Yes, the one-footed player with 3 types of dribbles, 3 types of shots, 2 types of long ball plays, no right-side wing play (driving down right wing), no crossing play, no header play, no defensive work is the most complete player in history
What I reeally wonder about, more than anything else in life is how often do you argue with your imaginary straw man? Weekly or is it a daily occurance?
I've laid out the constant 1-2's, the dribbles along the box shooting near or far post, the diagonal passes and the trailing runs in the box for the pass from the wings. And Messi is on the ball 100 times a game in deep positions where he can attempt the same build-ups. Messi is as routine as it gets with him making carbon copy plays every week, every season. He has become a character unto himself.
Your spelling and grammar are catastrophic. In any case, the subject of this thread is "most complete player of all time"
I'd say at least twice a day and even more when joined by his other three braindead comrades having their now "classic" collective coping sessions on display for everyone in this forum, great for daily fun. We should open a gofundme campaign for these poor souls for their daily sacrifice, sweat and tears, lmaaooo...
1) Why I emphasize the phrase "in conjunction with his dribbling", and whether progressive carries are things Lionel Messi clearly stands out above the rest also. Because that's the element that sets Lionel Messi apart in this hypothetical debate about the potential threat provided as a player receives the ball at his feet X number of metres away from the goal. Including those I have bothered to watch back in history. Just raw overall effectiveness, not the artistic appreciation of the unreplicable aesthetic with which he does those actions. If we divide the discussion into three categories: A) Raw goal-threat whilst in motion/on the dribble in volumes. B) Raw take-on ability in volumes. C) Raw progressive carries in volumes. We can further divide into static scenarios and transitional phases, but I'll just stick to three for now. The difference between Lionel Messi is at its greatest for category A. For me at least, the numbers are hard to find. The fact that category A is of the highest value is a separate issue, whether Lionel Messi has the capacity to stand-out as much in terms of other categories. I previously said given a ball at his feet X metres away from goal, the odds of Lionel Messi doing something with it is higher than Cristiano Ronaldo, despite Cristiano Ronaldo having a greater effective strike distance. This is due to the marked difference in terms of category A, there are also other factors, but I feel that's the main distinction. The other categories are also Lionel Messi favoured versus most players, but it gets increasingly easier to match it as you go down the list. The hierarchy of what category is the most vital in terms of a player's immediate goal-threat on-the-ball, is a separate one from what actions Lionel Messi was actually able to distinguish himself from the rest. I cannot emphasize that enough. We can measure all things. Interpretation of it, is another. For example, Eden Hazard takes too much time to recover from a take-on to have enough composure to strike the ball, compared to Lionel Messi. However it is possible that Eden Hazard gets way closer as a potent progressive carry of the ball. Especially because he had more stamina. This is something I remember seeing, in terms of division of labour, with the arrival of Neymar at Barcelona also. Neymar for me was carrying a lot of the ball in deeper areas of the pitch, with more regularity, and often for longer distances. I haven't got the numbers to back it up though. As a progressive carry, there are multitudes of previous statistics that suggest players from history, and even his contemporaries were able to surpass even a young Lionel Messi in terms of progressive carrying. Lionel Messi, for me, isn't a constant 90 minute carrier of the ball across all positions on the field, including even deeper areas of the pitch, without ever dropping in stamina, even during his younger years. That's maybe a closer description of somebody like a younger Diego Maradona, than a young Lionel Messi, neither of whom made the list below. Most progressive carries in a single World Cup since 1966 (Opta) : Jairzinho 1970 : 𝟖𝟏 (13.8 p90)Cruyff 1974 : 𝟕𝟑 (10.4 p90)Prohaska 1978 : 𝟔𝟐 (10.3 p90)Robben 2014 : 𝟔𝟐 (8.1 p90)Charlton 1966 : 𝟓𝟔 (8.9 p90) pic.twitter.com/CyfCsP7RO2— Gasipo (@gasipo_opinions) November 20, 2021 It might sound silly to you, but it is merely a statement of what I think is the reality of the situation. We can add further context and meaning, but I notice a scornful undertone for me merely mentioning such ideas. I don't appreciate that. 2) Real-time response rate to defenders. This is just another thing that Lionel Messi is amazing at, but I'm not so sure it as pivotal to the conversation. Another player I think has a great real-time response rate, in terms of adjusting his footwork and decision-making in real-time in accordance to the actions of the defenders around him, is Franck Ribery, but he is not necessarily the greatest goal-threat from X metres away. Maybe I'm mistaken and he actually was, but I'll need more time to review the type and number of goals he scored. 3) Workhorse nature of some players. This is somewhat off-topic, but I feel like addressing it, because there's a clear divide in general philosophy here. The mental exercise of measuring the potential goal-threat of a player when placing him on a random location on the pitch, with the ball at his feet, is something that is going to be incredibly in favour of Lionel Messi. That's fine, but to then add further context by saying that's makes Lionel Messi even more amazing is something I don't agree with. Football game lasts for 90 minutes, players have to press, and cover a lot of areas off-the-ball to provide numerical advantages and shapes. These are factors that should be overlooked so easily. If Lionel Messi was beyond superlative in many areas, he was also deficient in many. The fact that his team successfully masked those deficiencies, doesn't mean these qualities are to be desired. Or that succeeding via this manner, is the lense with which we should judge all players in terms of their pragmatic overall effectiveness. As an example that I might be misremembering, I was heavily impressed by Sadio Mane's performance versus Barcelona at Anfield. It was not due to his artistry with the ball, or the subtle minutia with which he differentiated himself from other mere world-class players in terms of aesthetics. Despite not scoring, I personally think the dude severely outclassed Lionel Messi for that one match. Now, if you ask me if he had the personal fitness levels to sustain that sort of intensity, athleticism and all-around involvement for years-on-end, probably not. Praising Lionel Messi for walking and grimacing as his team collapsed around him, and shifting responsibility to his teammates for the "monotone" work, because he still had a much greater efficiency of "threat-created-per-calorie-wasted" than Sadio Mane just sounds wrong. A player can impact the game in whatever manner he wishes. A spectator can appreciate the game in whatever manner he wishes. However, I thought we were involved in the process trying to quantify things instead of turning things into a therapy session about revealing what kind of football we admire.
What do you think an average progressive carry as seen in stats looks like? What does it accomplish on the field? For example, average Robben carry in 2014 WC. What it looks like?
I don't understand how a high usage player whose game is based on repetition and high volume is "the most effective" player. Maybe "most impactful"? Definitely not a good representation of efficiency.
High efficiency doesnt mean low volume, it means: high output relative to volume. That is the whole point of Messi competing as the best dribbler, creator and scorer at the same time, because of efficiency. And Messi is not that much higher in volume of touches than comparable players. This is letmepost point as well.. Neymar had vreater volume of touches when played with Messi at Barca
This is baggage from another thread. Please stop approaching the issue with a police-like mindset that every topic that Lionel Messi does not come out looking like a god, is an insult to footballing discussion and must be tackled aggressively. Of course being a good goal-threat after receiving the ball, is a totally separate concept from your ability to contribute in attacking sequences by progressive carries. I'll try to move the topic away from Lionel Messi, with players I'm more familiar with, to see if you agree with me for the arguments made below. What Jack Grealish will bring to Manchester City, Guardiola’s plan for him as a No 8 and where he can improve - The Athletic (nytimes.com) Jack Grealish, Andrew Robertson, Allan Saint-Maximin: Who are the Premier League's best dribblers? - BBC Sport There is no question in my mind that around 2020 or so, Jack Grealish was superior at progressing with the ball than Heung-Min Son. This is beyond questioning. Who was more likely to score being given the ball at a far away spot on the field, is another issue. As you see from the table below, Jack Grealish is nowhere to be seen as a goal-scoring threat whilst he is carrying the ball. Why do we have to pretend that excellence at one of these crafts, guarantees excellence in another? Or that being involved in numerous attacking sequences through progressive carries is somehow a trait that should be entirely ignored? For this particular topic, it may not be that relevant, but progressive carries are something I'd like to discuss in the future without you breathing down my neck.
It was a simple question... progressing the ball is important, but there is often a disconnect between what is valuable in reality and what statistician actually measure and are able to quantify. It was a simple question
Stats Per90 in Whoscored Database Non-Penalty Goals Shots on Target Acc Passes Key Passes Dribbles Defense (Tackles+Interceptions+Blocked shots) My Rating: The highest value in each category is set to 10, then the rating is the average
Great work. I think a weighted average would be even better. Maybe something like: NPG x 1.0 Shots on target x 0.1 Accurate passes x 0.4 Key passes x 0.9 Dribbles x 0.7 Defense x 1.0
If something I will totally retire the Shots on Target. The rest seems to be OK, dribbles have a positive correlation with progressive carries which is very underrated (also number of dribbles shows positive correlation with the team results), also accurate passes shows the player contribution to their team play which is also positive (you could expect the best player to be the player with a high number of touches), defense could show some off-the-ball atributes and work rate etc. Seems OK to me. I mean it is not supposed to not shows the most complete player in terms of attributes per se, but it shows the most complete role which is the actual output in the average match.
Isn't the personalized rating forced in such a manner, that an elite dribbler will always come out on top versus a traditional striker like Erling Haaland? If the calculations goes as follows: (Actions per 90 minutes / Actions per 90 minutes of the highest ranked player of said action) x 10 -> Average value of the six figures gained by this method Wouldn't players such as Adama Traore come out with quite respectable scores that Erling Haaland would struggle to overcome even if he became even more of an elite goal-scorer? We already have weighted average ratings of actions with WhoScored, and it is already biased towards those with massive dribble volumes such as Adama Traore. There does not seem to be a need to weigh it even further in favour of dribbling talents.