My all-time favourite player would probably be Denilson then Messi. Yes, I know strange, a player who is probably popular for once being the most expensive player in the world and winning the world cup from the bench.
In actual fact prefer Scholes over Lampard, Henry over Shearer, Van Nistelrooy over Shearer, Van Persie over Rooney, Del Piero over Totti, Pirlo and Baggio combined, and Ronaldo (original) over Christiano. Almost my favourite players of all time are statistically inferior compared to some of their compatriots, but is this how we really judge the greatest player? With stats, achievements and which club they played for and which league?
Stats count sure, but it can’t quantify a players impact, for example, Michael Jordan, Muhammed Ali both do not have the most titles in history, but their talent and impact make those two the greatest players in their respective sports. Maxwell is not seen as the greatest player or even left back, but he is one of the most successful players when it comes to club achievements, why is he not the greatest? He worked hard though? Because his talents were never better than a Roberto Carlos.
I have always held the belief greatest player had a talent so undeniable that no amount of hard work would match up. Don’t get me wrong, some of the greatest players are a result of more hard work than talent, but there is a reason no defender is ever in debates about being the greatest player of all time. Besides defending not being a talent (That's the next post), defenders are hard working who get outshone by the talented attackers we all love and actually pay money to see.
My point is you can work hard and achieve those stats but is that enough to quantify calling a player the greatest player or do we only use it when we do not like the more talented player?
No comments:
Post a Comment