I’m not saying it definitely is but at the same time Why not? dribbling is not the be all and end all of a great performance according to sofascore Matthaus also outshone Diego maradona in back to back World Cup finals the final that he lost (1986)and the final that he won(1990) maradona was also either dribbling more(1986)or as much(1990)as matthaus in both of those World Cup finals anyways you’re making too much of the sofascore rating there is literally a 0.01 points difference(8.39 vs 8.40) They were both golden ball winners and there doesn’t seem to be much controversy if at all when it comes to their golden ball awards if the World Cup performance of lothar matthaus 1990 is slept on(underrated) than that isn’t the problem of lothar matthaus That is the problem of the modern day fan who thinks retaining the ball and dribbling into blind alleys while offering limited to no offensive threat as being something great great performance Lothar matthaus vs Yugoslavia 1990 Overrated player and overrated performance Hazard vs Brazil 2018 And yes Yugoslavia of that time can definitely be directly compared to Brazil 2018 (and in fact most Brazilian non World Cup winning teams)
I understand why Matthaus got a higher score. He participated in several goals and he played very well in the final (while Maradona was much lower in the final (in part because of Matthaus)) in addition to that while Maradona was offering more dribbles, Matthaus was offering MUCH more defensively and even in passes. It just seems like blasphemy for someone to say that a defensive midfielder played more than Maradona's untouchable performance in '86 which for many is the best performance by a football player in history
I lean towards this as being the greatest individual World Cup performance ever only black mark against him is maybe his wayward shooting at times He averaged I think around 11 shots per game His shot taking peaking here But then he did score 9 total goals and I’d argue a lot of those shots anyways were from very disadvantaged positions Those goalkeepers must’ve hated the sight of him. Defenders too(he was a dribbling menace )but goalkeepers especially they probably never had to move so much in their entire life
People like stories and use them to make sense of reality and create meaning. Maradona's 1986 WC perfomrance has many storytelling elements that make it compelling as a story, but in doing so, narrative starts diverging from reality of things. I mean, how does a blatant cheating for the 1st goal against England, gets called The hand of God. It happened in a game that ended 2-1 for Argentina so it had a direct impact on winner of the game. All of it is just deflected by calling it The hand of God - the power of stories. Not to mention that people still refer to Maradona as scoring 5 goals in 1986 WC, which is ridiculous. I guess, after all, Maradona did single-HANDEDLY won World Cup for Argentina. Rule of thumb is that when people start worshiping a player and start using adjectives like "untouchable," "the greatest," etc., it is usually the case of overblowing performance of the player due to storytelling elements of it. This is the cool aspect of football algorithms. Despite all the flaws and shortcomings, they are never swayed by outcome and storytelling. They remain consistent in applying the same criteria for every player even if this criteria is not perfect. So the question is, if Maradona's performance in 1986 WC is indeed so much better than everyone's else, why doesn't sofascore, for example, echoes this sentiment? It should tell you how much storytelling plays a role in creating any specific narrative. This is ever-present in football and yes, before you say it, Messi has been favored by storytelling at times as well.
I feel that it's going to be futile, yet let's try to talk about it Puns aside, Maradona didn't single-handedly won the Cup, that never happens with any player. Yet this is one of the real cases where a player made freaking Ode to football on every aspect. What Diego did in 86 was an incredible Cup for any player, since he was Maradona, he did it "a la Maradona". This would obviously increase the level of such perfomance and the appeal of it. In fact what it's really sad it's that lately everything about that Cup it's about the England game, while he was trully outstanding the whole Cup, there is no silly narrative there, it was just an off the charts Cup. PD: Sofascore? WTF...come on PD2: Mane's one in 62 and Platini's Euro 84 are other KO NT's Cups that also were increidble by them.
You dont get to say what is consensual narrative. Maradona and the word single-handedly are synonyms in the football world. Yeah, Maradona kicking the ball on the field in 1986 WC wasnt just an ordinary great performance, it was an ODE TO FOOTBALL... Woow, inspirational.. You hear that? That emotional zing? Yeah, mate. That is fairytale. "It is more than just.." "It means more than.." It is so ingrained into the fabric of performance people are unaware of it. And he wasn't "outstanding" the whole tournament. For example, he wasnt in the most important game of the tournament, the final.
I was just pointing the obvious, that no player wins anything alone. Just signaling that I'm not in that boat, no matter what narrative it's predominant. I (with emphasis in "I") regard that CUP as one of the best perfomances I ever witness, because of how he played. Never forgetting that it was in the context of a team playing as a team with many of them in great form helping him to have such level. I don't need any narrative of him doing anything alone to apreciate it as a very special one. Yet I've used an hiperbole with that ODE remark because his perfomance was that great, so fun and enjoyable for me to watch that I actually revisited from time to time, like watching again and old favorite movie. Honestly, mostly because I didn't read the prior posts from the one I quoted from you, what it's your idea? that we should put more emphasis on Sofascore's scores and came to a conclusion that he had just a good to very good Cup?...that it's all just a narrative driven fake tell wrote on thin air? "ordinary great"? (good clever term and effort there to demerit sthg can obviously be described as "plain extraordinary"). How can we possible not feel "emotional", or fall into an hiperbole when someone plays as good as him in that tournament, even leaving aside the extreme romanticism WCs still evoke (romanticism that I'm not that fond about when comes to an strict football sense and the weight people assign to them, I'm not in that boat either). At the end of the day, even if you are obviously making puns, isn't reducing an entire Cup perfomance to a goal with a hand, poiting that he wasn't extraordinary in the final, talking too much about the singlehandly narrative that escapes Maradona and it's mostly a by product of precisly such an outstanding torunament, while also making puns about Sofascore scores some sort of extreme bitter other side of the coin of what seems to bother you? Come on man, I'm not trolling, nor trying to be disrepectful nor win any silly internet battle or anything close to that. Do you really think it wasn't an extraordinary tournament perfomance that is precisly enhace because it was done by one of the most talented players ever in his best form. And that last aspect it's one of the main reasons of why it's held in such regard, because of how it was done and that is becaiuse of by whom it was done. The same stats, same results, done by other less talented player and less ludic than Diego (while being razor sharp focus and also many times doing taks out of his primarly role like defending) woudln't had produce the emotional reactions that produced and still produces to most of the people watching it, it's mere logic. So again what's the idea behind your complain? I have to think that you reddeem worse someone thinking that was one of the best perfomances ever or even the best (as subjective as it always would be) than thinking it was just "ordinary great" or not even that?. As annoying as extreme praise sometimes can get (and believe me, I'm with you in that), in this particular case it seems quite odd. Standing with sofascore and not let your own eyes do the job, being too mad with some excessive stupid singlehandly praise and simply not enjoy sthg trully fanatstic, even if we can end in some sort of hiperbole, looks like standing on the wrong side of this narrative. Sorry for the long post! (and my bad english).
Yeah, but I am not talking about your reasonable take on how it is impossible for one player to single-handedly win a team thropy and that any personal success in football is entirely dependent upon or at least is heavily facilitated by team's success and well.being. I am talking about how broader, predominant narrative about Maradona's 1986 WC performance or any instance of worshiping an individual effort in football influences the way performance is precieved - in a team-heavy sport. While doing so, I am also offering an explanation on how narrative can and does get out of hand in either positive or negative direction. The question is: Which comes first? The chicken or the egg? The performance or the story? Would you break the vase if I didn't mention it? . Would Maradona's performance be as highly-regarded if we changed elements of the story, but nothing about his performance? For example, if Argentina was trashed 4-1 in the final by Germany (Maradona assisting the only goal for Argentina as he did in reality), would it still be described as pinnacle of football? Most people will say yes - regardless of the team success, the perception of his performance in the world cup would remain the same, but those people are naive and completely oblivious to the influence of outcome bias and the whole list of other biases and elements of storytelling. It is naive to think that performance comes first and that then we craft story and narrative around it in a rational and logically consistent matter. We don't. That includes you, others and me. For example, If I were to tell you to check a young talented player and that I believe he is the greatest talent I have ever seen, assuming you trust my judgement, you have already created expectations and perception on this player. So whatever you see in a video I share, you will look at it from the perspective that this indeed might be the greatest talent ever and will predictably have much better opinion of the player than If I prepped you with calling him a decent talent. When I say that Maradona's performance in 1986 WC is a fairytale, I mean it. At this point (but was already back then), the performance is so polluted with opinions and storytelling elements that is devoid of reality. It is a myth. This is not to comment on how good the performance was, but to highlight a simple truth: whenever any event captures imagination of masses, a narrative becomes distorted to the point of having little resemblence to reality and then it becomes excruciatingly difficult to see the plain truth independent of the narrative. I realize this is a deep and heavy subject and I don't expect anyone to engage with the content of it, because questioning one's own judgement and perception this deeply is not that fun. It is much more fun to make a top 20 list of the greatest ever performances in WC, believe you are right and unbiased and live for another day. I have expressed my thoughts about football algorithms many times on the forum, what they get wrong and in what ways they are unreliable, but in short, no, I am not suggesting sofascore ratings can or should substitute our judgement. However, football algorithms are infinitely better at impartial, unbiased and consistent application of criteria than humans. It should not substitute, but inform the human judgement in particular ways.
Yugoslavia in 1990 was (often mentioned as) a dark horse and had a doubtful track record going into the World Cup. They had won none of the previous five matches, and none of the games against Spain, England, Brazil and Netherlands. The Elo rating was below 1900 and they ranked outside the top 10. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Yugoslavia_v_Netherlands_football_match Brazil in 2018 was one of the favourites. As they almost always are when a World Cup starts. They had a rating of 2155 and ranked #1 before the start of the tournament as well as before the Belgium game. So, no it is not comparable and you can also say Matthaus played practically a home match (as they did throughout the whole tournament except the semi final and final). Maradona his 1986 average rating is brought down by his Bulgaria and West Germany games (and actually not boosted by the phases when Matthaus didn't track him).
A team with prosinecki,savicevic,safet susic,stojkovic and pancev is really a dark horse? that Is something like the avengers cast https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ballon_d'Or Maybe they didn’t gel aswell at international level but the talent was undeniably there. Undeniably your downplaying of all things related to German football doesn’t interest me in the slightest. It’s boring
Observing Yugoslavia in 1990 was as a unit not remotely comparable to Brazil in 2018 is not downplaying. That they didn't gel well is precisely what matters here. Yes, they had some very gifted players but they are all creative and attacking players. Susic was 35 years old by then, Pancev didn't play, Prosinecki was on the bench, Savicevic played only 3 of the 5 matches and was subbed out early in all three games. The one remaining player in your list is Stojkovic and he had indeed a good tournament. The others didn't.
Come on man. What's so special about Hazard's performance? His 10/10 dribbles against Fagner and Fernandinho? It's not like he were dribbling Maicon and Casemiro
You might as well say he was dribbling against Thiago Silva, according to some pseudo-professors the best defender of the decade. Fernandinho was at that time a master of underhand tactics and tactical fouling... Thing is though that as a unit Brazil was quite strong and certainly stronger than Yugoslavia in 1990 with certain holes in their squad and players who didn't actually play.
Thiago Silva weren't dribbled past on this game. Fernandinho was dribbled 5 times in that game and has already harmed the team more than once in decisive games like this (see the own goal). Imagine thinking that Thiago Silva was better than Sérgio Ramos in the 10s lol He was a great defender but there were better ones this decade In general, I agree that the team was strong as a whole in 2018 and I even think it would have had more chances if the World Cup had been held in 2017. But I agree that Hazard's performance is overrated.
Any video like this is obviously harsh, but can it give some indication too that it's not ridiculous to think of Thiago Silva as better? Does Ramos get a lot of calls among 'greatest ever' defenders among young fans because of his goals record to some extent (moreso than general level, and defensive reliability)? Considering his red cards record too....
I do still think, whatever anyone thinks of Maradona (I might have made the single handedly joke myself a while back I seem to think, in relation to that specific goal - "scoring single handedly vs England" or something....though I could have just imagined it or never actually posted it lol!) and whatever anyone thinks of Sofascore's system overall, that this example of Maradona vs Bulgaria getting only 6.9 does show that sometimes the calculations will give seemingly a bit of an 'error' that needs some eye test correction as it were (even though to some extent the losses of possession and not quite making the most of some situations can be relevant and questioned - I remember previously that discussion on the forum was more along the lines of whether France Football giving him 4/6 was actually under-rating his performance though and whether 5/6 would be a better call...not whether a more average/low rating would be suitable - a Sofascore rating below 7 being more in the 3/6 to 4/6 range I guess in terms of equivalence): I guess it can also partly be to do with the fact that 'good' passes that just get intercepted before a team-mate gets to them are still failed passes according to the metrics and that kind of thing....
I think they were comparable defensively only. Sérgio Ramos was definitely better on air, but he was very dirty giving unnecessary entires several times (the reason for his yellows and red cards). Thiago Silva was better on the ground and was a cleaner defender. He had better anticipation and defensive positioning than Sérgio Ramos. But Sérgio Ramos has the entires in the box to finish and for me he was better on the ball too. Not counting leadership/organization of the defense making his teammates (Varane/Pepe) better. He were also more versatile since he could play as a RB also. Overall Sergio Ramos were a better player imo Edit: As you said it's harsh to post a video of a player's errors. It can be made also with thiago Silva and any other player. I think the best option is to watch videos of their successes to find out about their capabilities. The fact that you talk about younger generations does not apply here because Thiago Silva is from the same generation as Sérgio Ramos. We can compare their abilities as players (although as I said, Ramos were better overall imo) but in terms of greatness there is no comparison. Sérgio Ramos won 1 world cup, 2 euros and 4 Champions Leagues. He was a starter in all of them and one of the most important names in the defensive sector in almost all of them, except perhaps in the national team with Casillas and Puyol being more important in 08 and 10 maybe
I'm sure all those yellow cards and red cards cost Real Madrid several league titles. I don't think he was better on the ball than Thiago Silva, certainly not under pressure (Silva is/was statistically one of the best and most reliable around, together with people as Alaba and Van Dijk). Ramos became a great leader towards the end of his Real Madrid career but I don't think he was when playing next to Pepe (who was better positionally as well). I also don't think he was ever a world class full-back and center-back at the same time (i.e. that blend never existed), unlike figures as Thuram, Maldini, Alaba or Krol at certain phases in their career. Problem with Thiago Silva is that for large parts of his career (including his prime) he didn't play at the highest level and also didn't perform or advanced very far at the international level (club and country). Brazil in 2014 was a quite dirty team (until they played Germany...). So in the end I agree with the final verdict Ramos edges it, despite Silva having better longevity I think.
I tend to think 'better on the ball' only in terms of long passing, and yeah it's true 'blooper' type videos can be made for various players (including attacking legends mis-controlling balls and missing open goals etc) albeit I think the Ramos ones are a little indicative of him being more prone to mistakes and lapses than some other defenders (when I said do younger fans see him as one of the best largely because of his goals, overlooking defensive reliability I was deviating that's true as that wasn't meant to be on the Thiago Silva topic indeed). In terms of the key goals he scored I guess it's also a question of whether it's partly random and/or down to Real Madrid tactics (could another defender with the same instructions score the same goals) and things like that, while maybe to some extent the red cards could be compensated for by a stacked squad during the season (though Puck is suggesting that some league titles were lost still), but it's not a plus to be sent off so much and rely on fouls rather than legitimate defending (he could defend well I know too in general although several high level players did at times go past him quite easily...such as Thierry Henry, Ronaldinho etc, during his career). We don't know how Real Madrid would have done if they'd bought Thiago Silva early in the 2010s, and sold Ramos, I suppose. I think Puck made some fair points in his reply. I'll leave my input here now, as like I just said on another thread I should be concentrating on a task for IceBlood this week. It just came to mind when seeing your reply that in some respects and aspects indeed Thiago Silva was probably better and more assured as defender (and in some situations on the ball in defensive areas too I think...maybe not surprisingly for a Brazilian).
I absolutley get your point, yet there is a vital aspect here where I don't have any doubt. It's clear for me that the "narrative", the "fairytale" came after what he did, it doesn't exist such narrative if he didn't play in the WAY he did and for me such way certainly deserves such narrative, even if sometimes goes over the top. That at least for me is pretty clear, there is no Chicken or the Egg dilemma there. In any case entering in such rabbit hole of how of course would have affected if he won it or not, it's not necessary (even if of course it would certainly do, like at the same time his perfomance would certainly not receive a fair assesment either if he had lost the Cup). After all what I was talking about it's that Diego played in such a way that it was trully extraordinary/ remarkable, no matter what the "world" did it with it after in terms of story telling and such, so we deal with what actually happened. Since we talked about Sofascore, i'll use it to explain what I think about Diego's Cup. As useful as sofascore or whatever stats/ metric tool can be (they certainly are, even if you and me might not particulary agree of how they create their set of rules, they are at least clear about those) not only cannot "tell" the whole story, but actually in my view with Diego's WC86 it's actually one of those showcases where a perfomance goes way beyond what those metrics can tell us with their "objective narrative", ending perjudicating or not giving a proper idea of what the player actually did. Mostly because those does not show how a pass (or any particular play) was made, in what moment, under what circumstances and a large etc., as much as they'll classify any intervention under their set of rules (progressive pass or whatever). Those metrics can never measure the vital importance/difficulty of Messi's pass in the second goal against France, or the intelligence, timing, difficulty and beauty of Diego's execution in his assist to Burruchaga in the Final. In fact even not that hard to execute, Diego opening the ball in Valdano's goal in the final, in a very similar way was as vital as Messi's intervention in Di Maria's goal, yet in both cases Sofascore can't properly measure them, while at the same time Messi's one even as similar as it was in terms of changing the rhythm of the play and creating the ocassion, it's harder to execute than Diego's pass, lots of nunaces that obviously aren't Sofascore aim. Yet for me, all those nuances have a lot of weight to measure the calibre of a perfomance and I'm particulary mentioning those three plays, because they are not among their best plays for both in their respective WCs, yet crucial, great and not possible for Sofascore to give a proper "image". There is no metric that can show how even bizarre was the way Diego improvised and scored against Italy, the way he stroke the ball in Belgium's goal and a large etc. That stuff it's romanticized? of course, but at the end of the day, deserves to be. Anyway, just giving my opinion man, I also like to add that there is much more silly and annoying stuff surrounding the story telling around the hand of God and its side effects, or people pushing their agenda and favorite player in those silly goat discussions using the "he played alone and such silly stuff" than merely witnessing and apreciatte as a whole a WC perfomance that was so extraordinary, no matter what some fellas can later do with it in terms of narrative.
Nope, it deserves to be deconstructed. An incredibly tired Belgium had several offside decisions going against them and missed some important players (including the defensive midfielder, later included in FIFA 100). Not to mention the location and conditions were favorable to the latin viveza fraud. A tournament with increased referee protection for the designated star players. Grondona and Havelange assigned a Brazilian referee for the final and the rest is history. All the major achievements of Maradona - be it the league titles, UEFA Cup or 1990WC final run - are tied to handballs. Literally all of these achievements. Likewise, Messi played in 2022 against an ill Netherlands team and miraculously also a sick French team (and the third team about which reports existed, Brazil had illnesses too, another potential opponent if they had not crashed out against Croatia). All because of the airconditioning, huh? Alas, Infantino and the Qatar organizers were already saying before the tournament Messi had to win the World Cup. The quotes don't lie. I am glad Van Gaal has shared the truth on this. Argentina, a perennial part of the FIFA ExCom, and it shows from time to time. With the clickbait, connections and demographics driven media turning their head the other way. There is indeed no metric that can show this (or how West Germany had special privileges from FIFA in 1966 and 1974, as disclosed and proven many decades later - for that matter).