i would say Messi 14 slightly ahead 22 performance.. So Messi not beeing more decisive in the last 3 KO games only makes him inferior to gold standard that is Maradonas 86 performance, but doesnt discredit his overall great WC. And the fact that he really had no competition for the golden ball!! James Rodriguez for me was the best, but losing in the quarter finals makes it impossible to win nor he should Its really not controversial despite Messis lack of decisivness towards the end.. Now if Mbappe 22 had the same kind of performance in 14 then you could argue it is controversial, but again, there was no really competition for golden ball WC14. Not controversial. Modric 18 and Forlan 10 are both more controversial. as well as Cannavaro 06.. but no words on that by you.
Forget Messi. Imagine some young up and coming talent like Musiala comes to the big stage in R16 and make those dribbles, passes and tops it of gamewinning assist like that.. they all give him at least 8/10 no question, probably more and the next morning people say a new star is born. As well as some dribbles against Belgium, invovlment in Higuains goal and the ridiculous long pass for di Maria's chance, etc.. nobody gives Musiala 5 or 6 rating even tho he missed 1v1 towards the end of the game. Also. That Argentina side was substantially worse than 2022 Argentina. Those games were tough as nails with not many chances at either side. On the other hand. Watch Brazil Italy final in 1970. Brazil was walking into Italys penalty box every 5 minutes. Got 5+ free kicks within 20 meters distance.. But that is the final and Pele got a goal and 2 assists. Its iconic big game performance that Messi never had for NTs.. and Messi didnt score against switzerland in r16 Its honestly ridiculous to what standards Messi is hold onto.
Having said that, it's an interesting thought process (the what if scenario) and I think it could apply to Mbappe equally/moreso (if he'd managed to find the back of the net after his dribbling near the end...but he didn't - not that he was incapable to ever score in such a situation but he didn't). It could obviously be applied to all sorts of other players too though, including to be fair Maradona ("what if a German doesn't foul him and he ends up scoring a solo goal near the end of the Final, to add to what he did in the QF and SF?" for example) as well as Pele "what if he scores after that dummy vs Uruguay or halfway-line shot vs Czechoslovakia?" even if those moments are still treasured as misses to be fair, and Cruyff "what if Rep scores after his pass, or passes the ball back to Cruyff to score himself, in the Final vs Germany at a crucial moment?", and even Platini (not IMO one of the best ever World Cup players, but one of the best ever overall) with "what if Schumacher doesn't charge Battiston who is able then to score and give Platini a crucial assist and set up a Final vs Italy who France won against months before with Platini starring?" although maybe that's a stretch lol (though Schumacher being sent off would be very feasible/understandable back in 1982 let alone today obviously, at least).
Its okay. You can avoid that part of the discussion and thought process as much as you want to hold onto your opinions, but you will always know its there and its the truth. You have to live with that. Not me.
Here we go - I thought you had a) got nicer, and b) got more open minded. Never mind! I just don't want horrible and lengthy arguments. I've nevertheless tried to explain how I genuinely think, and I am NOT a liar and don't have any agenda!!! It's hard to stand by and not post sometimes. It doesn't mean I want to be involved in long re-hashed arguments (they have all happened before on the forum, and no proper conclusion is even possible, so it's pointless). I don't say you are 100% definitely incorrect with your opinions/perspectives, but you seem to think I am in mine. Let's leave it here, because as your post shows it will only get sarcastic and unpleasant otherwise (not because I secretly/subconsiously know I am talking/thinking nonsense!).
If Mbappe scored that he would have had perhaps the greatest wc final performance ever. It doesnt change the fact about his previous performances against england and morroco. I was simply highlighting how close Messi was to top Maradona and impact of anyone else in recent memory. Mbappe 22 doesnt get much credit btw. I am not claiming messi 22 is better than maradona 86 tho
This post is fine on the other hand. I just didn't like your other one, but I've explained why. I don't feel like I should have to be drawn into long arguments or drop/concede my viewpoints altogether- that's all. I don't want any bad feeling between us!
I I am saying the truth. You never engage in certain ideas.. You just said that we shouldnt look at performances in relative sense and thats presumely cuze of the slightest possibly that if we did, your idea of great hsitorical performances would got shattered. Whats questionable aboutwhat lessthanjack said about talent pool in football getting substantially bigger and all mediocare and small nations being much better than in the past? Plus finanical incetive that brings so many more talrnt in football Nothing. Its the truth. And to not consider that that has had a overwhelming consequences on individual performances of top talents in a generation.. thats just you not wanting to engage with that idea. Any honest and geniuine person would realize that there is no other way but to look things relatively. What other way is to look? Is Bican the best player ever for having ridiculous goalscoring record? No. You have to look things relatively.
As i said. I dont have to live with it. Its fine by me, but it would be nice if someone could challenge the viewpoint with some reasoning that encompasses the undisputable logic of the argument but puts it in even broader perspective so we could all be less dumb. My thinking stops at the level of football getting massively more competitive and therefore individually more difficult to consistently perform and that Messi is hold onto ridiculous standards. These are undeniable as far as I see
No, I didn't say you shouldn't look at performances in relative sense (I even argued that should happen in club football too), but I said that my perception doesn't allign with yours on the issue of whether when doing that Messi's 2022 performances (if he scored an extra goal at least) were of a higher level than Maradona's from 1986, or any other player. Lessthanjake said himself that Hungary are not better. I said that Romania are not better, more talented, whatever way you want to put it. Of course, it's not an even comparison to compare between all current teams and every single former team, because that would be skewed in favour of the past (although if you were arguing that literally every team now has it's all-time best line-up in literal terms then these examples would still be relevant - previously I don't think you had gone that far in terms of 'talent' but only in terms of the 'time machine' competitiveness referring to fitness, patterns of play etc - that again is heading into unprovable/pointless argument territory though I think - we can't say for sure what would happen in your Liverpool 2020 vs Milan 1989 example where you felt Liverpool would win easily and I thought otherwise for example). It's a massive debate, but you want me to either endlessly engage in it, or concede that your perspective is correct and I've 'seen the light' about it. Sorry I don't want to do either of those things, but I don't (the latter because it's not what I believe more than anything, but if anyone else wants to engage on the issue with you they can - I did make a few points which maybe can be food for thought now, but I don't want to be involved in such arguments, even if they stayed away from being unpleasant or sarcastic which if they follow other arguments on this thread they wouldn't do anyway!).
I don't perceive that Bican is the best ever player, although on one hand I'm not really in any good position to judge because I didn't see enough of him (I saw very rare brief clips on Czech websites or Youtube occasionally, but nothing in terms of full games or highlights). Ladislao Kubala said in 1973 apparently that he did think Bican was the best ever at that point, so it's at least thought-provoking. Undoubtedly (I do think) he wouldn't score as many goals in various other eras or circumstances, but the same can be said about Gunnar Nordahl (if born a bit later), Lionel Messi (if born a bit earlier), Cristiano Ronaldo (ditto) I think, among various others.... You are saying the 'truth' without watching much old football (where you may find some of your ideas seem correct, but maybe some others like the assumption there weren't many literally exceptional players in certain periods could be revised....). This is what has happened by just engaging a little bit though - I've typed all this as a response. Imagine if I engaged more how much I would be involved on this thread (on a re-hashed topic, with no factual resolution possible, like I said, even though I understand you claim to know the 'truth').
Well this is a good question. Why certain nations become drastically worse over time? How is that possible? What cultural and historical aspects of a nation bring about success in football? Perhaps there is something that can be learned and extrapolated to other ideas. I have no idea. Also it seems that size of a nation doesnt matter that much in terms of producing talent.. so what does. Why. There are exceptional players in every generation.. the point is that everybody else is much better. You can pick out 4th option from france in any position and he would walk into 99% teams in the past as quality is watered down. The above comment was no sarcasm but a geniune question why is your all time list skewed towards the past.. You are agreeable. You like to agree. Thats fine. I like to disagree to challenge hypocrisy in me.
Garay averaged 10.1 clearances per game in that WC. I think Argentina rely much more in defense than in creating chances or scoring goals to reach the final in 2014. If some argentinian player would have to win the WC Golden Ball it has to be someone in defense. Maybe Mascherano, Demichelis or Garay. As you said, falling in the quarterfinals made it impossible for James Rodriguez to win the Golden Ball in the cup. But there is another player who, for me, played more than Messi in this cup. Arjen Robben For 2006, 2010 and 2018 I would go with Pirlo, Sneijder and Griezmann respectively
I hope you understand that in effect I'm looking for an exit point where I can leave the debate again. You're right that it might be interesting to explore reasons why nations can put together outstanding collections of players during particular times. I think somebody like Puck has more/better ideas on that than me though to be honest. I do somewhat agree on your second response, but not to that extent. Using 1958 as an example, watching the full Brazil-France game left me feeling that particularly the French defensive players would likely be below top International standards in some respects such as ball distribution (not to say all current International defenders are wizards with the ball or something, and in fact I've alluded to thoughts previously about there having been more of the outright outstanding ball players who played in defence at certain other times indeed: Bobby Moore, Beckenbauer, Scirea, Krol, Baresi, Sammer, Blanc, Aughentahler etc - I realise not every one of those played at the same time though); however narrowing in on the performance level of Didi and Kopa for example (and similar could be said about young Pele, and a few other French forwards too for that matter, I feel) and I don't perceive that they'd not be capable of being outstanding International players, or that they'd be inept in the face of certain opponents, in the modern game: I think it can be observed that Kopa actually has some inherent advantages vs a Griezmann (maybe the equivalent in terms of role in the French 2022 line-up), and the same could be said about Didi vs Paqueta for example I'd say (some of them being physical-based advantages too). So by definition I don't see that the 4th choice French AM walks into France 1958, nor Brazil 1958, and for that matter probably not USSR 1958, Hungary 1958, Argentina 1958 (at least if all their 'angels' had been available) etc, before we even start thinking about relatively more recent years. I also think that the French 2022 right back position was not as stacked with good options as France 1980s teams tended to be, or 1990s or 2000s teams either...and also not vs some other teams (Brazil obviously, but probably a decent number of others too because I think Pavard had been excellent in 2018 but started off seeming like a different player this time and was replaced but not by a stand-out performer of the World Cup in that position or one that would seem incredible years/decades earlier. That's just a small subsection of possible examples I guess (I could've moved to the French left back position even next though possibly, or the Dutch striker position which would also be relevant I think for Euro 2020 winners Italy for that matter as they had less choice and quality in that role than they and various other teams had in the past at certain moments I think, yet still won the tournament, but like I keep saying I'm not really wanting to maintain involvement in these arguments (but like I said it doesn't mean I think my views are nonsense).
Clearences are nor necessarily goal saving actions and not necessarily the right decision at the moment / parameter by which to rate a defender. That would be an eqvivalent of saying an attacker performed well because he registered the most amount of shots in a game. Its also heavily dependent on a defensive nature of a team and quality. Defenders from the worst teams will generate the most amount of clearences just because they are forced to defend all the time. The fact that Garay, who is by none highlighted as a defender with excellent wc performance, has averaged that many tells you the relevance of such stat. Yes. Argentina was a very defensive oriented team that took minimal risks offensively and generated limited amount of chances which puts into perspective that even tho, Messi managed to top major stats like dribbling and chance creation while directly being invovled in 5 out 8 goals Argentina scored (indirectlly invovled in additional 2 goals) in 7 games. Could have done more but thats is the context in which he did it. Robben scored less (0 ko goals). The same amount of assists. Less dribbles, chance created while playing for team that scored 15 goals in 7 games. Lost to argentina as well. Robben being considered as having a very good wc while Messi has disappointed is the exact point of Messi having ridiculous standards that he is judged on. The narrative was that this was Messis opportunity to become goat by rivalling Maradonas wc performance and that he didnt do that. It leaves a bitter taste in the mouth and that clouds the percpetion on Messis actual performance. Robben had no such narrative to live up to One more point on defending. Thats a team effort so its much harder to highlight one specific defender. Mascherano was great tho.