The Greatest Ever English Footballer!!!

reply to post by Freeborn


So you didn't say this?

You however are the font of all knowledge football and have never made an error of judgement.

And yes, the english press IS xenophobic - the way foreign players and managers are treated here sometimes by the press is a disgrace.

Yours wasn't an "error of judgement" it was a lack of knowledge.

There are plenty of players I'd put ahead of Barnes, but regardless of what he did for england (which I couldn't care less about) he is one of the most skillfull, athletic, powerfull and gracefull players who has played for england.
I'd put him right up there as one of the best english wingers of all time, miles ahead of his contempories, particularly the hugely over rated waddle or the slow, one dimensional beckham.

Gazza the best english player?
What a joke - not even close.
Maybe if he hadn't self destructed we could say different, but as temperament makes a player as much as his skill level, it can't be overlooked.

reply to post by budski


You just can't see your own arrogant, conceited and supercilious attitude can you.

A simple normal, everyday discussion becomes a personal battle because someone has the temerity to disagree with or question you.

I offer an opinion, you state you know.

You assume the opinion I have is because of undue influence of the 'xenophobic' MSM, (the very same MSM who have done nothing but pour plaudits on the likes of Thiery Henry, Denis Bergkamp, Eric Cantona, Giangranco Zola etc over the years!) and infer that I am incapable of coming to an opinion based on my own independant thought process.

You also imply that your opinion is more qualified than mine because 'suffice to say I have forgotten more about football than you will ever know, as has been proven time and time again.'

Proven?
When?

It's football, it's opinions.
You think John Barnes was one of England's greatest player's, I don't - so what, pretty much the end of it in my book.

If there is some other root cause for your aggressive nature and condescending attitude towards me at least have the balls to come out with it!

ETA.
I never mentioned anything about Waddle or Beckham and out press treat EVERYONE appalling regardless of nationality.

reply to post by Freeborn


It's not arrogance, it's knowledge.

People without knowledge always hide behind "it's all about opinions"

It's as simple as that.

I get so irked by people who think england is the be all and end all of football, when in reality we don't have the players - but still people assume that all our players are great or that we can win the WC - it's the same every time we manage to qualify for a tourney.

But here's the facts - english fans think that unless you are knocking an opponent into the stands, hitting shots from 30 yards or sliding into a tackle from 10 yards away a player is no good.
The oppositie is true, as WC winners keep showing, football is a game of guile, strategy, grace and innate intelligence - which very few english players have ever had, and it's also why you and others of your ilk wouldn't be able to recognise class if it came up and took a dump on your head.

Little englanders - thankfully a dying breed.

Originally posted by budski


It's not arrogance, it's knowledge.

People without knowledge always hide behind "it's all about opinions"

Complete and utter bollocks.
Of course it's about opinions.

Who was a better player, Maradonna or Pele?
Opinion, that's all it can be.

You call it knowledge because you can not accept anyone else has the right to an opinion unless it's in agreement with your's.
You scream 'I'm right' because YOU know and so everyone else is wrong.

Come on then, prove it.
You said you have proven me wrong time and time again.
I asked you when and am asking you again, when?

You see I've never thought of a discussion or exchange of views on football as a competition, I simply recognise it for what it is - a bit of craic.

I get so irked by people who think england is the be all and end all of football,

So you assume that I think that with no evidence at all or is it just that in the past I enjoyed watching England play football and you in your arrogance choose to generalise and pigeon hole everyone who does that as being incapable of being able to see beyond 'Ingerland'.

when in reality we don't have the players - but still people assume that all our players are great or that we can win the WC - it's the same every time we manage to qualify for a tourney.

I agree with you.

But here's the facts - english fans think that unless you are knocking an opponent into the stands, hitting shots from 30 yards or sliding into a tackle from 10 yards away a player is no good.

Another gross generalisation and a massive insult to lots of genuine football fans.
But you don't care because you know best and everyone else is wrong.

The oppositie is true, as WC winners keep showing, football is a game of guile, strategy, grace and innate intelligence - which very few english players have ever had,

Again I agree.

and it's also why you and others of your ilk wouldn't be able to recognise class if it came up and took a dump on your head.

And just what is my 'ilk'?

Quite amazing that you can determine all this just because I don't rate John Barnes as highly as you.
Or again, is there something else fuelling these personal attacks?

Little englanders - thankfully a dying breed.

What constitutes a 'Little englander' and what makes you think I am one?

reply to post by Freeborn


Ah, there you see, you have shown your ignorance yet again.

In case you were not aware of this fact, football is a quantifiable, measurable sport, where opinion is for those who truly know nothing - but I'll leave you and the others of your ilk to wallow in your ignorance.

reply to post by budski


And still in your arrogance you are unable or unwilling to offer anything to support your statements.

How and when have you proven me wrong?

And what is my ilk?

You offer nothing more than your opinion, the same as I, and are no more qualified than I.

The only things you have proven are the size of your ego and the narrowness of your mind.

You must be a barrell of laughs and great company watching 'the match' in the pub.
Passion I'm all for, pompous disdain is another thing.

reply to post by Freeborn


reply to post by budski


The only way to settle this is a penalty shootout. You each get 5 kicks while the other is the goalie.
Game on!

reply to post by tooo many pills



I think that would be an enjoyable and light hearted settlement to a regrettably far too acrimonious dispute.

reply to post by Freeborn


Yes - my apologies.

BUT, there is a research team that is currently in the process of using computer techniques to "map" and analyse performance in old matches, in much the same way that prozone is used as a quantitative tool by coaching staff at modern clubs, using set criteria.

I appreciate that statistical analysis is not the be-all and end-all, but players will all be judged using set parameters of performance from as many games as possible, and from that a definitive set of scores will eventually be produced.

However, striker will not be judged solely on goals, but on a host of other criteria as well, such as speed, acceleration, positional play, passing, where goals are scored from, dribbling etc etc.

Criteria for midfielders and defenders will also be slightly different, and results will be "weighted" according to position - for instance a striker would not be expected to make as many tackles as a defender.

The positions of the opposition will also be accounted for, as will the relative merits of other players in a team.

So, for instance it might be said that Maradona had a much harder job than Pele, because he didn't have as many gifted players around him.

Everything will be done using special software and then the reults analysed.

I believe that recognition software as well as 3d mapping software is being used, and the researchers (it's being done at a university in japan I think) are confident that combined with analysis tools used today, a ranking system can be published at some point, although it is an arduous process.

reply to post by budski


Yeah, apologies Bud, got a tadge too heated didn't it,

The system you describe sounds fascinating and could provide accurate comparisons and even rankings.

But it'll never replace the fun of opinions and having a bit of craic over a few pints.

reply to post by budski


Things like Prozone and the OPTA stats are certainly interesting to get some kind of accurate measurement of a player's success in a certain area of their game, but that doesn't make any of these ratingS definitive, nor does it alter the fact that assessing someone's footballing ability is based on opinions and their abilities are open to subjective interpretation.

While it may be useful to refer to these statistics and ratings to back-up an opinion about their ability, the value that someone places on the importance of any set of attributes will vary from person to person.

Stuart Pearce, for example, is highly-rated by many who place an importance on passion, commitment and the psychological aspect of a player's game, whereas those who value technical ability above all else probably wouldn't rate him as highly.

In the end, no amount of statistics can prove one way or the other what abilities are the most important, as that is very much down to opinion.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


In fairness, prozone is a little more than just stats, as it measures effectiveness in a players zone, plus indicates fatigue and many other factors - it really is a fascinating system when combined with other things.

Personally I like the guardian chalkboards as well, and combined with OPTA stats can give an indication of a players worth to the team - but prozone is the daddy because it measures a lot more things, and compares them to training excercises as well.

If the japanese research team can get this project even 90% reliable it will give us a fascinating insight into many aspect of the game from years gone by to how it is played now regarding formations and movement of players within the team dynamic.

Originally posted by budski
In fairness, prozone is a little more than just stats, as it measures effectiveness in a players zone, plus indicates fatigue and many other factors - it really is a fascinating system when combined with other things.

Personally I like the guardian chalkboards as well, and combined with OPTA stats can give an indication of a players worth to the team - but prozone is the daddy because it measures a lot more things, and compares them to training excercises as well.

If the japanese research team can get this project even 90% reliable it will give us a fascinating insight into many aspect of the game from years gone by to how it is played now regarding formations and movement of players within the team dynamic.

I agree that Prozone and the like provide some form of tangible evidence to back up someone's particular opinion on a player or on an aspect of their game. I like the Guardian analysis too.

The problem is that there are so many variables in football that you really can't definitively state that one player is better than the other, you can use these things as evidence to support your opinion, but that, ultimately, is all that it is.

This Japanese research still has to be programmed by a group of people who put their own personal slant on what is more highly-rated than others.

You mention fatigue, and physical fitness is something that I personally put a lot of importance on, which is why I wouldn't put Michael Owen up at the very top of England strikers, despite being one of the most clinical and talented, when at his peak.

Others who don't treat fitness and injury issues as such an important attribute will no doubt disagree with me, but any program that takes these considerations into account will actually have to come up with a set value for these attributes, which very much makes these programs ''opinion based'' as well.

Would a creative Midfielder with a wide ranges of passes but less accuracy be rated more highly than a more solid midfielder who played slightly less adventurous passes, but had better pass completion rates ?

Again, it all boils down to each individual's personal taste and footballing philosophy that they adhere to.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


here's the thing though - I can definitely say that Gerrard is a better player than say Carlton Palmer.

It's really only when you get to the absolute top that intangibles become relevant - when players are within a percentage point of each other.

You can't compare Messi with say, Ronaldo except in broad terms without analysing their play using the sophisticated tools that now exist over a fairly long period of time, and without factoring in other variables such as the league they play in and the relative strengths of their team mates.

When players are very close, it's the same as any other athlete, in that it comes down to tiny differences on any given day as to how they perform - even down to what they had for breakfast or how they slept the night before a match, and that's why a player has to be analysed when their career is over, and even then there are so many variables.

If we look at it simply, it's even down to which style of play one refers - some prefer a more rugged game, others appreciate how a player uses space, and positional awareness etc etc

Originally posted by budski
here's the thing though - I can definitely say that Gerrard is a better player than say Carlton Palmer.

You can definitely say that, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's just your opinion.

Steven Gerrard has suffered from a few injuries over the years, so, what if I personally feel that match fitness is the most important attribute for a midfielder ?

I may rate Palmer as the better midfielder if that was my personal criteria for judging.


Your comment doesn't have any objective support, just your personal opinion.

Originally posted by budski
It's really only when you get to the absolute top that intangibles become relevant - when players are within a percentage point of each other.

Percentage points ?

Is that the way that you judge the best football players ?

Are you really going to say that Lionel Messi is the greatest attacking midfielder/striker in the world, just because he scores 1% more on these ratings than Cristiano Ronaldo ?

Give me a break !

Originally posted by budski
You can't compare Messi with say, Ronaldo except in broad terms without analysing their play using the sophisticated tools that now exist over a fairly long period of time, and without factoring in other variables such as the league they play in and the relative strengths of their team mates.

You can't compare them because they are different players who have their own qualities and negatives.

There is no way that you can accurately rate players statistically. It's as simple as that.

Your whole argument is completely absurd.

Originally posted by budski
When players are very close, it's the same as any other athlete, in that it comes down to tiny differences on any given day as to how they perform - even down to what they had for breakfast or how they slept the night before a match, and that's why a player has to be analysed when their career is over, and even then there are so many variables.

I don't see any ''tiny differences'' in Messi netting 40 this season that would necessarily make him better than his other contemporaries...

I'm guessing that Lionel eats and sleeps well... @@:

Originally posted by budski
If we look at it simply, it's even down to which style of play one refers - some prefer a more rugged game, others appreciate how a player uses space, and positional awareness etc etc

Precisely:

''Which style of play one prefers''.

ie. Opinion based !

Thats because Ryan Giggs cant be classified as English

Gazza is because he was the last great player when football was fun instead of the serious sterile business it's become, no characters left. Have you heard footballers talk now? wow wtf? Gazza had it all skill, passion and that flash of crazy/genius that nobody understands. Brilliant.

Gerrard, Scholes, Beardsley and Shearer are great players but not in the same class.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Paul Scholes is/was a cracking player for the best part of 15 years.

Unfortunately that video just shows his best 10 goals that he scored from outside the area.

It doesn't show his range of passes, his technique, and his ability to play the ''killer ball''.


However, in no way can Paul Scholes be legitimately cited in a debate on ''England's greatest footballer'', considering that he turned his back on his country for the £££, at the age of 29.

You can definitely say that, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's just your opinion.

Steven Gerrard has suffered from a few injuries over the years, so, what if I personally feel that match fitness is the most important attribute for a midfielder ?

I may rate Palmer as the better midfielder if that was my personal criteria for judging.


Your comment doesn't have any objective support, just your personal opinion.

Absolute rubbish - anyone with an iota of knowledge would know that Gerrard is a far superior player, in any role, any position, and any time.

Percentage points ?

Is that the way that you judge the best football players ?

Are you really going to say that Lionel Messi is the greatest attacking midfielder/striker in the world, just because he scores 1% more on these ratings than Cristiano Ronaldo ?

Give me a break !

As ever, you have completely missed the point - let me break it down for you.
If you look at the "perfect player" for a given role (which doesn't exist, but lets use it as a bench mark for the sake of argument), or the top players in the world, they are all within a percentage point of each other regarding skill sets, contribution, speed in full flight and off the mark, shooting accuracy, goal ratio, assists, pass completion percentage and a host of other measurable criteria, fitness etc etc.
All quantifiable, all used by the top coaches and clubs, and all understodd by the best coaches.

You can't compare them because they are different players who have their own qualities and negatives.

There is no way that you can accurately rate players statistically. It's as simple as that.

Your whole argument is completely absurd.

Yes, you can accurately rate players using stats, prozone, and a host of other tools - the top clubs and coaches all do it, especially in regards to younger players and taking a gamble on signing them, as Barca did with Messi when they brought him over to spain aged 14 and put him on a course of growth hormones in order to improve his physique.

I don't see any ''tiny differences'' in Messi netting 40 this season that would necessarily make him better than his other contemporaries...

I'm guessing that Lionel eats and sleeps well... @@:

Wow, you really do have a reading comprehension problem - analysing a player on any given day is not a factor because there are too many intangibles, like with any top athlete.
A player cannot be accurately compared except over a long period - what part of that do you not understand?

Your argument is based on a fans perspective, and holds no comparison to the reality of modern coaching and measurement of a players worth.

You can argue like that down the pub, but modern tools have taken nearly all of the uncertainty out of being able to quantify a players contribution and overall worth.

If it was as simple as you think then the top players would not be as sought after as they are.

for instance, Dirk Kuyt, based purely on fans opinion would not be worth a place in the Dutch squad - and yet a succession of coaches and managers have known his worth to the team, and continued to play him, whilst other clubs have continued to bid for him - and that's down to modern quantifiable statistical techniques.

So you can gob off and insult all you like - the fact is you know very little about how a player is analysed, and how that analysis works, and it's value to coaches.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

Paul Scholes is/was a cracking player for the best part of 15 years.

Unfortunately that video just shows his best 10 goals that he scored from outside the area.

It doesn't show his range of passes, his technique, and his ability to play the ''killer ball''.


However, in no way can Paul Scholes be legitimately cited in a debate on ''England's greatest footballer'', considering that he turned his back on his country for the £££, at the age of 29.

edit on 8-2-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)

It also doesn't show his tackling - if he had been able to tackle well, he would have been very nearly the complete midfielder.

This thread isn't "The best player who played for England" it's "The greatest ever English Player" and there's a huge difference between the 2.

Glenn Hoddle won only 53 caps for England, and yet is widely regarded as one of the best and most skillfull players England has ever produced.
Same with Le Tissier.