Who said that? Cavani was not as half good as he is now back then. Suarez was only good in group stage! PLZZZZZ Forlan scored 5goals+1ass/11goals of Uruguay = 55% (total goals) and his last 3goals were all important win/tie for Uruguay edging into the last 4 teams.
Orly? Suarez scored both goals in a 2-1 win in the round of 16. Beautiful goals too, no lucky deflection required. Also, like it or not, Suarez won them that match against Ghana. Then while he was suspended they lose easily to Holland. Only reason Forlan got more goals than Suarez is because he was their penalty taker. If you think Forlan had a better WC than Suarez, I don't know what to say. I guess 3rd-place matches are really important to you.
Forlan scored goals in the MOST important games QF, SF and 3/4 place OK? Forlan INDEED won the Goldenball at WC2010 like it or not! ( I thought Sneijder should have won it but Forlan was definitely #2 on my list there_)
He won because he's more likable than Suarez. Much more. Simple as that. Anyway this is O/T. Let it go...
Xavi was Spain's best player only in Euro2008. In the next two big tournaments it was Iniesta. Regardless of formations, both Xavi and Iniesta are AMs or at least offensive/attacking CMs. In 2008, Spain used a 4-1-3-2 formation: GK-Casillas DR-Ramos DL-Capdevilla DC-Puyol DC-Marchena DM-Senna MR-Silva/Iniesta MC-Xavi ML-Iniesta/Silva ST-Villa ST-Torres The exception was the final when Cesc played instead of the injured Villa. Since then, in 2010 and 2012, Spain used Xavi and Iniesta in more advanced roles since Del Bosque switched to 4-2-3-1 with Busquets and Alonso as double pivots. Cavani wasn't that good back then as much as he is now. So if it wasn't Forlan, it was Suarez - either way it is still a forward. That was for Uruguay's team. But who was the best player in the last WC in your opinion, since you think that Forlan wasn't even the best player on his team? Muller? Iniesta? Villa? Who?
Never mind, we are talking about different things. Again, I'm talking in general terms. Like when someone asks you "who is Barca's best player?", presumably you say Messi. Doesn't matter if Villa scored a hat-trick the weekend before, its still Messi. Bottom-line, its ridiculous to say 99.99% of the teams in the world have as their best player an attacker. Even if you call Xavi an attacker, fine, just pretend I said Germany instead.
So are you saying that Xavi is Spain's best player in general? I don't think that is the case. There is a difference between scoring a hat-trick in one game and being the best player over the course of a whole tournament. Messi is Barca's best player because every season he is their best performer. That's not the same as with Xavi for Spain. I don't think it's ridiculous at all, as it's probably true. Name how many defensive players have been their team's best player in the last 15-20 years. Cannavaro for Italy in 2006 is the only one I can think of, top of my head. Oh and Kahn for Germany in 2002.
What about Germany in 2010? Or Brazil 2010? Or Serbia? Greece? Switzerland? England? Do you know what 99.99% means? It's not 50/50....
yonko It is indeed ridiculous. Pirlo for Italy at the 2006 World Cup, not exactly an "attacker" considering he mostly plays deep in his own half, dictating the tempo and occasionally slipping the venomous pass. Same goes for Xavi. 99.99% is just unrealistic, due to obvious reasons, as you rightly claimed. Modric is the best player for his NT, is he an "attacker" or a "midfielder"? It wouldn't make sense to qualify any non-defender as an "attacker". The funny fact is, at the end of the day, that "attacking" players like Zidane or Messi, have not won the last two World Cups. 2006 World Cup was Italy, with Cannavaro and Pirlo as their best players. 2010 World Cup was Spain, with Iniesta and Xavi as their best players. Iniesta still is a "midfielder" at the end of the day. And Spain even went as far as playing without a striker in some games. Obviously I agree with you, I'm just elaborating on why.
Well, what about Germany in 2010? Who was their best player? Wasn't it Muller? What is he? And what about the other countries you named?
Players like Pirlo, Xavi, Iniesta and Modric are not defensive players. Yes, they are midfielders. But there are different types of midfielders. All three of them are playmakers, which means they are not defensive players. Indeed, they are attacking players. Makelele, for example, was also a midfielder, but he is a defensive midfielder, thus a defensive player. It's irrelevant if Zidane and Messi have not won the WC for their teams. The point is, they were the best players for their teams. I'll give you Cannavaro. I've already mentioned him as the exception though. And I'll even add Buffon in 2006. Same as Kahn for Germany in 2002. There are always exceptions. 99.99% is perhaps a little exaggeration, but the percentage is certainly around 90% on the grand scale.
that's right ... and well said Yonko .. We might not like to see such imbalance or favoritism but that's HOW FOOTBALL GAME are: play to score, and score to win ... = Attackers > Defenders
In top level, you don't play to score. You play to score more than you concede. In amateur park leisure footie sessions you might "play to score" and when you concede it's meh. One could go so far as saying that a goal prevented is a goal scored. Attackers = defenders (though I'm not saying it's surprising that attackers get more fame).
No it wasn't. You just mention him because he scored the most goals. By that reasoning, no wonder you think 90% of teams' best player is an attacker. Both Lahm and Schweinsteiger are better footballers, more skilled and more essential to Germany than 20-year old Mueller.
are you playing with yourself here??? so playing to SCORE (more than conceded) is not "to score"??? If opponent did NOT play to SCORE, how could your team CONCEded??? Think about that??? Maybe you should come up with the UCLfinal 04 as the worst ever game in history 0-0 tie???
Calm down lol. All I'm saying that "trying to score" is something else than "trying to score more than the opponent". In football, the goal difference matters more than the amount of goals you score: better to win 1-0 than to draw 5-5. Normally, you aim for the latter option (to score more than the opponent does). In this, attackers and defenders are equal, as the others make your goal tally bigger, the others make the opponent's goal tally smaller - both contributing to the goal difference. Not rocket science. There are of course situations in which you don't care that much about conceding, for example if there is 3 minutes left and you are losing 1-0. Then it's just "trying to score" more or less. If football was all about trying to score, you wouldn't need to put one dude to play as goalie, you could just make him an extra striker.
In general, Schweinsteiger and Lahm are better players than Muller and I like them both more as players. But in WC 2010, Muller performed better and became a star for Germany. It wasn't just his goals.
I kinda agree... but let me add somethingmore - WC2010 Germany team and Spain NT were very solid teams (just like Italy 2006) without a clear best individual player. They played well and won good as a WHOLE team (not by individualist a la Brazil 94-02, Italy90 or Argentina86 ... ) - So Muller (Germany) was like Villa (Spain) in a bit lesser skills, to have helped the team from group to QF. but they both disappeared in last two most important games. Hence Forlan won the prize over them. - Xavi was good overall, but ain't no best in any games, let along the whole tournament. Iniesta had 2 very good games - included the FINAL. - IF ...Netherland won that final game, then Sneijder would (more likely) win the goldenball
Related to this topic, there is a good article discussing the same thing. We can review and comments after their points http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...th-more-than-defenders-in-the-transfer-market In brief: 1- Record showed WINING % goes well with "Salary spending of clubs" - EPL in example: ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool were TOP (up to 2007 ) 2- Coincidence of the fact ATTACKERS got higher Salary in most teams (if not all) Media-grabbing mediocre strikers who can net 10 goals a season are most transferred far in excess of top-class defenders: Attackers: Fernando Torres was easily the most expensive player that year with his €58.4 million transfer. Forwards and attacking midfielders dominated the highest transfer fees that season. Darren Bent was sold to Aston Villa for €21.5 million, Nikola Zigic joined Birmingham City for €7.2 million, and Luis Suarez and Andy Carroll joined Liverpool to replace Torres for €26.5 million and €41.5 million respectively. James Milner, Yaya Toure, David Silva and Edin Dzeko and Mario Balotelli all joined Manchester City for a combined fee of almost €150 million. Defensive players: David Luiz, hardly the greatest advertisement for a top-class defender in 2011, actually turned out to be the most expensive defender in the EPL that season at €25 million. After that you really have to look hard to find further defensive transfers. Jean Beausejour's €4.8 million transfer from Club America to Birmingham is actually the fourth-highest defensive transfer of 2010-11 and the 25th highest overall. 3- Last and not least: (their point) and I agree: While many defensive players suffer from similar afflictions, they do not carry the weight and burden of victory on their shoulders like forwards do. Forwards must master this self-doubt and conquer it into submission because once it gains hold their career could be finished. Again, look at Torres' body-language since joining Chelsea. He is clearly a player struggling with self-doubt. Conquering one's fears may just be the greatest skill any footballer can possess—be they defenders or attackers. Top-class strikers learn to adapt to this fear from an early age. They must if they want to score goals. As any player knows there is nothing worse in football than breaking through only to be told by yourself that you won't score. The very best forwards have beaten this voice into submission. It is not a factor in their game. The next best players can curtail it from time to time but in the end it always comes back and manifests itself in inconsistency and a lack of goals.
That's something that I've been saying for a while. That's why Messi is the only one who stands out. That's because Spain and Germany met in the SF. Both teams were so well matched and the game was decided on set piece scored by....Puyol. In a way, Spain played a final before the real final if you know what I mean. Yeah, Xavi was good, but Iniesta and Villa were better. Perhaps....