The unpopular football opinion thread

[Guest firetotheworks]

Pele is the most overhyped player in history. 1000 goals in the pub leagues of Brazil where a manager like Kevin Keegan would be classed as boring and negative.

 

Maradona is the GOAT. Carried Napoli and Argentina to titles. he is of course a drug taking cheating arsehole which is why he doesn't get the accolades he deserves.

 

I remember making this same ignorant point years ago as well and being corrected on it. Tl;dr- The Brazilian league was the best in the world back then and when Pele's Santos came to Europe they wiped the floor with everyone.

[Dinho lad]

Pele is the most overhyped player in history. 1000 goals in the pub leagues of Brazil where a manager like Kevin Keegan would be classed as boring and negative.

 

Maradona is the GOAT. Carried Napoli and Argentina to titles. he is of course a drug taking cheating arsehole which is why he doesn't get the accolades he deserves.

 

Oh dear.

[Dinho lad]

Zidane, like many older players, probably benefits from most people not being able to watch every second of his career, like they do with Messi and Ronaldo.

 

Maybe he was sensational every week against Valladolid and Piacenza, but since he only won three league titles and one European trophy in ten years with Real Madrid and Juventus, I have my doubts. Consistency counts.

 

Did you do your research about the level of competition his clubs faced at the time?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I've never really understood why you would include honours when talking about who the best players are. That depends on their team and teammates. Just look at them and decide who you think is better at football.

[Dinho lad]

Yep, HBA won more honours; I know he's like a Goddess to some of his fanboys on here, but it clearly shows the fallacy of bringing up this argument.

 

 

 

[Guest firetotheworks]

I've never really understood why you would include honours when talking about who the best players are. That depends on their team and teammates. Just look at them and decide who you think is better at football.

 

Totally agree. It's a fair response to posts saying that a player transcends absolutely everything and runs games single-handedly though (HTT on Zidane). If that's true then the rewards are pretty unimpressive compared to the other greats.

[ToonArmy1892]

Pele is the most overhyped player in history.

 

77 goals in 92 games for Brazil

 

Winner in the quarters, hat trick in the semi's and 2 goals in the final of the 58 world cup when he was 17, proper overhyped.

[triggs]

Although Pele was clearly the best player of his era, I think its pretty pointless comparing him to current players considering how much the game has changed, same with Maradona really although obviously to a lesser extent

[triggs]

Neymar is going to end up with an absolutely obscene amount of caps and goals for Brazil if he doesn’t get injured. 59 in 94 and he’s only 26

[Kaizero]

Neymar is going to end up with an absolutely obscene amount of caps and goals for Brazil if he doesn’t get injured. 59 in 94 and he’s only 26

 

He's Brazilian, bound to have his career go bust in his early 30s for some reason.

[Disco]

I see he was touching up his kid at the presser today. Neynonce.

[Happinesstan]

Pele was the first person I saw playing keepy-up with an orange. Therefore he's the best ever.

[Fugazi]

Conclusive evidence

 

[Raconteur]

I've never really understood why you would include honours when talking about who the best players are. That depends on their team and teammates. Just look at them and decide who you think is better at football.

 

Totally agree. It's a fair response to posts saying that a player transcends absolutely everything and runs games single-handedly though (HTT on Zidane). If that's true then the rewards are pretty unimpressive compared to the other greats.

 

That ability to impose oneself on a game, to take charge and control it absolutely, is a trait of greatness, surely? Maradona and Zidane both benefit from this - and possibly why Xavi/Iniesta are not as praised, because their method isn't so much control but distribution and movement.

 

[Raconteur]

Thought this deserved some attention:

 

 

I can't say I know much about it but my gf's dad says the same about Garrincha and how he'd get more credit if Pele hadn't taken all the attention. 

 

 

I understood it to be nearly universally accepted that Garrincha was the better player, but drink and injury was as much a factor as Pele's rise (not to mention Garrincha's career was so short, and Pele's interminably long).

 

[Guest Howaythetoon]

I've never really understood why you would include honours when talking about who the best players are. That depends on their team and teammates. Just look at them and decide who you think is better at football.

 

Totally agree. It's a fair response to posts saying that a player transcends absolutely everything and runs games single-handedly though (HTT on Zidane). If that's true then the rewards are pretty unimpressive compared to the other greats.

 

That ability to impose oneself on a game, to take charge and control it absolutely, is a trait of greatness, surely? Maradona and Zidane both benefit from this - and possibly why Xavi/Iniesta are not as praised, because their method isn't so much control but distribution and movement.

 

 

And it’s that what sets them above others even if they don’t always put in consistent performances, win lots of trophies and have amazing goal stats.

 

By the way one player often not mentioned in debates like this is Roberto Baggio, had he not missed that penalty and won the WC with Italy, I think he’d have been mentioned in the same league as Zidane and co.

 

Been watching some stuff on Ronaldinho and Rivaldo lately and bloody hell, they were a joy to watch. Also watched some stuff on Cronaldo when he first started out and his first few years at Madrid, his pace was frightening and how he has changed his game has been nothing but amazing.

 

If we were to include everything and anything, Messi is undoubtedly going to be the best of all-time and likely never to be bettered.

 

Back to Pele, his greatness owes a lot to what he achieved internationally from the age of 17 and that he was so well rounded and so talented no-one had seen anything like that before and for a long time after.

 

Some players are just so good they belong to a category of greatness even the top players and those who have done great things individually and for their team can’t get into.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Although Pele was clearly the best player of his era, I think its pretty pointless comparing him to current players considering how much the game has changed, same with Maradona really although obviously to a lesser extent

 

Both could play in any era and do their thing at any level IMO.

 

What is interesting is I was watching some clips of Maradona vs Real Madrid for Barcelona and he was literaly assaulted and sometimes viciously so whenever he got on the ball. And he would just get back up or play woul he waved on. In those clips he would do things that made him look ordinary or just another player, but then he’d do something no-one else could and that’s why he was so great because no-one was a good when he played and there had not been many better before him and even since.

 

Today, we are quite lucky in that the standard is so high and that we get to see so many top players all over in many positions.

 

I do feel though that a lot of the ordinary players from back then were much better than a lot of the ordinary players of today, on the ball anyway.

 

Messi and Ronaldo have undoubtedly set the bar and right now it’s so high you can’t see anyone at current reaching it.

[BergenMagpie]

Always difficult to compare players from different eras. Back in the days you'd be looked upon as Messi if you could pull off the Cruyff-turn, which even a Steven Taylor on crutches could do today. However, these players were pioneers so its likely that they would go on to be equally influental today if they grew up in the new "football environment".

 

Also, how do people weigh a player's team and how many clubs the player's have performed well for when comparing players? If we do the Zidane vs Iniesta or Ronaldo vs Messi discussion, it should be clear that its been easier for Iniesta and Messi as they've been comfortable for many years in a team shaped by Pep (also having a stabile core in the team over the years), whilst Zidane and Ronaldo have done their thing during many club changes. Not to take anything away from the godlike skills of Iniesta/Messi.

[Guest firetotheworks]

I've never really understood why you would include honours when talking about who the best players are. That depends on their team and teammates. Just look at them and decide who you think is better at football.

 

Totally agree. It's a fair response to posts saying that a player transcends absolutely everything and runs games single-handedly though (HTT on Zidane). If that's true then the rewards are pretty unimpressive compared to the other greats.

 

That ability to impose oneself on a game, to take charge and control it absolutely, is a trait of greatness, surely? Maradona and Zidane both benefit from this - and possibly why Xavi/Iniesta are not as praised, because their method isn't so much control but distribution and movement.

 

 

It's a trait of greatness yeah. What I'm saying is, if you're eulogising about Zidane being some sort of all-seeing God on the field, then that being the case (which I don't think it was with the regularity that's being suggested), the fruits of his labour weren't all that impressive compared to other players considered as greats of the game. If you're a player that controls matches and is generally seen as one of the greatest of all time, then you would think there'd be more trophies as a result of that genius.

 

Re the Xavi/Iniesta thing, I personally can't think of a player who's ever controlled matches more regularly and with more dominance than Xavi, whatever the method.

[Astroblack]

tbh I always felt that the Xavi and Iniesta were boring players. Xavi was an excellent passer and Iniesta had that insane ability to maneuver out of tight spaces. But the things they did weren't all that exciting imo. And because of that, it's difficult for me to eulagize over them.

 

Just wanna say, they're amazing, incredible players. Two of the best midfielders I've ever seen, but they're just not my cup of tea.

 

All that stored-up jizz is eating away at your brain.

 

I rubbed one out in your honor, mate. Still sticking with it.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

I've never really understood why you would include honours when talking about who the best players are. That depends on their team and teammates. Just look at them and decide who you think is better at football.

 

Totally agree. It's a fair response to posts saying that a player transcends absolutely everything and runs games single-handedly though (HTT on Zidane). If that's true then the rewards are pretty unimpressive compared to the other greats.

 

That ability to impose oneself on a game, to take charge and control it absolutely, is a trait of greatness, surely? Maradona and Zidane both benefit from this - and possibly why Xavi/Iniesta are not as praised, because their method isn't so much control but distribution and movement.

 

 

It's a trait of greatness yeah. What I'm saying is, if you're eulogising about Zidane being some sort of all-seeing God on the field, then that being the case (which I don't think it was with the regularity that's being suggested), the fruits of his labour weren't all that impressive compared to other players considered as greats of the game. If you're a player that controls matches and is generally seen as one of the greatest of all time, then you would think there'd be more trophies as a result of that genius.

 

Re the Xavi/Iniesta thing, I personally can't think of a player who's ever controlled matches more regularly and with more dominance than Xavi, whatever the method.

 

You mean like a World Cup, a European Championship, the Champions League and league titles in Spain and Italy?

 

Xavi and Inesta did control matches, but it was through a system and way of playing that made them able to control a match rather than through their sheer ability more than anything.

 

I’m not saying they were not great players btw because they were, but in the same way Lampard was. And before you start I’m not saying Lampard was as good as them.

 

Zidane’s greateness was defined by his ability to impose his game to a level that wasn’t bound by tactics, systems, position etc. He could impose his game regardless.

 

Players like Zidane are so good and so far ahead of the rest they can do their thing anywhere on the pitch, against anyone, in a good team or a great team and even in a shit team. Obviously the better players around them the better they will perform and go onto achieve success because you can’t do it all on your own all of the time, the fact he could some of the time though made him stand out as better than the rest in the same way HBA did for us at times although obviously on a much smaller scale because he was that good.

[Guest firetotheworks]

I know what his honours are, the point is that they're not that impressive as a supposed God-like great of the game, compared to other players considered as greats of the game. Nowhere near.

 

I disagree with the rest as well obviously, as is tradition.

 

 

[Mole_Toonfan]

What KI means I think is he only won 1 CL, if he was around today he would be lambasted for it.

 

Hell Messi is roundly criticised everytime he doesn't win something, not saying it's right but in general star players are more scrutinised now than they were then.

 

When you look at Zidane's club career he wouldn't be remembered as fondly in this era with the same trophy haul because of the obsessive scrutiny that goes on.

 

 

[Astroblack]

He got to a ton of finals. Even with Bordeaux.

[ToonArmy1892]

A player like Xavi, because the main part of his game was control pass, control pass, it is not what alot of people watching are looking out for, it is almost boring for some people, they would rather watch someone dribbling past everyone etc, that is more flashy and eye catching

 

They watch Xavi and think that anyone can do what he is doing, as if constantly controlling and passing the ball, never giving it away is somehow easy, anyone who has played the game at any level knows that it is definatley not!

 

I suppose everyone likes watching different styles of play.

 

When i played, i was a passer, which is probably why i sympathise more with those type of players.

 

Don't get me wrong, i love watching Messi and Ronaldo, but not as much as a great passer like Xavi, Scholes, Pirlo.

 

I am sad that those 3 are finished tbh.