titosantill wrote:stats don't tell the whole story in football....stats are like prisoners, you torture them well enough and they'll confess to anything. messi's a good player, but anyone who watched usa 94, and mexico 86 knows u cannot compare what he did with those other players...i personally was more impressed by arjen robben even though he doesn't have the stats to back him up, he felt like a threat every time he had the ball

That's what it is, excitement, because Robben excites you, it clouds your judgement and you feel it's better. That's how most football fans base their rankings, how it made them feel. Again, feel has nothing to do with judging quality. Quality is something that can be directly and rationally evaluated from concrete evidence, videos, statistics and so on.

Harmonica wrote:

titosantill wrote:stats don't tell the whole story in football....stats are like prisoners, you torture them well enough and they'll confess to anything. messi's a good player, but anyone who watched usa 94, and mexico 86 knows u cannot compare what he did with those other players...i personally was more impressed by arjen robben even though he doesn't have the stats to back him up, he felt like a threat every time he had the ball

That's what it is, excitement, because Robben excites you, it clouds your judgement and you feel it's better. That's how most football fans base their rankings, how it made them feel. Again, feel has nothing to do with judging quality. Quality is something that can be directly and rationally evaluated from concrete evidence, videos, statistics and so on.

Dude, there are a lot of things numbers do NOT account for. I will admit, I admire your relentlessness and valiant effort to dig up information and actually do some research. but in sports and many other phenomena, numbers DO lie. lothar mathaus may not have had the most tackles, scored the most goals, created the most chances, or had the most assists, but when we watched him play, we had no doubt who germany's king was

a major problem with your stats and comparisons is that, it assumes ceteris paribus, in sports you cannot go by "all things being equal" or even logic, because there are many parameters we cannot measure. messi had a good world cup, anyone who says he was terrible at the mundial is lying, but he did not have a great world cup, especially not comparable to diego and romario;

what the stats do NOT account for; difference in opposition; the opponents they played against where all different, some stronger, some weaker than the others

their level of play in latter stages...maradona 86 definitely tops most people in this regard, he scored the bulk of his goals in that mundial in the crucial stages and/or against tough teams, italy england belgium (a good belgium side featuring enzo scifo)

the stats also don't take into account the personnel on the teams; this argentina side, especially up front was stacked, the other players flopped but they were stacked...brazilians say their usa 94 team was their worst winning side; imo they were disciplined and romario n bebeto pulled them through when needed

maradona of 86, i won't go into that, the difference one man could make on the tournament was telling with him

another flaw is measuring something like "great chances created", sports is definitive on the end result, are we seriously now going to start looking at chances created that were missed to grant laurels to players? the chances were missed, unless we have an agenda to make our stats define our argument, I'm not sure about measuring players based on chances they created that their teammates missed.....i know people need it to say, well he played well cos he created this chance but that other guy missed it...its another "if", "coulda", "woulda", "shoulda" that imo isn't needed in sports

now in terms of excitement- that is exactly what football is. It is based more on excitement at the present than stats. why do i say so? the emotions that run in the present can never be replayed; football is NOT math,nor science, we can't just throw out numbers and discount the emotions....i'll give you an example using your club barcelona-

iniesta scored the goal to get to the ucl final against chelsea at Stamford bridge; the emotions any barcelona fan felt at THAT MOMENT trumps any statistics people pull up to downplay the importance of iniesta with regards to the goal...people may draw up whatever stats they like and say well he was lucky, it was a fluke cos he only scored one goal that year, if essien got the tackle it won't have happened etc....all that is hind site, the feeling of the PRESENT compared to hind site in sports can be a grave error in many regards

even you, I take it you are a messi fan, and nothing wrong with that, we all can't support the same players, and he is definitely one of the greats, regardless whether he retires tomorrow or the next ten years...BUT, the moment the world cup ended, there was a sense of disappointment among those
who support him, and the golden ball award probably did little to quell that...i doubt you would have created this thread hours after the world cup ended...that is telling of the importance of 'the present' and actually watching games live

hind sight leads to instances of what i call 'convenient amnesia', and even though he did not win the golden ball at usa 94, based on what i watched, i can't even put messi's 14 mundial on the same pedastle as roberto baggio....even if baggio made ten less tackles and 20 less chances created that were missed, based on what i saw, i just cannot....doesn't mean baggio was better than messi as a footballer, we are just looking at it in the context of the world cup

as i mentioned earlier, stats doesn't take into account many intangibles that footballers bring to the table, it is not always about numbers, especially when these numbers don't lead to any concrete evidence that can be replicated.....nice attempt though, sometimes for argument purposes at least its always interesting to see some stats, the problem is most of them just lead to more denied hypothesis

Lol, but can u really rule out excitement? By your logic, players like dinho, rui costa, baggio and zizou were trash as they never really had any meaningful stats on their side..infact, dinho's legacy today is made up of 50% output and 50% excitement and thats fine as long as 'x' player still goes about their normal duty. So how does individual stat judge the quality of a goal?, say a hat-trick in an 8-0 win (with said player scoring goal no 4,6 & 7) as opposed to a 93rd minute winning goal in a tight 2-1 win? All the stats would say is that 'x' player scored 3 goals and 'y' player scored 1 goal and the average joe would conclude that 'x' player had a hat-trick, therefore he must be better than 'y' player or how does stats judge the quality of a save? X kepper makes 10 meaningless unasuming saves and y keeper makes two saves the whole game including an 86th minute touch line save with the leg, and a 94th minute ochoa esque save in a 0-0 draw, all the stat will tell u is 'x' kepper made 10 saves and 'y' keeper made a paltry 2 saves the whole game.valdes's being a case in point, what stat wouldn't tell u is that he's team had possession 80% of the time but rather tell that he had so and so clean sheets the whole season, hence he's zamora trophy dominance.now an average fan would see he's zamora haul and think to himself "this valdes guy must really be the best in spain with that kind of league domination, i've never seeing any like this man before" cause that award is given sorely on stats. Like someone once said, stats are like mini skirts they show us 'almost' everything but leave out the most important thing of them all..See what i did there?

I wouldn't have a problem with stats if they were flawless. However OPTA has a rigid definition and it leads to illogical consequences. For example they define a "chance created" (= "key pass") as "the final pass leading to a shot at goal from a teammate." So let me show you what this means on the pitch:



^ This according to OPTA is a "chance created" by Messi. So Messi passing the ball sideways to Neymar who receives the ball outside the box with plent of defenders infront of him, dribbles a few meters laterally to buy himself some space against 2 defenders and then takes a shot from outside the box is a "chance created" by Messi according to strict statistical OPTA measurements.



^ This is Iniesta slicing the entire Italy defense open with an inch perfect throughball. This, according to OPTA, is not a "key pass". Because Fabregas passes the ball on to the goalscorer so Iniesta is not the last man to pass the ball before the shot is taken.

So according to OPTA you can have a situation where 1 player squares easy passes around the edge of the box for teammates to take shots "creating chance gallore" and another one who GENUINENLY opens up the pitch from deep, someone who literally makes a KEY pass as everyone understands the word "key" and "pass", getting 0 key passes. This is why Gareth Bale has the same amount of "key passes" as Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas and Modric last season by the way.



I would say Whoscored is not completely off the mark. There is a certain conformity between what you see and what Whoscored hands out as ratings and although getting for example 3 key passes, 3 dribbles and 1 goal shows that it can't have been a completely bad performance it doesn't necessarily mean it must have been a better performance than someone who had 2 key passes, 1 dribble and 0 goals.

@ Fußball, that second gif you showed is exactly why i also don't fancy a lot of "assist" stats, player X dissects a defense with a splitting pass, like a hot knife through butter, to player Y, who tees up the ball for player Z to tap home, and player Y gets credited with an "assist". and as a result, people who never watched that game live, go to the stats and use that to downplay the value of player X in the whole scheme of things.

i'm not totally against stats though, but when used to measure different time periods in football or compare players playing different roles, eras etc it leads to a logical fallacy....stats like top goal scorer in a season, or even goal per minute stats between players in the same season I have no problems with

@fussball u pretty much nailed my thoughts exactly, especially with the gareth bale and iniesta part in your post (i swear i saw bale make some unharmful sideways pass several times last season and saw the other player make the most of it to score a goal and saw it recorded as an assist and a chance created by all these sites last season) or against atl madrid last season where he failed to trap a ball and it fell to cr7 who scored and saw it recorded as a chance created and an assist, and it also happens with other players too, except bale's is the most prominent that i've seeing time and time again..so do u guys see how some stats can be totally misleading? Especially when it comes to quality. @titto my thoughts exactly, especially on goals per minute.this season for instance, stat would show u that gareth bale has 4 goals and neymar has 3 goals, however a top scorer award (based on stats) would not tell u that neymar hasn't even played a combined total of 160mins, infact, he hasn't even completed any league match this season, while bale has almost played every minute of every game so far. The stat wouldn't show u quality i.e if a player plays out of 'favourable' position (rooney being a case in point), if the team played to the player strenghts (barca's precise tiki-taka system and neymar for example) or how a save was made (bringing us back to the issue of excitment) and in what conditions the saves were made..lets face it, most of these stat sites are pretty much inacurate and misleading "to an extent" especially when it comes to quality. And i even use these so-called stats based approach sorely to "somewhat" judge people who really know what they actually talk about in football.

titosantill wrote:

Harmonica wrote:

titosantill wrote:stats don't tell the whole story in football....stats are like prisoners, you torture them well enough and they'll confess to anything. messi's a good player, but anyone who watched usa 94, and mexico 86 knows u cannot compare what he did with those other players...i personally was more impressed by arjen robben even though he doesn't have the stats to back him up, he felt like a threat every time he had the ball

That's what it is, excitement, because Robben excites you, it clouds your judgement and you feel it's better. That's how most football fans base their rankings, how it made them feel. Again, feel has nothing to do with judging quality. Quality is something that can be directly and rationally evaluated from concrete evidence, videos, statistics and so on.

Dude, there are a lot of things numbers do NOT account for. I will admit, I admire your relentlessness and valiant effort to dig up information and actually do some research. but in sports and many other phenomena, numbers DO lie. lothar mathaus may not have had the most tackles, scored the most goals, created the most chances, or had the most assists, but when we watched him play, we had no doubt who germany's king was

a major problem with your stats and comparisons is that, it assumes ceteris paribus, in sports you cannot go by "all things being equal" or even logic, because there are many parameters we cannot measure. messi had a good world cup, anyone who says he was terrible at the mundial is lying, but he did not have a great world cup, especially not comparable to diego and romario;

what the stats do NOT account for; difference in opposition; the opponents they played against where all different, some stronger, some weaker than the others

their level of play in latter stages...maradona 86 definitely tops most people in this regard, he scored the bulk of his goals in that mundial in the crucial stages and/or against tough teams, italy england belgium (a good belgium side featuring enzo scifo)

the stats also don't take into account the personnel on the teams; this argentina side, especially up front was stacked, the other players flopped but they were stacked...brazilians say their usa 94 team was their worst winning side; imo they were disciplined and romario n bebeto pulled them through when needed

maradona of 86, i won't go into that, the difference one man could make on the tournament was telling with him

another flaw is measuring something like "great chances created", sports is definitive on the end result, are we seriously now going to start looking at chances created that were missed to grant laurels to players? the chances were missed, unless we have an agenda to make our stats define our argument, I'm not sure about measuring players based on chances they created that their teammates missed.....i know people need it to say, well he played well cos he created this chance but that other guy missed it...its another "if", "coulda", "woulda", "shoulda" that imo isn't needed in sports

now in terms of excitement- that is exactly what football is. It is based more on excitement at the present than stats. why do i say so? the emotions that run in the present can never be replayed; football is NOT math,nor science,  we can't just throw out numbers and discount the emotions....i'll give you an example using your club barcelona-

iniesta scored the goal to get to the ucl final against chelsea at Stamford bridge; the emotions any barcelona fan felt at THAT MOMENT trumps any statistics people pull up to downplay the importance of iniesta with regards to the goal...people may draw up whatever stats they like and say well he was lucky, it was a fluke cos he only scored one goal that year, if essien got the tackle it won't have happened etc....all that is hind site, the feeling of the PRESENT compared to hind site in sports can be a grave error in many regards

even you, I take it you are a messi fan, and nothing wrong with that, we all can't support the same players, and he is definitely one of the greats, regardless whether he retires tomorrow or the next ten years...BUT, the moment the world cup ended, there was a sense of disappointment among those
who support him, and the golden ball award probably did little to quell that...i doubt you would have created this thread hours after the world cup ended...that is telling of the importance of 'the present' and actually watching games live

hind sight leads to instances of what i call 'convenient amnesia', and even though he did not win the golden ball at usa 94, based on what i watched, i can't even put messi's  14 mundial on the same pedastle as roberto baggio....even if baggio made ten less tackles and 20 less chances created that were missed, based on what i saw, i just cannot....doesn't mean baggio was better than messi as a footballer, we are just looking at it in the context of the world cup

as i mentioned earlier, stats doesn't take into account many intangibles that footballers bring to the table, it is not always about numbers, especially when these numbers don't lead to any concrete evidence that can be replicated.....nice attempt though, sometimes for argument purposes at least its always interesting to see some stats, the problem is most of them just lead to more denied hypothesis

Your example of Matthaus doesn't really work, at all, as he was the number 1 scorer, dribbler and number 2 tackler and chance creator of example Germany 90. What it actually did, it did prove my point, again.

Your second argument about Maradona doesn't work any better. Messi was better than Maradona in the first four games in relation, Maradona the last three. But where Maradona had a clear advantage was his attacking players which performed a lot better than Argentina 14 attackers, which is exactly why Argentina 86 won World Cup and Argentina 14 didn't, it wasn't because of Maradona nor Messi, it was because of their teams. Teams win titles, individual players only provide the individual quality. Messi had to carry Argentina more in the starting stages and had to play tougher games, extra-times and so on, so he was more fatigued at the end where Maradona still had some energy to perform better. Just saying Maradona played better the latter stages, the more "important stages" and performed better because of that, is laughable when Argentina 14 would been eliminated in the group stage without Messi, and in the best scenario gotten harder opponents in the next rounds.

Your third point about "great chances" is also flawed as I provided the factual video evidence to go with it, applying rational and fair thinking in all. These examples are there to you to challenge directly, not generally.

Also if you want me to reply more, you will have to write shorter posts. I already lost my reply once at this point, and it's exactly where I leave it. Most times those who write long posts have little knowledge but try to mask it in thousands words of trivial views, not saying that's necessarily you, but points can be argued with a lot more precision with short posts.

i like how performance in group games against the likes of almighty iran should now trump performances in latter stages, because if not for these they won't go through. i feel people who bring up stats as a form of reasoning for performances over time, never actually watched most of those games, not saying you in particular, just saying....and funny how "chance creation" or goals "almost scored" are what we are using to argue our points....i bet someone will soon bring up stats on number of shots that hit the cross bar....wait i have a feeling such stats were produced in the world cup four years ago with regards to the performance or lack thereof of some players

titosantill wrote:i like how performance in group games against the likes of almighty iran should now trump performances in latter stages, because if not for these they won't go  through. i feel people who bring up stats as a form of reasoning for performances over time, never actually watched most of those games, not saying you in particular, just saying....and funny how "chance creation" or goals "almost scored" are what we are using to argue our points....i bet someone will soon bring up stats on number of shots that hit the cross bar....wait i have a feeling such stats were produced in the world cup four years ago with regards to the performance or lack thereof of some players

Now you're using on paper argument, did you even watch Argentina vs Iran?

Iran parked the almighty bus, and it was Messi's individual wonder strike against all opponents under the ball, which won the game. Now on paper Italy surely performed better, until you see how Maradona scored his goal, 1 opponent under the ball, rest jogging behind.





Or lets compare chances created from semi-final, Messi gets hounded from the midfield by multiple players all the way. Where as Maradona walks from the midfield unopposed to the edge of box and full 10 seconds go by and there is still only 4 opponents under the ball, in fact you can see 5th lowest opponent actually walking the other way when Argentina starts the attack.





The difficulty of opposition Messi faced was completely different than what Maradona faced.

the same bullshit is all forums.

make a life idiot.

http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/maradona-86-vs-messi-14.2008702/

Killer wrote:the same bullshit is all forums.

make a life idiot.

http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/maradona-86-vs-messi-14.2008702/

lmao so true, its getting ridiculous now

Fußball wrote:I wouldn't have a problem with stats if they were flawless. However OPTA has a rigid definition and it leads to illogical consequences. For example they define a "chance created" (= "key pass") as "the final pass leading to a shot at goal from a teammate." So let me show you what this means on the pitch:



^ This according to OPTA is a "chance created" by Messi. So Messi passing the ball sideways to Neymar who receives the ball outside the box with plent of defenders infront of him, dribbles a few meters laterally to buy himself some space against 2 defenders and then takes a shot from outside the box is a "chance created" by Messi according to strict statistical OPTA measurements.



^ This is Iniesta slicing the entire Italy defense open with an inch perfect throughball. This, according to OPTA, is not a "key pass". Because Fabregas passes the ball on to the goalscorer so Iniesta is not the last man to pass the ball before the shot is taken.

So according to OPTA you can have a situation where 1 player squares easy passes around the edge of the box for teammates to take shots "creating chance gallore" and another one who GENUINENLY opens up the pitch from deep, someone who literally makes a KEY pass as everyone understands the word "key" and "pass", getting 0 key passes. This is why Gareth Bale has the same amount of "key passes" as Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas and Modric last season by the way.



I would say Whoscored is not completely off the mark. There is a certain conformity between what you see and what Whoscored hands out as ratings and although getting for example 3 key passes, 3 dribbles and 1 goal shows that it can't have been a completely bad performance it doesn't necessarily mean it must have been a better performance than someone who had 2 key passes, 1 dribble and 0 goals.

Bro, I have been using that arguement to prove to him that stat's are not always the truth, but he just keeps on ignoring it.

--

Also, while I don't think that Messi had the greatest ever individual WC performance, I don't think that he had the worst individual WC performance either, as alot of people have been trying to convince me. I and think that he, James(who I thought was the best, but was sent home one game to soon to win the award) and Robben were all deserving of the WC ballon d'or.

titosantill wrote:i like how performance in group games against the likes of almighty iran should now trump performances in latter stages,

And I like how people are actually trying to say that performances are not important in the group stages. If not for Messi, Argentina would have been sent home humiliated from from the group stages. And it's not like Messi was shit in the final either.

Also, I like it how "finally" people agree with me that stats is not the only thing that matters in football. Yet, when I dare to say that C.Ronaldo wasn't Real Madrid's best player in the CL, the same people who say that stats isn't the only thing that matters and that they can alot of time be missleading, those very same people will bring up C.Ronaldo 17 goals

Killer wrote:the same bullshit is all forums.

make a life idiot.

http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/maradona-86-vs-messi-14.2008702/

While I wouldn't even dare to say that Messi 14 >>>> Maradona 86, he does have a point when he says that Maradona's teammate were more reliable than Messi's. Atleast Maradona's teammate could create and finish, Messi's teammate could not. Heck, apart from that one moment against Switzerland, the only thing that the 2nd best offensive player from Argentina, Di Maria, could do was lose the ball..

Edit: and he is also right when he points out that Maradona had more space when on the ball..

@harhar, no one is discounting the importance of group games, but c'mon when people start championing performances against almighty iran swiss and nigeria to latter matches against england belgium etc its ridiculous....plus, defending comes with the territory, no one played against diego saying "let's give him space", and no one does the same for messi either....its not maradona's fault his strikers scored...too many ifs ands or buts in this argument and the fact he has been posting the same drivel on other forums is a little scary....what's next? "if this person didn't miss the throw in, and the other guy hadn't intercepted, they'd have scored and as a result, player x is now the greatest ever"

titosantill wrote:@harhar, no one is discounting the importance of group games, but c'mon when people start championing performances against almighty iran swiss and nigeria to latter matches against england belgium etc its ridiculous....plus, defending comes with the territory, no one played against diego saying "let's give him space", and no one does the same for messi either....its not maradona's fault his strikers scored...too many ifs ands or buts in this argument and the fact he has been posting the same drivel on other forums is a little scary....what's next? "if this person didn't miss the throw in, and the other guy hadn't intercepted, they'd have scored and as a result, player x is now the greatest ever"

I never said that a great performance was better than a great performance in the final. But let's not discredit Messi's importance in helping Argentina reach the final. Without him, Argentina wouldn't just not reach the final, they would not have even reached the knock-out stages.

And true, it's not Maradona's fault that his teammate's did their job, I never said that. All I was implying was that Maradona got more help from his teammates in 86, where as Messi had almost no help at all offensively. And as you most likely know, no help = harder to do anything.

And my point still stand regarding Maradona having more space. The motives for him having more space doesn't matter, because in the end he didn't have more space because just of his brilliance. He had more space because either his teammate opened up the field for him or the opposite teams let him have more space. And, again, as you know, more space = easier to create.

I am not saying that Messi 14 >> Maradona 86, not at all as I belive the contrary is true. All I am saying is that I am just sick and tired of people trying to make it seem as if Messi robbed the WC ballon d'or and that he had a shit WC when he didn't. That's it.

I wasn't talking about your post, i was talking about the other guy's post. and i also don't think messi had a poor world cup; the spanish team had a poor world cup (all or most of them), cristiano had a disappointing world cup, rvp started well but kinda fizzled out early, eto'o, modric, david luiz became a disaster against germany, i don't care what he did before that, him and the brazilian back line embarrassed themselves....

Being someone who watched mexico 86 and saw diego play, the point i was making isn't disregarding messi's efforts in the 14 mundial, but a comparative between that and diego's imo, just my opinion, others may differ is ridiculous....romario and baggio @ 94 could be a good comparison....plus as i said the stats allude to too many ifs; u'd incline to agree we cannot judge sports on ifs

the issue of no-help is controversial as well. its one thing to touch the ball only a few times in a game, then all of a sudden score a one on one chance. getting teammates more involved isn't limited to just passing to them to score in the box, if a player can have a feel for the ball occasionally, i'd hazard a guess it'll be easier for them to score off chances, than if they get the ball sparingly and are expected to put it away.....that doesn't take anything away from higuain fluffing chances. plus now the argument is that "team win games",but if argies had won, it would be "messi won it on his own without help"

titosantill wrote:I wasn't talking about your post, i was talking about the other guy's post. and i also don't think messi had a poor world cup; the spanish team had a poor world cup (all or most of them), cristiano had a disappointing world cup, rvp started well but kinda fizzled out early, eto'o, modric, david luiz became a disaster against germany, i don't care what he did before that, him and the brazilian back line embarrassed themselves....

Being someone who watched mexico 86 and saw diego play, the point i was making isn't disregarding messi's efforts in the 14 mundial, but a comparative between that and diego's imo, just my opinion, others may differ is ridiculous....romario and baggio @ 94 could be a good comparison....plus as i said the stats allude to too many ifs; u'd incline to agree we cannot judge sports on ifs

I agree with most of you comment. It was just that it looked like you were disregarding Messi's importance because he was better in the group stages.

And I 100% agree with your comment regarding stats. Infact, I have had lots of arguement with Harmonica about it and I have even used Fußball example, but he is so in love with stats that he just turn a blind eye when someone mention that example..

Zidane WC06



3 goals from 6 great scoring chances
10 great scoring chances created
15 players beaten by dribble (OPTA)
4 tackles (OPTA)

Goals (Scored + Assisted + Involved)
5 (3 (2p) + 1 + 1) out of 9 team goals =  56% importance

Goals Scored
Spain 1
Portugal 1
Italy 1

Great Scoring Chances Missed
Brazil 1
Portugal 1
Italy 1

Great Chances Created
Switzerland 1
Switzerland 2
South Korea 1
South Korea 2
Spain 1
Brazil 1
Brazil 2
Brazil 3
Brazil 4
Italy 1

From the performance's I've watched, Zidane 06 is easily the least impressive:

- He coasted group phase, France tied twice with him and won crucially without him.
- Excluding the penalties he didn't create, scored only one goal from open play when the game was almost done an dusted.
- For a playmaker didn't create as much, only registered 12 chances created which is a lot less than other playmakers Cruyff 74 (36), Pele 70 (28), Maradona 86 (27), Messi 14 (23). Again watching the games confirm what statistics already pointed.
- The red card incident just about is the cherry on a hype crusted and half hollow cake.

Taking a guess here: Is Lionel messi the only player ever to win the world cup golden ball and not be his countries (foreign based) player of the year?

Hmm. The only controversy I spot here is Messi in the candidate list and not Robben or Schweinsteiger, who both had excellent performances in CL and WC, or even Mascherano who had a superior influence in Argentina's run than Messi did.

Cruyff  WC74



3 goals from 9 great scoring chances
16 great scoring chances created
33 players beaten by dribble (OPTA)
9 tackles (OPTA)

Goals (Scored + Assisted + Involved)
10 (3 + 4 + 3) out of 15 team goals = 67% importance

Goals Scored
Argentina 1
Argentina 2
Brazil 1

Great Scoring Chances Missed
Uruguay 1
Uruguay 2
Uruguay 3
Argentina 1
Argentina 2
Brazil 1

Great Chances Created
Uruguay 1
Uruguay 2
Uruguay 3
Uruguay 4
Sweden 1
Sweden 2
Bulgaria 1
Bulgaria 2
Bulgaria 3
Bulgaria 4
Argentina 1
Argentina 2
East Germany 1
Brazil 1
West Germany 1
West Germany 2

Charlton WC66



3 goals from 4 great scoring chances
3 great scoring chances created
15 players beaten by dribble (OPTA)
15 tackles (OPTA)

Goals (Scored + Assisted + Involved)
5 (3 + 0 + 2) out of 11 team goals = 45% importance

Goals Scored
Mexico 1
Portugal 1
Portugal 2

Great Chances Missed
West Germany

Great Chances Created
Mexico 1
France 1
Portugal 1

Why don't you do Ronaldo in 2002?

Pippo wrote:Why don't you do Ronaldo in 2002?

He didn't win Golden Ball.

Harmonica wrote:

Pippo wrote:Why don't you do Ronaldo in 2002?

He didn't win Golden Ball.

Oh, right. Stupid of me, I didn't even read the title.

Can you still do the comparison...for comparison's sake?