World Cup 2018

11920222425

Posts

  • Ben6899Ben6899 Posts: 7,071
    Chris Bass wrote:
    Scoring goals and keeping possession isn't going to win a game? So what is the alternative method of victory then?

    I wasn't saying that, obviously, but if you look at Ronaldo, Messi, Bale etc they can make a goal, make something happen or do something out of the ordinary to change a match.

    Kane requires good people around him to make him his best, he is a great player don't get me wrong, but he needs good service which isn't always there with this England squad.

    Kane might not play in the same style as Ronaldo or Messi, but I think you underestimate his contribution from a play making point of view.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  • chris_basschris_bass Posts: 4,872
    I'm not sure i'm explaining myself too well here! (to put it mildly)

    What I mean is kane is unlikely to change a game, he'll get goals if he gets chances but won't create chances or goals out of nothing like some of the other top players can do. It isn't really his job but England don't have anyone else to turn to when things aren't going well.
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • chris_basschris_bass Posts: 4,872
    Also, I wasn't really meaning to Pick on Kane!

    My main point was, did England really do better than they should have given how kind the draw turned out to be? I don't think so, they definitely didn't do worse than they should, but they only did about what they should given the circumstances.

    It is a bit like if you renovate a house to an average standard but make money because of a rising market, so you decide to do another, if you do another average job but the market levels out you won't do so well.
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 13,544
    FocusZing wrote:
    Federer has won Wimbledon 8 times, it didn't stop him getting knocked out. If Croatia lost they would be saying he's too old.

    Hindsight claptrap.

    In fairness all comments made after the match are with hindsight

    You don't think Croatia's experience was a factor then?
    "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED? IS THIS NOT WHY YOU ARE HERE?"
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,801 Lives Here
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Kane is a good player not a great player.

    Tough crowd.

    I thought that.
  • TheBlueBeanTheBlueBean Posts: 8,255
    Worth noting that Kane has the highest goals to game ratio (108 from 153) of the premier league 100 club. It's also higher than Ronaldo although he didn't manage 100 goals. So it's higher than Henry, Ageuro, Wright, Shearer etc.

    It's the 2nd highest when you include division 1. Higher than Lineker, Rush and Greaves.
  • FocusZingFocusZing Posts: 4,416
    FocusZing wrote:
    Federer has won Wimbledon 8 times, it didn't stop him getting knocked out. If Croatia lost they would be saying he's too old.

    Hindsight claptrap.

    In fairness all comments made after the match are with hindsight

    You don't think Croatia's experience was a factor then?

    The England players play at the highest level day in day out. What about Argentina, Germany, Brazil. What did they have too much experience?
  • verylonglegsverylonglegs Posts: 3,400
    Chris Bass wrote:
    Scoring goals and keeping possession isn't going to win a game? So what is the alternative method of victory then?

    I wasn't saying that, obviously, but if you look at Ronaldo, Messi, Bale etc they can make a goal, make something happen or do something out of the ordinary to change a match.

    Kane requires good people around him to make him his best, he is a great player don't get me wrong, but he needs good service which isn't always there with this England squad.

    I kind of get what you are saying just that your use of the term 'played terribly' made the comment sound bizarre. Ronaldo and Messi are two of the most exceptional players of the modern era so a comparison may be a little unfair, in terms of numbers though as BigBean points out, Kane's so far are right up there for the league he is in. The differences are he doesn't score as many what could be described as individual goals and he's not really won anything. If he was hitting 30 a season and carrying the trophies home then there wouldn't be any questions about him at all.

    In England terms however he's provided something we've sorely lacked since having Shearer and Sheringham up front, most noticeably in the last two tournaments, it was almost painful watching the amount of times the ball came straight back from the forward line and the difference that makes shouldn't be under-estimated.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,822
    Chris Bass wrote:
    ...If these were one off matches though it isn't great they only beat Sweden, Tunisia and Panama in 90 minutes. before the tournament would any of those have been celebrated as doing well? they scraped past Colombia on penalties, lost to Belgium (although that was a bit of a nothing match) and lost to an aging Croatia in extra time...
    In the cold light of day, that is the unfortunate fact of the matter.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 13,544
    FocusZing wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    Federer has won Wimbledon 8 times, it didn't stop him getting knocked out. If Croatia lost they would be saying he's too old.

    Hindsight claptrap.

    In fairness all comments made after the match are with hindsight

    You don't think Croatia's experience was a factor then?

    The England players play at the highest level day in day out. What about Argentina, Germany, Brazil. What did they have too much experience?

    They weren't playing in this match
    "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED? IS THIS NOT WHY YOU ARE HERE?"
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 8,436
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Kane is a good player not a great player.

    Tough crowd.

    great players = Pele, Cruyff, Maradona, Zidane, Messi, Ronaldo

    Kane is a good young player with a lot of potential
  • TheBlueBeanTheBlueBean Posts: 8,255
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Kane is a good player not a great player.

    Tough crowd.

    great players = Pele, Cruyff, Maradona, Zidane, Messi, Ronaldo

    Kane is a good young player with a lot of potential

    So there are only currently two great players? And no great players in the premier league?
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 8,436
    TheBigBean wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Kane is a good player not a great player.

    Tough crowd.

    great players = Pele, Cruyff, Maradona, Zidane, Messi, Ronaldo

    Kane is a good young player with a lot of potential

    So there are only currently two great players? And no great players in the premier league?

    with my tough standards it is very rare to have two current great players - definitely none in premier league.

    I am somebody who defines world class as getting in a current world team/squad to play Mars. So at any one time there can only be 22 world class players.
  • chris_basschris_bass Posts: 4,872
    Would be an interesting debate to sort that squad out, maybe one for another thread!
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • TheBlueBeanTheBlueBean Posts: 8,255
    TheBigBean wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Kane is a good player not a great player.

    Tough crowd.

    great players = Pele, Cruyff, Maradona, Zidane, Messi, Ronaldo

    Kane is a good young player with a lot of potential

    So there are only currently two great players? And no great players in the premier league?

    with my tough standards it is very rare to have two current great players - definitely none in premier league.

    I am somebody who defines world class as getting in a current world team/squad to play Mars. So at any one time there can only be 22 world class players.

    Ok so great is better than world class which is limited to 22 players. I do agree that Kane is not in the top two players in the world.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,352
    So there's no "all-time great" higher than "great"?
    and then the next thing you know
  • TheBlueBeanTheBlueBean Posts: 8,255
    So there's no "all-time great" higher than "great"?

    We'd need SC to clarify, but I hold Messi in higher regard than the other five greats. So perhaps he is the all-time great.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,801 Lives Here
    TheBigBean wrote:
    So there's no "all-time great" higher than "great"?

    We'd need SC to clarify, but I hold Messi in higher regard than the other five greats. So perhaps he is the all-time great.
    If you mainly watch international football, you'd be quite perplexed by that statement....
  • TheBlueBeanTheBlueBean Posts: 8,255
    TheBigBean wrote:
    So there's no "all-time great" higher than "great"?

    We'd need SC to clarify, but I hold Messi in higher regard than the other five greats. So perhaps he is the all-time great.
    If you mainly watch international football, you'd be quite perplexed by that statement....

    Gilbert, GVA, Cancellera and Tomeke are just guys that wore the yellow jersey in the tour, right?
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,801 Lives Here
    TheBigBean wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    So there's no "all-time great" higher than "great"?

    We'd need SC to clarify, but I hold Messi in higher regard than the other five greats. So perhaps he is the all-time great.
    If you mainly watch international football, you'd be quite perplexed by that statement....

    Gilbert, GVA, Cancellera and Tomeke are just guys that wore the yellow jersey in the tour, right?

    They're not GOATs 'cos they can't do the big sh!t (figuratively) in the biggest bike race.

    When you talk greatest ever with cycling, you start with the list of the riders who have won 5 Tours and work from there.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,352
    TheBigBean wrote:
    So there's no "all-time great" higher than "great"?

    We'd need SC to clarify, but I hold Messi in higher regard than the other five greats. So perhaps he is the all-time great.

    That's probably because you've seen more of him. Maradona, for example, was ridiculous.

    Equally, someone like Puskas from before I was born can't be compared with someone like Messi - they are both great, but playing a very different game.
    and then the next thing you know
  • timothywtimothyw Posts: 2,418
    Yeah. Messi one of the greatest of all time, but until he's torn through a world cup (the highest stage in football) his GOAT claim is dubious.

    Compare his impact to Maradona in 86, Zidane in 98, Cruyff in 74, it just doesn't compare - I suppose Messi had a reasonable impact in 2014 but it wasn't at that level.

    On the GCN show this week they're talking about Sagan as GOAT, laughable when we already have Merckx as the GOAT by a country mile.
  • TheBlueBeanTheBlueBean Posts: 8,255
    TheBigBean wrote:
    So there's no "all-time great" higher than "great"?

    We'd need SC to clarify, but I hold Messi in higher regard than the other five greats. So perhaps he is the all-time great.

    That's probably because you've seen more of him. Maradona, for example, was ridiculous.

    Equally, someone like Puskas from before I was born can't be compared with someone like Messi - they are both great, but playing a very different game.

    Comparing eras is always tricky, but I think the the standard is better now, not least because they are all much fitter. And Messi really is quite good.
  • TheBlueBeanTheBlueBean Posts: 8,255
    TheBigBean wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    So there's no "all-time great" higher than "great"?

    We'd need SC to clarify, but I hold Messi in higher regard than the other five greats. So perhaps he is the all-time great.
    If you mainly watch international football, you'd be quite perplexed by that statement....

    Gilbert, GVA, Cancellera and Tomeke are just guys that wore the yellow jersey in the tour, right?

    They're not GOATs 'cos they can't do the big sh!t (figuratively) in the biggest bike race.

    When you talk greatest ever with cycling, you start with the list of the riders who have won 5 Tours and work from there.

    Or you care about the classics and start with the riders that have won the most monuments. In both cases that starts with the same rider, but there is rapid divergence afterwards.

    Also, note that I do not consider the world cup to be the pinnacle of the sport. Far from it.
  • Robert88Robert88 Posts: 2,722
    TheBigBean wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    So there's no "all-time great" higher than "great"?

    We'd need SC to clarify, but I hold Messi in higher regard than the other five greats. So perhaps he is the all-time great.

    That's probably because you've seen more of him. Maradona, for example, was ridiculous.

    Equally, someone like Puskas from before I was born can't be compared with someone like Messi - they are both great, but playing a very different game.

    Comparing eras is always tricky, but I think the the standard is better now, not least because they are all much fitter. And Messi really is quite good.

    Sports scientists. No, not Doctor Ferrari :roll: Well not always.
  • timothywtimothyw Posts: 2,418
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Also, note that I do not consider the world cup to be the pinnacle of the sport. Far from it.
    FIFA club world cup?

    :lol:
  • chris_basschris_bass Posts: 4,872
    TheBigBean wrote:
    So there's no "all-time great" higher than "great"?

    We'd need SC to clarify, but I hold Messi in higher regard than the other five greats. So perhaps he is the all-time great.
    If you mainly watch World Cup football, you'd be quite perplexed by that statement....

    FTFY!

    it is true that he doesn't replicate his club performances for Argentina too often but 65 goals in 128 apps isn't too shabby at international level, pretty similar to Ronaldo and a lot better than maradona
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • dinyulldinyull Posts: 2,959
    Chris Bass wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    So there's no "all-time great" higher than "great"?

    We'd need SC to clarify, but I hold Messi in higher regard than the other five greats. So perhaps he is the all-time great.
    If you mainly watch World Cup football, you'd be quite perplexed by that statement....

    FTFY!

    it is true that he doesn't replicate his club performances for Argentina too often but 65 goals in 128 apps isn't too shabby at international level, pretty similar to Ronaldo and a lot better than maradona

    Indeed.

    He's played in the last 2 Copa America Finals and last World Cup Final too.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,352
    TheBigBean wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    So there's no "all-time great" higher than "great"?

    We'd need SC to clarify, but I hold Messi in higher regard than the other five greats. So perhaps he is the all-time great.

    That's probably because you've seen more of him. Maradona, for example, was ridiculous.

    Equally, someone like Puskas from before I was born can't be compared with someone like Messi - they are both great, but playing a very different game.

    Comparing eras is always tricky, but I think the the standard is better now, not least because they are all much fitter. And Messi really is quite good.

    Messi is superb. But so was Maradona. He did it back when defenders could pass back to the keeper too.
    and then the next thing you know
Sign In or Register to comment.