The Official SOCCER Thread 2015/2016

[DieselDaisy]

9 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

You're trying to encapsulate individual moments and use them as a set of balances against entire careers; Maradona could have played the World Cup a hundred times and not done it again. To say "why didn't Best drag NI to World Cup glory?" is just so unbelievably naive about sport as to be seen as a wum. It's really a follow on of your Freddie Flintoff crap; a few good matches/Tests and that is enough for you to define an entire career.

It rather is though, and I do not believe I'm the only one here. Most people do not look at dry stats determining the 'best'' so and so ''doing this particularly thing'' in a given sport. This is sport for the statisticians. This is sport for people who actually do not like sport.

Most people remember individual tournaments, competitions and tests - and individual moments within those aforementioned three. I remember what I was feeling when England reclaimed the Ashes in 2005, but I could not tell your Fred's batting average unless I pulled it up off cricinfo (which I'm not going to do). World Cups? I remember 1998 - that was the last truly great one. Don't ask me who placed third in that competition or who scored the most goals (probably Ronaldo or klose) because I don't know, nor care. It is the finals. The controversies (England v Argentina) etc that define the competition. Wilkinson's drop goal in 2003; those nail-biting Federer v Nadal finals in the mid naughties, or even Henman's three semi-final flops; Steve Davis vs Dennis Taylor; the Fight of the Century; The Rumble in the Jungle - these are the moments we remember. It is the people who step forward and seize the moment.

You discuss my naivety here yet Scotland qualified. You are in the last twenty or so if you have qualified. Already, the qualified are one of the best countries in the world at the sport of association football. And by your own admission, Scotland had a number of Scouse-affiliated geniuses in their ranks. Northern Ireland had arguably the most naturally gifted attacking footballer the British isles have ever produced - they could have at least qualified? I do not believe I am being that naive.

You reduce sport to something incredibly tedious and dull, devoid of romanticism.

[PappyTron]

18 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It rather is though, and I do not believe I'm the only one here. Most people do not look at dry stats determining the 'best'' so and so ''doing this particularly thing'' in a given sport. This is sport for the statisticians. This is sport for people who actually do not like sport.

Most people remember individual tournaments, competitions and tests - and individual moments within those aforementioned three. I remember what I was feeling when England reclaimed the Ashes in 2005, but I could not tell your Fred's batting average unless I pulled it up off cricinfo (which I'm not going to do). World Cups? I remember 1998 - that was the last truly great one. Don't ask me who placed third in that competition or who scored the most goals (probably Ronaldo or klose) because I don't know, nor care. It is the finals. The controversies (England v Argentina) etc that define the competition. Wilkinson's drop goal in 2003; those nail-biting Federer v Nadal finals in the mid naughties, or even Henman's three semi-final flops; Steve Davis vs Dennis Taylor; the Fight of the Century; The Rumble in the Jungle - these are the moments we remember. It is the people who step forward and seize the moment.

You discuss my naivety here yet Scotland qualified. You are in the last twenty or so if you have qualified. Already, the qualified are one of the best countries in the world at the sport of association football. And by your own admission, Scotland had a number of Scouse-affiliated geniuses in their ranks. Northern Ireland had arguably the most naturally gifted attacking footballer the British isles have ever produced - they could have at least qualified? I do not believe I am being that naive.

You reduce sport to something incredibly tedious and dull, devoid of romanticism.

It has nothing to do with stats though; you can view Messi and see his genius in front of your eyes. "Lots" of players have scored the number of goals that he has, or at a comparable ratio, but that is what reflects his genius, not encapsulates it; it is everything else that he does on the pitch that sets him apart.

Dennis Taylor vs Davis is a prime example. It may well be the most famous final in the sport's history, and one that will never be surpassed., but the winner of it is nothing special in the history of the sport. The moment of the event does not automatically make those involved in the moment ascendant. Just because Messi has never scored a winning goal in the World Cup does not make his skills or ranking in the sport lower than say Mario Goetze, who has scored a winning goal; all Goetze's goal does, on an individual basis, is secure his name to an event.

[DieselDaisy]

5 hours ago, PappyTron said:

It has nothing to do with stats though; you can view Messi and see his genius in front of your eyes. "Lots" of players have scored the number of goals that he has, or at a comparable ratio, but that is what reflects his genius, not encapsulates it; it is everything else that he does on the pitch that sets him apart.

Dennis Taylor vs Davis is a prime example. It may well be the most famous final in the sport's history, and one that will never be surpassed., but the winner of it is nothing special in the history of the sport. The moment of the event does not automatically make those involved in the moment ascendant. Just because Messi has never scored a winning goal in the World Cup does not make his skills or ranking in the sport lower than say Mario Goetze, who has scored a winning goal; all Goetze's goal does, on an individual basis, is secure his name to an event.

I'll put it this way to you. Messi, Best, Cruyff, Garrincha, C. Ronaldo et al. represent an elite group of attacking footballers, yet only two of those I've listed demonstrated their skills on the world's biggest footballing stage and entered that pantheon of sporting excellence reserved for the very greatest. The World Cup has to be this: it has to be the 'be all and end all' of excellence for this particular sport or that event would be a misnomer (I appreciate that World Cups only occasionally live up to this expectation).

I do not agree with you about Dennis Taylor. He obtained two ranking wins (1984 World Open and 1985 Championship), was runner in the 1979 Champion as well as acquiring seventeen non-ranking wins (e.g. The 1987 Masters). 

Edited April 19, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[PappyTron]

10 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I'll put it this way to you. Messi, Best, Cruyff, Garrincha, C. Ronaldo et al. represent an elite group of attacking footballers, yet only two of those I've listed demonstrated their skills on the world's biggest footballing stage and entered that pantheon of sporting excellence reserved for the very greatest. The World Cup has to be this: it has to be the 'be all and end all' of excellence for this particular sport or that event would be a misnomer (I appreciate that World Cups only occasionally live up to this expectation).

I do not agree with you about Dennis Taylor. He obtained two ranking wins (1984 World Open and 1985 Championship), was runner in the 1979 Champion as well as acquiring seventeen non-ranking wins (e.g. The 1987 Masters). 

How many players have obtained two or more ranking wins in snooker? The list is as long as a giant's cock.

I'll put it this way to you. Messi, Best, Cruyff, Garrincha, C. Ronaldo et al. represent an elite group of attacking footballers, yet only two of those I've listed demonstrated their skills on the world's biggest footballing stage and entered that pantheon of sporting excellence reserved for the very greatest.

By your very definition, Messi is not amongst the greatest footballers, which is an opinion that NOBODY aside from yourself shares. Given that you are firmly in the minority of one, compared to all of the other football fans in the world, do you not feel that you might be wrong?

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

How many players have obtained two or more ranking wins in snooker? The list is as long as a giant's cock.

 

 

By your very definition, Messi is not amongst the greatest footballers, which is an opinion that NOBODY aside from yourself shares. Given that you are firmly in the minority of one, compared to all of the other football fans in the world, do you not feel that you might be wrong?

Weird as I've heard football fans say exactly what I've said, about the need (for Messi) to impress on a massive international stage.

[PappyTron]

13 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Weird as I've heard football fans say exactly what I've said, about the need (for Messi) to impress on a massive international stage.

So, all of the awards and trophies, accolades etc are just ether, right? Find me a fan that believes that Messi not winning a World Cup prevents him from being amongst the greatest players who have ever played the game. Stating that Messi needs to win a World Cup is not the same as saying that without one he cannot be ranked.

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

So, all of the awards and trophies, accolades etc are just ether, right? Find me a fan that believes that Messi not winning a World Cup prevents him from being amongst the greatest players who have ever played the game. Stating that Messi needs to win a World Cup is not the same as saying that without one he cannot be ranked.

No, I have heard specifically people, journalists/football fans in the newspapers and on talksport, say things like, 'Messi needs to impress on the big stage to be considered akin to the Peles and Maradonas''. I specifically remember hearing that and similar things multiple times prior to the last two or so world cups.

Edited April 19, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[PappyTron]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

No, I have heard specifically people, journalists/football fans in the newspapers and on talksport, say things like, 'Messi needs to impress on the big stage to be considered akin to the Peles and Maradonas''. I specifically remember hearing that and similar things multiple times prior to the last two or so world cups.

Last two World Cups? So, EIGHT years ago! Do you know how much he has achieved since then? He is in a league of one; he is the magister magistrorum.

You think that Ian Botham is pretty good, right? How about Brian Lara, Jacques Kallis and Curtley Ambrose? Waqar? None of them have won a World Cup, so cannot be considered up there.

[DieselDaisy]

15 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Last two World Cups? So, EIGHT years ago! Do you know how much he has achieved since then? He is in a league of one; he is the magister magistrorum.

You think that Ian Botham is pretty good, right? How about Brian Lara, Jacques Kallis and Curtley Ambrose? Waqar? None of them have won a World Cup, so cannot be considered up there.

The last world cup was only 2014! I believe he had achieved a tremendous lot before that world cup including six Spanish leagues, two Spanish Copas and three Champions Leagues, i.e. eleven major titles. So what has he added since? One more of each effectively, a league title, a Copa and a Champions League, i.e. three more! Therefore 11/14 or 78% of his trophy success occurred prior to the last world cup in Brazil.

You are really scratching around here to continue this argument. I hasten to bet that if you read the sports journalism and listen to the radio and television prior to the next world cup, you will see the same sort of arguments,

''The one omission for Messi is that he has not performed at an international level; that is what separates him from the Peles. This is now his (last) chance to rectify that''

etc etc.

PS

Botham has not won a world cup either! It is a poor analogy as the cricket world cup does not hold the same importance for cricket, as what the football world cup does for football. England and Australia for instance judge their own excellence by Ashes triumphs. The Windies two '70s triumphs were merely nice little additions to the colossal ''blackwashes'' they inflicted on the likes of England in the test format. You also could argue Twenty20 is further squeezing the world cup (coincidentally I just read an article on how more successful the recent World T20 was when compared with the 2015 World Cup).

Edited April 19, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

21 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Last two World Cups? So, EIGHT years ago! Do you know how much he has achieved since then? He is in a league of one; he is the magister magistrorum.

You think that Ian Botham is pretty good, right? How about Brian Lara, Jacques Kallis and Curtley Ambrose? Waqar? None of them have won a World Cup, so cannot be considered up there.

THERES ONLY OOOOOOONE WAQAR YOUNIS! . King of the In-Swinging Yorker!

[PappyTron]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The last world cup was only 2014! I believe he had achieved a tremendous lot before that world cup including six Spanish leagues, two Spanish Copas and three Champions Leagues, i.e. eleven major titles. So what has he added since? One more of each effectively, a league title, a Copa and a Champions League, i.e. three more! Therefore 11/14 or 78% of his trophy success occurred prior to the last world cup in Brazil.

You are really scratching around here to continue this argument. I hasten to bet that if you read the sports journalism and listen to the radio and television prior to the next world cup, you will see the same sort of arguments,

''The one omission for Messi is that he has not performed at an international level; that is what separates him from the Peles. This is now his (last) chance to rectify that''

etc etc.

PS

Botham has not won a world cup either! It is a poor analogy as the cricket world cup does not hold the same importance for cricket, as what the football world cup does for football. England and Australia for instance judge their own excellence by Ashes triumphs. The Windies two '70s triumphs were merely nice little additions to the colossal ''blackwashes'' they inflicted on the likes of England in the test format. You also could argue Twenty20 is further squeezing the world cup (coincidentally I just read an article on how more successful the recent World T20 was when compared with the 2015 World Cup).

You did say "last two or so World Cups", so six years, not eight. The point is the same; do you know how much Messi has achieved in the last 6 years? More than most top players will ever achieve in their entire careers. All that winning a World Cup will bring for Messi is confirmation that he is by far and away the greatest player in the history of the sport, yet not winning one will not detract from his greatness because greatness is not the same as cups won. There is no scratching around being made; your assertion that some of the greatest players in the history of the sport are not great because they never played in, or haven't won, a World Cup is frankly ludicrous.

I am aware that Botham has not won a World Cup which is why I stated it. The analogy is apt; the cricket World Cup is still the pinnacle of the sport and is the one event that the world watches. Botham, Lara, Kallis, Waqar and Ambrose cannot be considered as greats because they have never won a World Cup: that is the criteria that you have placed at the feet of Messi and Best, et al.

 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, PappyTron said:

You did say "last two or so World Cups", so six years, not eight. The point is the same; do you know how much Messi has achieved in the last 6 years? More than most top players will ever achieve in their entire careers. All that winning a World Cup will bring for Messi is confirmation that he is by far and away the greatest player in the history of the sport, yet not winning one will not detract from his greatness because greatness is not the same as cups won. There is no scratching around being made; your assertion that some of the greatest players in the history of the sport are not great because they never played in, or haven't won, a World Cup is frankly ludicrous.

I am aware that Botham has not won a World Cup which is why I stated it. The analogy is apt; the cricket World Cup is still the pinnacle of the sport and is the one event that the world watches. Botham, Lara, Kallis, Waqar and Ambrose cannot be considered as greats because they have never won a World Cup: that is the criteria that you have placed at the feet of Messi and Best, et al.

 

You always have that omission. What unifies Pele, Maradona, Cruyff, Zidane? They all performed, not just for their clubs, but upon the international stage. Messi can never belong to that list until he does similar.

I disagree with your description that the ''cricket World Cup is...the pinnacle of the sport''. It certainly is the pinnacle of the Limited Overs International format, however tests are far more important to your Englishmen and Australians whereas it has (arguably) been eclipsed by the Twenty20 format on the sub-continent, and in the Caribbean nations.

[DieselDaisy]

I have the Toon on. Jesus, there is not many Englishmen in this game, is there? Aye Aye Tory; Membemba and a chap called (I kid you not) Cholera!

[PappyTron]

16 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You always have that omission. What unifies Pele, Maradona, Cruyff, Zidane? They all performed, not just for their clubs, but upon the international stage. Messi can never belong to that list until he does similar.

I disagree with your description that the ''cricket World Cup is...the pinnacle of the sport''. It certainly is the pinnacle of the Limited Overs International format, however tests are far more important to your Englishmen and Australians whereas it has (arguably) been eclipsed by the Twenty20 format on the sub-continent, and in the Caribbean nations.

Cryuff has never won the World Cup, so he is in the same boat as Messi. Pele was never even the main man on his WC winning teams, by the way.

The World Cup is the biggest stage in the cricket; it has the most participating nations, the widest coverage and the largest audiences (T20 may change this). Botham has never done anything special in any of them. Laxman has never even played in one. So, we have to drop them both, and Lara, and Kallis and Waqar, from the list of greats. Your criteria, not mine.

Edited April 19, 2016 by PappyTron

[moreblack]

20 hours ago, Len B'stard said:

I'd have to be a complete cunt (i'm a work in progress!) to claim he was shite, thats far from what I'm saying...but he werent a Pele or a Maradonna or a goofy Ronaldo or even an Henry.  Or even Cristiano or Messi.  Sport aint like art or films or whatever, excellence can be statistically proven and disproven in sport, thats kinda how it works, you win or you lose, you score or you dont.

In his era though, he was up there with the best. Who could touch him back then? it wasn't really the field of superstars at the level of today. Once the lifestyle and the stardom got to his head, he cut short his prime. I have to give Beckham credit for navigating that same minefield without crashing. 

Cristiano and Messi have certainly raised the bar numbers-wise, although we're reminded often of how one guy can't carry a whole team for a whole season. 

[Len Cnut]

Just now, moreblack said:

In his era though, he was up there with the best. Who could touch him back then? it wasn't really the field of superstars at the level of today. Once the lifestyle and the stardom got to his head, he cut short his prime. I have to give Beckham credit for navigating that same minefield without crashing. 

Cristiano and Messi have certainly raised the bar numbers-wise, although we're reminded often of how one guy can't carry a whole team for a whole season. 

As much as the old timers tend to hate this comment i think thats cuz the general standard of football has risen a great deal.  I actually really like Bestie, i hope none of this has come off as a measure of disrespect for the man, i really do like him...and thats hard for me to say about a United player, i liked his game, the boozing, the birds, the motors, the whole El Beatle thing, he was a really cool guy, i was just making a point about this whole Salford thing of that slogan which im gonna misquote im sure but it's something like 'Maradonna, brilliant, Pele, great, George?  Best.

[DieselDaisy]

Cruyff performed at the World Cup, a purveyor of 'total football'', reaching the final. It is ironic that everyone wanted to be Cruyff, not Beckenbauer; the brand of football played by him and others in that Dutch team are the overriding memory of that tournament. Pele was the young talisman of the '58 team, and the person who the 1970 team was built around; the thing is you had so much talent in those teams.

3 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

The World Cup is the biggest stage in the cricket; it has the most participating nations, the widest coverage and the largest audiences.

If ever true, true no longer,

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/996609.html

[Len Cnut]

 

[moreblack]

7 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

As much as the old timers tend to hate this comment i think thats cuz the general standard of football has risen a great deal.  I actually really like Bestie, i hope none of this has come off as a measure of disrespect for the man, i really do like him...and thats hard for me to say about a United player, i liked his game, the boozing, the birds, the motors, the whole El Beatle thing, he was a really cool guy, i was just making a point about this whole Salford thing of that slogan which im gonna misquote im sure but it's something like 'Maradonna, brilliant, Pele, great, George?  Best.

I think United fans took to him so much because he was the first of the players in the team who genuinely became a star worldwide. Hell, even Phil Lynott would reference him in songs. But there's a reason that statue is not just one guy. Those 3 were around at the same time in the same team and tore it up.

But part of it was the boozing star celebrity thing. They chant that "go on the piss with Georgie Best" song all these years later.

[DieselDaisy]

Yes, Best and after him Botham were the first two celebrity sportspersons. People who didn't know or like sport were interested in the gossip concerning the lives of these two enigmatic individuals. With Best he cropped up in the 1960s and was seen as exemplifying new working class (British, or Anglo-Irish if you will) self-confidence. What The Beatles were to music, and Michael Caine to cinema, George Best was to football.

The Man City manager looks like an old hippy. Where is Shola Ameobi? Does he not play for the toon now? He is like a Geordie black guy.

Edited April 19, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[PappyTron]

18 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Cruyff performed at the World Cup, a purveyor of 'total football'', reaching the final. It is ironic that everyone wanted to be Cruyff, not Beckenbauer; the brand of football played by him and others in that Dutch team are the overriding memory of that tournament. Pele was the young talisman of the '58 team, and the person who the 1970 team was built around; the thing is you had so much talent in those teams.

If ever true, true no longer,

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/996609.html

Messi performed at the last World Cup; he won the player of the tournament, just like Cryuff did.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, PappyTron said:

Messi performed at the last World Cup; he won the player of the tournament, just like Cryuff did.

A few half way decent goals but where were the dribbling skills and trickery?

[PappyTron]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

A few half way decent goals but where were the dribbling skills and trickery?

The trickery and dribbling were there to be seen, which is why he was voted the player of the tournament. Just like your friend Cruyff was. So, neither have a World Cup, both of them have been voted as the player of the tournament, yet in your mind Cruyff deserves to be mentioned as an all-time great, yet Messi does not despite them having won the same at World Cups and Messi destroying Cruyff in every other measure that you could make.

As for Pele, he basically sat out the 1962 World Cup and was not the star man for Brazil in 1958 (that would be Didi) or in 1970 (Jairzinho). If you ask a typical Brzilian in the street who is the greatest Brazilian footballer the most of them will not say Pele. You might hear Garrincha, Jairzinho, or Heleno, but most would not be saying Pele.

[SoulMonster]

52 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You always have that omission. What unifies Pele, Maradona, Cruyff, Zidane? They all performed, not just for their clubs, but upon the international stage. Messi can never belong to that list until he does similar.

Circular logic.

How many matches makes up a footballers career? 500? To be good you have to be good on average, not in a few matches or a few tournaments, but over time and in a league at a high level. Messi has been extremely good at a high level for a very long time, the fact that he hasn't "succeeded" in the World Cup (yet), which comprise a sub-set of only a few matches at slightly higher level than where he usually plays, doesn't really matter. It would be very arbitrary to evaulate a footballer based on 10-20 selected matches at the very top level and not the overall performance in hundreds of matches at almost that level.

[DieselDaisy]

10 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

The trickery and dribbling were there to be seen, which is why he was voted the player of the tournament. Just like your friend Cruyff was. So, neither have a World Cup, both of them have been voted as the player of the tournament, yet in your mind Cruyff deserves to be mentioned as an all-time great, yet Messi does not despite them having won the same at World Cups and Messi destroying Cruyff in every other measure that you could make.

As for Pele, he basically sat out the 1962 World Cup and was not the star man for Brazil in 1958 (that would be Didi) or in 1970 (Jairzinho). If you ask a typical Brzilian in the street who is the greatest Brazilian footballer the most of them will not say Pele. You might hear Garrincha, Jairzinho, or Heleno, but most would not be saying Pele.

Cruyff enthralled the world in 1974. Schoolkids could be seen in playgrounds emulating his shuffle. Messi was underwhelming in 2014, and the player of the tournament was a joke.

I know there is a great many Brazilians who argue that Garrincha was superior. 

Are you going to persist with this stupidity or can we just agree to disagree? I have my own opinions on this and I do not consider Messi as good as Pele or Maradona. Listen, Messi is a phenomenal (club) talent yet, for whatever reason, he has never been able to harnass that club form and apply it to his nation. Playing for your country should be the highest accolade unless you're one of them Shearer//Carragher ''club over country'' wankers. It should, if anything, raise your performance to its maximum potential. This has not happened with Messi, and that is why he cannot be talked of in the same circles as your Peles.

Heck, even (fat) Ronaldo and Klose have achieved a greatness which Messi has never experienced.

PS

Isn't this a debate in Argentina itself, how Messi is great for Barca yet shite for Argentina? There is no better proof as to what I say than that! The Argentineans actually believe he has been underwhelming for their country!

Edited April 19, 2016 by DieselDaisy