As if it was somehow a shock that he would be good? We aren't talking about some unknown player that developed at Juve. We are talking about arguably the best regista in the world. Here is what Buffon had to say at the time: "When Andrea told me that he was joining us, the first thing I thought was: "God exists". A player of his level and ability, not to mention that he was free, I think it was the signing of the century!" That doesn't exactly sound like a washed up or inconsistent player, does it?
He obviously wasn't washed up. And I'm not arguing he was. I'm arguing that Milan clearly thought he was. Or at least thought he was on a downward path in his career such that they weren't willing to pay him tons and tons of money. Teams do this all the time. They let go of a player who is still good, because they think he's nearing the end of the road and don't want to be stuck with a huge contract for a player who has declined. The fact that Pirlo proceeded to have amongst his best years ever after leaving Milan indicates that Milan's bet was wrong. So of course they'd regret it. That doesn't mean that he wasn't inconsistent in his latter years at Milan. It's more a reflection of the fact that he was really good at Juventus.
So the fact that everyone concedes that Milan was clearly mistaken in their decision not to re-sign him helps the argument that Pirlo was inconsistent how?
Because there was no obvious German player to give it to. Germany didn't have a star player, or even a player who particularly stood out above their other players in that World Cup. When the World Cup doesn't produce an obvious star player to give the award to, then, sure, voters might give it to someone for their play outside the World Cup. That doesn't mean that Zidane getting the award wasn't about the World Cup. It clearly was. If you want more evidence that that Ballon D'or was about the World Cup, look at who got 2nd place. Davor Suker placed 2nd. This is a striker who scored 8 goals in 34 matches for his club in the 1998 calendar year. He was legitimately bad for his club. But he won the World Cup Golden Boot and his team did unexpectedly well in the World Cup, so he got 2nd. I really am right about this.
The fact that he was really good at Juventus doesn't mean that he had been inconsistent and not as good at Milan for a few years prior to that.
Ok, so now we are going to pick and choose when the World Cup was relevant so as to suit our argument? That's convenient.
You still didn't answer the question, i.e., how does the fact that everyone concedes that Milan was clearly mistaken in their decision not to re-sign Pirlo prove that he was inconsistent? All it shows was an error in Milan's judgment; not that Pirlo did poorly.
He wasn't inconsistent. They just didn't have money to keep him, just like they didn't have money to keep Kaka, Ibra, or Thiago Silva. What's so hard to understand?? Also, Pirlo wanted a change, too. As hard for me (as a former AC Milan fan) it is to accept and say this, I will still say it (although I did say it again in an earlier post) is that Pirlo said in his autobiographic book that he didn't really wanted to play for AC Milan, but Berlusconi didn't want to let him go to RM when he was offered the chance. So, it's not about his inconsistency (even you god Xavi wouldn't be thrown out the door for a few inconsistent matches for Barca, let alone a player of Pirlo caliber), but it's about the player's salary and also his wish to leave the club for another challenge. You just don't want to see the truth
It's obvious that's it's always relevant. It's just not enough to vault a player to win the award when the team that won the World Cup has no obvious stand out. Zidane was considered France's best player and, moreover, he scored 2 goals in the finals. That's not a year where the World Cup winning team has no obvious player to give the award to. Are you really trying to argue that the World Cup is not highly determinative of who gets the Ballon D'or??? Because that seems to be your argument. You're saying that the ratings I gave can't possibly be right because Zidane won the Ballon D'or in a year where his club rating wasn't very high. Well guess what? It wouldn't be the first time. Hell, Paolo Rossi won the 1982 Ballon D'or after only playing 17 matches for his club the entire calendar year (and only scoring 8 goals in those matches)! Fabio Cannavaro won the Ballon D'or quite clearly for the World Cup. You've admitted Zidane was bad for his club in the 2005-2006 season, and yet he was 5th in Ballon D'or voting in 2006, despite only playing half of a bad season for his club that calendar year. Davor Suker got 2nd place after scoring 8 goals in 34 matches for his club in 1998. You can plausibly argue that the World Cup isn't the ONLY thing that matters for the award in those years. But you can't argue that it's not easily the biggest factor. And if it's the biggest factor, then your argument of why the DBS Calcio ratings are wrong just doesn't work.
Oh my god. Okay. Pirlo was inconsistent for Milan in his last few years. When players decline due to age, they tend to get more and more inconsistent. So Milan looked at his inconsistency and thought he was on the decline. They decided not to give a big contract to a player who they figured was declining. When he went to Juventus, he showed that his inconsistency had not been part of an inexorable decline due to age, but rather just that he had a few sub-par seasons. So Milan was wrong, and they'd regret their decision. But nothing about that means that Pirlo wasn't inconsistent in his latter years at Milan. It just means that his inconsistency wasn't actually part of an irreversible age-related decline like Milan clearly thought it was.
Of course money was an issue. That's the point. When a 32 year old player has been putting in inconsistent performances, you start to wonder whether he is declining. After all, when great players decline, they still put in great performances sometimes. It just happens less and less. In essence, declines manifest themselves through inconsistency. So Milan thought he might be declining, and they did not want to spend tons of money to keep a player who might be on his last legs. If they had TONS of money, they probably would not have had to make that decision. But they had to because they didn't have the money to bet on Pirlo not declining. And when the player doesn't want to stay somewhere, he's not going to be willing to play for less money to stay there. So that wasn't an option for them either. So the factors you talk about are part of it too. But they don't negate the inconsistency narrative. And the DBS Calcio ratings demonstrate that I am right.
Again, you're very much reinforcing the opinion, or potential fact, that the Pirlo fanboys in this thread are about as thick as it gets. Pirlo did Busquets' job, and Xavi's role, and yet was never rated as highly as Xavi, despite the fact that unlike Xavi, Pirlo played at a club where the best rated player was KAKA!! for crying out loud??!! You just straight-righted your own face. Just saying...
So now you're changing your tune. Your prior statement was "the Ballon D'or is always about the World Cup in years where it is held." Now you are using words like "relevant" and "highly determinative." There is a clear distinction between the three. You are picking and choosing the importance of the World Cup to support your argument. Going back to the original point, the ratings that you posted mean little where the guy who wins an award that FIFA says is supposed to represent the best player in the world was given to a guy that was rated not even within the top five in his position per those ratings. Even assuming that the World Cup holds some degree of weight, there is a clear inconsistency such that the ratings are not reliable. Football is not baseball. We cannot get a clear picture of a player by looking at statistics. The eye test controls.
I stopped reading after this. You just don't get it. A player like Pirlo doesn't get thrown out the door because of a few bad performances (although I have seen no bad performance of Pirlo until 2-3 years ago). It's just that Milan didn't have the money to keep him, coupled with the player's wish to leave the club. I'm not sure how to put this in more simpler terms.
Again, another unsupported opinion. Does the fact that you say it over and over again make it any more true? Literally the only thing you point to to support your logic is Milan's conceded mistake in letting him go. You see the problem with your argument?
So you are completely ruling out that Milan's decision not to offer Pirlo an extension had anything to do with the fact that (1) they were cutting wages at the time and (2) teams typically let go of players the wrong side of 30 when they are out of contract? So by that logic can we assume that Xavi was inconsistent such that Barca decided not to offer him an extension? This whole argument revolving around Milan's decision not to offer him an extension is silly. You guys should really drop it.
It's funny how you guys can't tell when OBVIOUS HYPERBOLE was used to make a painfully self-explanatory point. Kinda completely defeats whatever purpose the discussion could've or should've had. Furthermore, the fact that Pirlo was never very consistent as a player, and particularly so in his last 3 seasons with Milan, was readily evident from simply watching the damn games. It comes as absolutely no surprise that the statistical analysis would strongly agree with what in fact is a foregone conclusion.
Say whatever you want buddy. I refuse to check and like, and agree with any stats, and with any opinion of so-called pros for 2 reasons: 1) I have eyes and brains of my own to see and judge things, so I don't need statisticians to tell me how good or bad a player is; 2) I happen to have watched every European game under the Sun that mattered in the 2000. Between 2000 and 2010 I was 20-30 years old, and as a guy who grew up watching and playing football, and as a guy coming from a good family that had enough money to keep him from working, and as a guy who is introvert most of the time, and lazy most of the time and which had plenty of time, and not many friends I had only one thing on my hand in the 2000s: TIME. And I spent an absolutely insane amount of it watching football (I would literally watch 10+15 games per week from all important leagues at that time (Premier League, Serie A, Bundesliga, and La Liga), and I would also watch european competitions, euro / wc qualifiers and friendlies and whatnot. I just had the time (and lack of friends) to do this, and I always liked Italian football (I can't explain why exactly, because Italian football nowadays is not what it used to be, but... oh well, some things you can't explain, you just like them or hate them). So, I liked Italian football above anything else (my favs have always been Milan, Juve, Roma.. in that order) and I never missed a single game of these clubs, and I also watched Barca, RM closely because the few friends I had were HUGE spanish / braizlian football fans (so, implicitly RM and Barca) and I couldn't stand spanish footall (I still can't stand it, it bores me to death), but I would watch those 2 biggies nevertheless so I could see their weak spots and make fun of my friends. Needless to say that when Barca and/or RM would meet Italians in the UCL (with a few exceptions) they would get destroyed by the amazing AC Milan and Juve. Those were my moments ... But anyway, I digress... The point I was trying to make is that I have seen enough (I think over 95% of the games that mattered) to be able to come with my own stats and opinions, so I don't need you, or any other so-called pro what to like, what to think, or what to believe about the football and players I grew up with and watched closely. I have my own stats and opinions and although I keep bashing you with them you refuse to agree with me. I don't care... in my own mind, and from what I witness during the 2000s I know for a fact that Pirlo was, is and will always be better than Xavi. By the way, until 2008 or so nobody really talked about the amazing (*cough*) xavi (although he's been with the club since 2000). Pep happened to make xavi good by turning him into the boring tiki-taka player that he is.
Huh? Yeah, teams often don't offer a new contract to players who are older than 30. Why is that? Because they think those players will decline soon. And Milan thought that about Pirlo. That's exactly what I'm saying! Also, what are you talking about regarding Xavi? He tried to retire after the 2013-2014 season and Barcelona convinced him to come back for one last season. It was quite the opposite of not being offered an extension. He was, in fact, begged to come back. And then he finally retired after 2014-2015. There was no not being offered an extension at all.
The above statements make no sense?? Right?? I mean, the guy above is saying that an opinion "remains unsupported" despite the fact that statistical studies do in fact reinforce said opinion. And the guy above insists on ignoring the fact that hindsight is the factor that makes his argument (on that particular issue) just downright laughable. I feel as though I'm discussing football with a 15 year old kid/kids, if I'm honest.
It's not an unsupported opinion. I just supported it with DBS Calcio ratings that strongly support my view. You are the one who has provided nothing but your own opinion that he wasn't inconsistent.
Yes, great players actually do get thrown out the door quite often when they're old and the team thinks they're declining. Notice your own compatriot just said "teams typically let go of players the wrong side of 30 when they are out of contract." You guys should get your argument straight.