I think arguing in favour of looking at players on 'low ELO' teams more sympathetically/favourably would be quite closely related (not totally - different eras can have different general rates of goals and suchlike of course also) to looking at Goal Contribution % data btw in preference to goals/assists raw data, or trophies won i.e "they couldn't be expected to do as well as the players on better teams" kind of argument. Arguing that players should win trophies or have huge tallies of goals/assists regardless of circumstances and level of teams played for and against etc, to be considered in GOAT category, would be more in line I think with suggesting that if a players' team ELO rating was too low then he should have done something about it (got the team better results basically) otherwise he shouldn't be placed in GOAT category, wouldn't it? (because he wasn't good enough to make his team the best by being so great individually that it almost didn't matter what team-mates he had?). Things change depending on who is on the 'stacked team' or playing in more open circumstances don't they? https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/g...e-best-players.2112404/page-225#post-43220067 So that should be looked at for club football too surely at least (in effect club ELO rating, money spent by clubs, numbers of players of a club in top 100 players in the world lists of journalists and stats compilers etc in theory too)? NOTE the movements up and down those tables with penalties being removed too (and Tropeiro also looked into whether players won the penalties they scored themselves as an additional factor), which can also apply to club football obviously (in this Intl game version for games against top teams suddenly Baggio and Zico's %s converge, heading towards the middle albeit with Zico still near the bottom of that list, and they end very close to each other in % terms once penalty goals were taken out for example - not to completely overlook the usefulness of exceptional penalty takers, even if obviously as happened in Baggio's case famously one can be missed at any given time and it can include at big moments).
NTs activity is too erratic by its nature to make ELO reliable. Indeed it is often very up and down. Either a figure of merit shows consistency and drift slowly, or it too related to citcumstances and chance to really make sense (unless you apply an a-posyeriori moving average)
Yeah Maradona fans keep always saying "as everyone knows he has been clearly one of top three players ever with Pele and Messi...", I have constantly replied them that in fact there is no clear evidence at all.
Yes, I understand what you mean, although it at least gives some guide (even though it is kind of obvious anyway) as to which national teams have been having the best results, and attempts to credit more for the matches vs other teams deemed (by their system) to be high level. The 'Team Goals per game' figures can also be indicative, although based only on goals for and not goals against or results. As you could see in those big games and in general too, Baggio and Zico's NT's 'team goals per game' numbers are higher in relation to Messi and C.Ronaldo's as compared to with club football (indicating Baggio was not so much on a lesser or low scoring side when playing for his country compared to them for their's, and of course Zico was playing for a free-scoring national team, not to say that he wasn't a significant part of that productivity and general positive influence on adhesion and quality of football etc, himself).
Re: Platini on those tables, I do think it's of some relevance that his position was most 'true midfielder' out of the players listed, as generally players playing closer to the goal would get more end product (although clearly in Euro 84 for example Platini had free reign and even instruction to play a very attacking and goal focused role at least, which he did very effectively obviously - I think Euro 84 isn't relevant for that particular table of Trachta because of ELO cut-off point anyway though is it? - I didn't study things very closely yet to be honest and am just making another quick reply now). I don't mean to say that Platini would be a better player if only he played as striker or something like that though of course. EDIT, yes here is the starting post for that Trachta analysis, and knockout stage in WC is included but not knockout stage in Euros (or CA) - Platini scored two hat-tricks in group stage as a big part of his Euros output though of course it can be added anyway. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/g...e-best-players.2112404/page-222#post-43213935
As I pointed a few weeks ago, I was surprised to see -looking at those sofascore heatmaps- that Platini's average position in EC84 was not at all more advanced than in the previous or the next WC. Looking in detail he was either 4th (vs Denmark, Belgium, Portugal, Spain) or 5th (Yugoslavia) most advanced French player on the field. Alain Giresse always played higher than him, surprisingly. This said, he had more shots per game in EC84 than in any other tournament he played (5.2 vs 4.4 in WC82/3.8 in WC86/1.7 in WC78). So saying he was more offensive is probably true. But what sets his EC84 apart is his insane goal-conversion (35%). Otherwise, I don't think his role was really different than before and after, and his position on the field was certainly not.
I think there was some variability game to game wasn't there too, but yeah maybe an extra initiative to get into attacking/scoring positions played some part (without staying in advanced positions all the time), even if it wasn't like that wasn't a regular part of his game in any case to an extent, but the attempt conversion (including diving header, free-kick etc - the Yugoslavia one with less dispute due to Arconoda's slip-up in the Final) also for sure obviously.
It's wrong to treat “Maradona being undisputedly in the big three” as if it’s some kind of objective football law. Rather, we should care about how much a player actually produced across his career and in different contexts. This is because “big three” status should be earned by both peak and sustained impact, not just by a romanticized narrative. Maradona is the main reason Maradona’s legacy is framed this way. He has that 1986 World Cup as a towering peak, and it was indeed special. But if you zoom out, his club career is far spottier than what you would expect from someone supposedly beyond dispute in the top three. He never won the European Cup, struggled to stay consistently fit, and had several seasons of minimal impact due to suspensions, injuries, or off-field issues. If you are claiming “undisputed big three,” you are essentially ignoring how many players (Pele, Puskás, Di Stéfano, Cristiano Ronaldo, Messi) had both peaks and long-term dominance. Let me illustrate this with an example. Let’s say you have two players: Player A and Player B. Both hit a legendary peak for a couple of years and elevate their teams to historic runs. But Player A backs that up with a decade of being the best or among the best in the world, winning major club trophies, dominating league after league, and sustaining ridiculous numbers. Player B doesn’t, because outside that peak, his output and consistency are far lower. By your logic, Player B is still undisputedly top three because of how spectacular that short peak looked. But that seems like a crazy conclusion. Player A is clearly doing more for his team, his clubs, and football history over the course of a career. Anyone in their right mind would rather have Player A’s body of work. The only way you wouldn’t prefer Player A is if you think that the only thing that matters in football history is a single peak tournament. But that is silly, and it completely ignores the immense value of career-long dominance. And that, in a nutshell, is how I think of Maradona compared to players like Pele, Ronaldo, or Messi. They produced at the same or even higher peaks while also giving you far more per season, per competition, per career. So why is Maradona “undisputed”? At best, he’s in the conversation, but calling it undisputed just dismisses all the other giants who not only reached legendary heights but sustained them. Let me put this another way. If I told you that you could have a player who gave you Maradona’s 1986 peak but also stacked up a decade of consistency like Messi or Ronaldo, you would take that every time, right?
There were a few variations here and there, but nothing big either. The two 'extremes' were the games vs Belgium (his deepest position on average) and vs Portugal (his most advanced position on average, but even then Giresse was slightly more advanced than him, and of course Six and Lacombe). I think the fact Platini was 100% fit in 1984 helped him to somewhat 'overperform' in the goalscoring department. At the opposite, the various physical issues he endured in WC82 and WC86 made him somewhat 'underperform' in those two events.
Maybe, but being nearly constantly at least a bit "bruised" was the norm for talented offensive players back then. Defenders were allowed to beat them with impunity.
—————————— Real Madrid insure Cristiano Ronaldo's legs for £90 million ———————————- That’s 11 fouls won per game in pre season friendlies before he played even one official game for Real Madrid ——————————— They will pretend this doesn’t exist aswell 408 - Cristiano Ronaldo has won the most fouls in the UEFA Champions League since 2003-04 (408), followed by Lionel Messi (371), Neymar (305), Sergio Busquets (225) and Andrés Iniesta (211). Clattered. #OptaJoe15 https://t.co/L30dM9bOud— OptaJoe (@OptaJoe) June 4, 2024 Most fouls won in a UCL final since data was collected in 2003/04:◉ 9 - Cristiano Ronaldo (2008)◎ 6 - Lionel Messi (2011)◎ 6 - Massimo Ambrosini (2007)◎ 6 - Diego Contento (2012)◎ 6 - David Villa (2014)◎ 6 - Toni Kroos (2017)◎ 6 - Neymar (2020)#UCLfinal— Squawka (@Squawka) June 10, 2023 The most fouled player in champions league history is the top scorer in champions league history Some other fragile breadsticks couldn’t sustain this type of punishment(retiring in their early 30s or playing 50% of the games for their clubs) If I have to start listing examples I will be here all day https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WNFnrosm5GQ&pp=ygUdQ3Jpc3RpYW5vIGZvdWwgcGVhY2UgY3VwIDIwMDk=
Those were more muscle/ligamentous injuries: a pubalgy in 1982 and a achilles tendonitis in 1986. he did relatively well in 1982 but he was really, really far from his physical optimum in 1986.
You can talk about clubs. Everyone knows that among the best players in history, Maradona had the weakest teams.
My reply was a general one, not specifically re: Maradona I should have added maybe (I guess from your post it hadn't been clear to me if you were relating it to Maradona or to general ELO ratings for various players' teams a per the Twitter post). On the fouls point this post is relevant I suppose (mainly the link to Vegan10s post contained in it though, re: Maradona specifically and Serie A 1986/87 in general), although it's not a topic I explored too widely (I know PL fouls stats went down quite a bit over time, and noticed some Figo games with very high numbers of fouls received but I mean I didn't try to look into it in a lot of detail which can be troublesome anyway outside of World Cups, to an extent - various game reports probably will have referred to fouls totals by teams etc I suppose though for example): https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/m...in-different-way.2123245/page-9#post-42153471 Someone replied to the tweet Carlito posted with this I saw: Hoje Tive Ca on X: "@OptaJoe It stands to reason that, the more a player has the ball in games, the higher the chance for him to be fouled They received fouls per game: CR7 - 2.23 Messi - 2.28 Neymar - 3.77 Busquets - 1.74 Iniesta - 1.62 CR7's and Neymar's stand out, for different reasons" / X
Just as i would say, repeating the same rubbish again n again don't make them true.Zico woulda shoulda and what ifs don't make sense.now for maradona his scoring for Argentina like many others ,depended upon different time spans and form.also upon the quality of team mates.one point is maradona didn't play any matches for his country in the. 82-85 period,close to 3 years.that would be one of his prime...age wise speaking. Argentina's domestic competition must have been fine till 1986.but then the period 87-90 I'm not sure,as Argentina nt along with maradona's goal scoring dropped alarmingly.they did not have to play the WC qualifiers being reigning champions.also they made very few changes to the side till italia 90.the side's total offensive game standard dropped sharply it was increasingly difficult for diego to score. If Argentine competition's quality were far weaker than a state league in Brazil, and Brazil serie a standard quite certainly far higher than carioca, naturally and also going by Zico scoring rates in them,,that makes brazil's football class of that time utterly phenomenal and totally out of the world.as much as they should have blown any team away from the sight which we don't find in reality.
Notable peaks include Cristiano winning an average of 4.3 fouls per game in the 2004/05 season and 4.2 fouls per game in 2007/08. In the Champions League Cristiano Ronaldo is 1st all time for goals Champions League all-time top scorers: Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Robert Lewandowski, Karim Benzema | UEFA Champions League | UEFA.com ————————- 2nd all time for assists(OPTA) Who Has the Most Champions League Assists? | Opta Analyst 1st all time going by wide rules(transfermarket) Messi, Ronaldo & Neymar included - The most assists in Champions League history | Transfermarkt ————————— 2nd all time for dribbles completed 3rd all time for chances created 📜 | #UCL HISTORICAL DATAMost key passes in the #UCL since 2003/04:🥇 350 – Lionel Messi🥈 333 – Toni Kroos🥉 279 – Cristiano RonaldoMost successful dribbles in the #UCL since 2003/04:🥇 687 – Lionel Messi🥈 435 – Cristiano Ronaldo🥉 363 – NeymarMessi Magic. 🪄 pic.twitter.com/S47NQEW9Aw— Sofascore Football (@SofascoreINT) September 6, 2024 ——————————- 1st all time for fouls won 408 - Cristiano Ronaldo has won the most fouls in the UEFA Champions League since 2003-04 (408), followed by Lionel Messi (371), Neymar (305), Sergio Busquets (225) and Andrés Iniesta (211). Clattered. #OptaJoe15 https://t.co/L30dM9bOud— OptaJoe (@OptaJoe) June 4, 2024 His body did not break down and he went the distance with KO goals in 3 different decades for 3 different teams.
The wouldas and shouldas are all from your side. Facts are that Zico on average has about 1.5 more goals per 90min than Maradona. Facts are that Zico in his first serie A season scored at a rate that Maradona never approached, and that his rate with NT is double than Diego's. Facts are that Diego' s rate was exceptional only in Argentina, while in all his many seasons in Spain and Italy was good or very good but never outstanding. It is you that is introducing all the unlikely and arbitrary and unprovable assumptions on strength of team mates and rivals that can change from top notch to very poor in just a couple of years depending on which case fits the narrative of the Maradona worshippers. Campeonato Carioca was surely better than Argentinian championship, pool of talents was larger, and selecao those years was surely the best NT of the world by a margin despite not winning WC 82, as much as Holland was the best in the mid seventies, indeed in his career Zico lost only 2(two) NT matches out of 71.
In each quote of you that one common lie.campeonato carioca was better than Argentina! national league.where is the proof?is it just like pele's paulista was the best league in the world?where Pele netted 470 goals in 410 odd games? Ah...Argentina team and players quality changes from very good to bad in couple of years to suit diego's agenda...nice,,and Argentina football gets poor from very good in couple of years as kempes and ardiles go away from home. Pls care to tell me part of which agenda is this?anything else than anti maradona brigade! Zico scored 48 times for Brazil,with 30 times in friendlies and 12 spotkicks.compare the scoring rate of zico's Brazil with maradona's Argentina in their whole nt careers.zico once beat diego's scoring in italy,,so did Paolo virdis or Pruzzo.
Finally you concede that, though both were wonderful players and surely among the best 10 ever, Pele was a GOAT-class goalscorer while Maradona was not.
Kudos on posting the link to that article. On the 2004/05 CL fouls rate, I know that it is comparing apples to oranges in respect of stages of career, and positions played, but it could be noted that when he had the same amount of fouls received per game as Cruyff Cruyff's end product was significantly more (without even getting into deeper data re: chances created), in addition to Cruyff having the significantly higher dribble success rate: Cristiano Ronaldo - Detailed stats | Transfermarkt Johan Cruyff - National team | Transfermarkt Adding a Maradona comparison, aptly I guess, given the thread title, even though over a higher amount of games played and in a league setting (not international club or country competition - nevertheless the 'toughest' league setting for goalscoring and with probably the best collection of players spread over all teams that any league had at that time) for that 1986/87 season where we have the data from Vegan10 showing a slightly higher rate of fouls received per game (Note that Transfermarkt indicates Maradona won one of the 3 penalties he scored too btw as an aside - maybe there is potential to see similar for other seasons, and if it's accurate info then an idea can begin to be got about how many of his penalty goals were for penalties awarded after fouls on himself) Diego Maradona - Detailed stats | Transfermarkt In Cruyff's case I said "without getting into chances created" and that's as far as I'm aware not been compiled and probably it's not possible for Maradona's whole 1986/87 Serie A season, but "without getting into pre-assists" would be apt because he was in double digits for that IIRC that season in Serie A within those 29 games, even if it seems fair to suggest it wasn't his top performing Serie A season individually. Obviously it's the case that every player will have peaks in any stat, but by definition if the average is a fair bit lower then in other seasons will be numbers less than the average (fouls received in this case), whereas for Maradona and Cruyff we don't have info pointing at these numbers being outliers (Maradona had more fouls received per game in 1986 World Cup is what we do know). I'm definitely not wanting to get into a further argument, but I thought these things were fair to explore, while giving the kudos for the OPTA assists link at the same time (and the Transfermarkt one alongside it is kind of useful for comparisons, seeing numbers of games at a glance etc).
Marco pacione in Serie A 1986/87 5.65 fouls won per 90 Marco Pacione - Stats 86/87 | Transfermarkt Giuseppe incocciati in Serie A 1986/87 5.21 fouls won per 90 Giuseppe Incocciati - Detailed stats | Transfermarkt Nicola berti in Serie A 1986/87 4.95 fouls won per 90 Nicola Berti - Detailed stats | Transfermarkt Diego Maradona in Serie A 1986/87 4.87 fouls won per 90 Diego Maradona - Stats 86/87 | Transfermarkt Gianluca Vialli in Serie A 1986/87 4.80 fouls won per 90 Gianluca Vialli - Stats 86/87 | Transfermarkt Roberto Donadoni in Serie A 1986/87 4.27 fouls won per 90 Roberto Donadoni - Stats 86/87 | Transfermarkt
I'll take your word for those at the moment rather than try to double check or verify any calculations myself, but certainly it's welcome/valuable to have more players foul stats calculated I think anyway (from what we have available). Mini-conclusion potentially: the fouls received numbers were pretty high in that league at that time, while Maradona wasn't a total outlier in receiving fouls, in that particular season at least (which the basic data kind of hints at, but yeah it's good to have per 90 mins numbers to refer to also). EDIT - It can be noted (I mentioned it before though on another thread at least) that the 'Gli Assist' data shown there on that same page too must be wide-rules and including some or all 'pre-assists', given the Maradona number (like I said he has a high number of pre-assists in Serie A that season, but the OPTA assists number would be much lower).
More chance of Pelé's Paulista League to be stronger than Carioca League and being actually compared to iother elite national leagues at that time. São Paulo state was younger, bigger, the league was deeper and teams had more money to shop domestically in a time where the talent pool in the country was bigger and with just few player outside of it (in fact a lot of players/stars in Paulista League at that time were also from other parts of the country with some South Americans in even). Carioca League in 80s wasn't as wealth, as deep as the 60s Paulista League and that time of 80s was more depleted than the 60s already. Rio-São Paulo the reunion of elite teams of both states was probably at least as strong as the Libertadores or European Cup overall if not more. Anyway, Pelé in his absolute prime (1961-1965) was scoring 1 gpg or over in any circumstance btw, be it in the Paulista League, Campeonato Brasileiro, Rio-São Paulo, Libertadores, Intercontinental or with the Brazilian NT.