dnmac4 wrote:
And it's useless debating me

Lord Spencer wrote:As to Walcott not being in the same ball park with Messi, that is obvious from any expert point of view.

It is not the same with Yaya and Song, where experts are not in consensus that one is better than the other, not to mention that unlike Walcott and Messi, both Yaya and Song play in the same position..

You have no proof that Yaya is better than Song in any of those attributes, but your opinion in the matter is Valid. The key word here is valid, my argument not is that Song is better than Yaya, but that the argument that Song is better than Yaya is Valid.

I brought Mathematics into the matter because only math is an absolute truth. An opinion is valid unless there is absolute proof against it, and there is not in the case between Yaya and Song.

I am not defending the opinion that Song is better than Yaya, but the right of poster to have an opinion and not be ridiculed like they were some yahoos.

How can you decide what is an "opinion" and what is not. If I am trying to be clever, are trying to be stupid by not actually responding to my argument.

dnmac4 wrote:


Got it. So you don't think Song is better then Yaya but you want Song over him because why? Oh I know, your a blind fanboy. It's pretty obvious.

And it's useless debating me because you lose. I mean does anyone even know what you mean? You say I'd still take Song over Yaya and then the next post is I never said Song is better then Yaya. What the hell are you talking about??? You make no sense. You're just being a fanboy.

alexjanosik wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:As to Walcott not being in the same ball park with Messi, that is obvious from any expert point of view.

It is not the same with Yaya and Song, where experts are not in consensus that one is better than the other, not to mention that unlike Walcott and Messi, both Yaya and Song play in the same position..

You have no proof that Yaya is better than Song in any of those attributes, but your opinion in the matter is Valid. The key word here is valid, my argument not is that Song is better than Yaya, but that the argument that Song is better than Yaya is Valid.

I brought Mathematics into the matter because only math is an absolute truth. An opinion is valid unless there is absolute proof against it, and there is not in the case between Yaya and Song.

I am not defending the opinion that Song is better than Yaya, but the right of poster to have an opinion and not be ridiculed like they were some yahoos.

How can you decide what is an "opinion" and what is not. If I am trying to be clever, are trying to be stupid by not actually responding to my argument.

Kindly tell me which expert is claiming Song to be a better player.Just as its obvious from any expert point of view that Messi is better than Walcott,so its obvious from any expert point of view that Yaya is better than Messi.
I have no proof than Yaya is better in any of those aspects.
How old are you son?Tell me one attribute out of the ones that I listed in which Song is better.Do me a favor.Watch the both of them play instead of trying so hard to sound clever on an internet forum.

'I brought Mathematics into the matter because only math is an absolute truth. An opinion is valid unless there is absolute proof against it, and there is not in the case between Yaya and Song.'

So by your stupid logic an opinion that Walcott is a better player than Messi is also a valid one.
An opinion that Bendtner is as good as Van Basten is also a valid one.

As to responding to your argument,you dont have one son.
You foolishly tried to bring Math into it trying to look clever and got exposed.

Lord Spencer wrote:

alexjanosik wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:Simply put, being a better player is not a mathematical equation. You can't put a rating on players like PES. There tons of elements you need to take into account.

First, the player himself:
1- Position.
2- His suitability for that position.
3- Skills.
4- Fitness record.
5- Personality.
6- Physical attributes.
7- Mind.

The team he is playing for:
1- The teams strength.
2- His usefulness for the team.
3- The team tactics.
4- Team chemistry.
5- Team style.

The environment:
1- Weather.
2- Fans.
3- Club pressure.

And these are just a taste of the hundreds of criteria that affect a players ability. To say that Song is better than Yaya for Arsenal is a completely valid opinion (valid meaning the opinion to be reasonable; validity as philosophical term means when an opinion can be true). To say that Song is better than Yaya as a DM is also completely valid. There are no proofs anyone can bring to justify their claim. Football experts are divided on the issue, and since you don't have an overwhelming advantage for Yaya, the opinion is Valid.

OK, so take all of those factors you can come up with and Yaya ranks better in more of them because he is a better player. IT's really not that hard. You know when it's trophy time and Arsenal and Song are losing to a relegation team in the Carling Cup and Yaya is dragging City past United to win the FA cup. That's when a players true colors come out and the cream rises to the top.

I mean your post would make some sense if we were comparing Yaya and De Rossi or Essien or someone like that but Song??? Give me a break, the guy has never accomplished anything, he's not a leader and he is a good player but no where near these other players.

You can list a whole bunch of aspects but the bottom line is Yaya is better unless you're a blind Arsenal fan probably the same type of fan who were saying Arsenal's keeper was the second best in the PL and then he shipped 8 to United.

From my post you would understand how some players would work in some systems better than others, hence RG's preference for Song over Yaya. I mentioned those factors and the existence of many others to argue the futility of comparing two players, since there is no mathematical equation that does so. Football is a subjective sport (thank God) and while opinions on the ability of the players is governed by the factors above and many others, it is a sub conscious equation that is not free of bias. Bottom line is, you can't directly say that player A is better than player B i all systems and with all coaches and at all times.

De Rossi never accomplished anything more significant than a Copa Italia at a senior level. As his WC medal is one who took while being absent from most of the tournament. Hell, there are many players who won very little and yet are considered great. In the modern game there is Gerrard, who only has a CL (a big trophy but the numbers stand) to his name. Also there was Batigol who only won one Serie A.

Again, I argued the fact that arguing Song is better than Yaya is a valid argument however you define validity. I am not arguing that Song is better, but that an opinion that Song is better is not a ridiculous opinion. I myself don't rate both of them, and actually share the opinion of Guardiola about Busquets (who I rate, but not much). I can't see where the fact that someone who says Song is better than Yaya makes that persons judgment to be faulty.

Barcelona and Arsenal's systems are very similar so it's not a reach at all to sat Yaya would be very good in Arsenal's system. Barca expected Yaya to be technical, physical, have a good passing rate, be a rock in the center of the field, good going forward, provide killer passes in the final third and be good in the air on set pieces because BArca's a bunch of midget's (which Arsenal could also use), and protect a high backline. HE did all of them very well so it is a very easy jump to say he would be great in Arsenal's system. He jumped to the PL and in his first year looked like he'd been playing there his whole life. HE is just a better player, there really is no argument. IT's not a knock on Song as he's a fine player but Yaya is just better it's obvious. IT's not like one plays for Stoke and the other plays for Arsenal the systems are similar.

And Guardiola did not want to get rid of Yaya. Him and Busquets were going to split minutes and Yaya didn't want to do that. Pep even said it's one of the moves he regrets the most in selling Yaya as he wanted to keep him and loves him as a player.

I know there are players who don't win anything and are really good, but Song has been in games with trophies on the line and hasn't played as well as Yaya. HE steps up in big games it's a factor in why he's better. I mean he played in the back 4 for the first time in the CL final and bossed United, and like I said dragged City to the FA cup and scored in the final two games one against the second best team in the world.

It's just not close at all. You could ask any scout, or level headed fan. Even the guy I'm arguing with wont say Song is better and neither will you so what are we really talking about?

I am talking about the validity of the comments. My argument is that it is not completely ridiculous to have an opinion that Song is better than Yaya, as that opinion is valid, i.e. can be true. Hence, the fact that someone made valid opinion, it does not put their argumentative skills into question. Also, it means that it does not warrant anyone ridiculing them for making that valid opinion.

These are three points, points 2 and 3 are direct effects from point one.

Point one is the validity of the opinion that Song is better than Yaya. Which I provided supporting evidence in the shape of the impossibility of absolutely the truth of the above claim for two players who are in the same ball field. And also provided the case that trophies do not make player A better than player B, which you also agree with.

I also disagree on the fact that Barca and Arsenal's system are very close. They are certainly not, as proven by the lack of tracking back and the more direct style of play, as well as the random behavior of the offensive players.

In conclusion, if you can provide a mathematical equation that without fault can establish player A to be player B then, and only then can the opinion that player B is better than player A be invalid; so you can ridicule Arsenal's fans all you want. But as is the case that providing such an equation is impossible, you can just accept the idea that some people will have opinions that might seem ridiculous to you, but are valid nonetheless. And you then can move on.

Simple question.
Do you need a mathematical equation to tell you that Messi is better than Walcott?
Or are you now going to tell me that Walcott is better for the system?
Bottom line is.
Yaya is twice the player Song will ever be in any system.One doesnt need a mathematical equation for it(and i love Math,greatest thing in the world after Barca and Sharapova).
One just needs to watch the both of them play.

Apparently you failed to read the part about both being in the same ball park ability wise, Messi is not in the same ball park as Walcott, he is far ahead of him. Therefore your argument is invalid. Yaya being "twice" the player Song is a ridiculous statement, such exaggeration shows either profound ignorance in your part or extreme bias.

english_jewel wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

alexjanosik wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:Simply put, being a better player is not a mathematical equation. You can't put a rating on players like PES. There tons of elements you need to take into account.

First, the player himself:
1- Position.
2- His suitability for that position.
3- Skills.
4- Fitness record.
5- Personality.
6- Physical attributes.
7- Mind.

The team he is playing for:
1- The teams strength.
2- His usefulness for the team.
3- The team tactics.
4- Team chemistry.
5- Team style.

The environment:
1- Weather.
2- Fans.
3- Club pressure.

And these are just a taste of the hundreds of criteria that affect a players ability. To say that Song is better than Yaya for Arsenal is a completely valid opinion (valid meaning the opinion to be reasonable; validity as philosophical term means when an opinion can be true). To say that Song is better than Yaya as a DM is also completely valid. There are no proofs anyone can bring to justify their claim. Football experts are divided on the issue, and since you don't have an overwhelming advantage for Yaya, the opinion is Valid.

OK, so take all of those factors you can come up with and Yaya ranks better in more of them because he is a better player. IT's really not that hard. You know when it's trophy time and Arsenal and Song are losing to a relegation team in the Carling Cup and Yaya is dragging City past United to win the FA cup. That's when a players true colors come out and the cream rises to the top.

I mean your post would make some sense if we were comparing Yaya and De Rossi or Essien or someone like that but Song??? Give me a break, the guy has never accomplished anything, he's not a leader and he is a good player but no where near these other players.

You can list a whole bunch of aspects but the bottom line is Yaya is better unless you're a blind Arsenal fan probably the same type of fan who were saying Arsenal's keeper was the second best in the PL and then he shipped 8 to United.

From my post you would understand how some players would work in some systems better than others, hence RG's preference for Song over Yaya. I mentioned those factors and the existence of many others to argue the futility of comparing two players, since there is no mathematical equation that does so. Football is a subjective sport (thank God) and while opinions on the ability of the players is governed by the factors above and many others, it is a sub conscious equation that is not free of bias. Bottom line is, you can't directly say that player A is better than player B i all systems and with all coaches and at all times.

De Rossi never accomplished anything more significant than a Copa Italia at a senior level. As his WC medal is one who took while being absent from most of the tournament. Hell, there are many players who won very little and yet are considered great. In the modern game there is Gerrard, who only has a CL (a big trophy but the numbers stand) to his name. Also there was Batigol who only won one Serie A.

Again, I argued the fact that arguing Song is better than Yaya is a valid argument however you define validity. I am not arguing that Song is better, but that an opinion that Song is better is not a ridiculous opinion. I myself don't rate both of them, and actually share the opinion of Guardiola about Busquets (who I rate, but not much). I can't see where the fact that someone who says Song is better than Yaya makes that persons judgment to be faulty.

Barcelona and Arsenal's systems are very similar so it's not a reach at all to sat Yaya would be very good in Arsenal's system. Barca expected Yaya to be technical, physical, have a good passing rate, be a rock in the center of the field, good going forward, provide killer passes in the final third and be good in the air on set pieces because BArca's a bunch of midget's (which Arsenal could also use), and protect a high backline. HE did all of them very well so it is a very easy jump to say he would be great in Arsenal's system. He jumped to the PL and in his first year looked like he'd been playing there his whole life. HE is just a better player, there really is no argument. IT's not a knock on Song as he's a fine player but Yaya is just better it's obvious. IT's not like one plays for Stoke and the other plays for Arsenal the systems are similar.

And Guardiola did not want to get rid of Yaya. Him and Busquets were going to split minutes and Yaya didn't want to do that. Pep even said it's one of the moves he regrets the most in selling Yaya as he wanted to keep him and loves him as a player.

I know there are players who don't win anything and are really good, but Song has been in games with trophies on the line and hasn't played as well as Yaya. HE steps up in big games it's a factor in why he's better. I mean he played in the back 4 for the first time in the CL final and bossed United, and like I said dragged City to the FA cup and scored in the final two games one against the second best team in the world.

It's just not close at all. You could ask any scout, or level headed fan. Even the guy I'm arguing with wont say Song is better and neither will you so what are we really talking about?

I am talking about the validity of the comments. My argument is that it is not completely ridiculous to have an opinion that Song is better than Yaya, as that opinion is valid, i.e. can be true. Hence, the fact that someone made valid opinion, it does not put their argumentative skills into question. Also, it means that it does not warrant anyone ridiculing them for making that valid opinion.

These are three points, points 2 and 3 are direct effects from point one.

Point one is the validity of the opinion that Song is better than Yaya. Which I provided supporting evidence in the shape of the impossibility of absolutely the truth of the above claim for two players who are in the same ball field. And also provided the case that trophies do not make player A better than player B, which you also agree with.

I also disagree on the fact that Barca and Arsenal's system are very close. They are certainly not, as proven by the lack of tracking back and the more direct style of play, as well as the random behavior of the offensive players.

In conclusion, if you can provide a mathematical equation that without fault can establish player A to be player B then, and only then can the opinion that player B is better than player A be invalid; so you can ridicule Arsenal's fans all you want. But as is the case that providing such an equation is impossible, you can just accept the idea that some people will have opinions that might seem ridiculous to you, but are valid nonetheless. And you then can move on.

Simple question.
Do you need a mathematical equation to tell you that Messi is better than Walcott?
Or are you now going to tell me that Walcott is better for the system?
Bottom line is.
Yaya is twice the player Song will ever be in any system.One doesnt need a mathematical equation for it(and i love Math,greatest thing in the world after Barca and Sharapova).
One just needs to watch the both of them play.

Apparently you failed to read the part about both being in the same ball park ability wise, Messi is not in the same ball park as Walcott, he is far ahead of him. Therefore your argument is invalid. Yaya being "twice" the player Song is a ridiculous statement, such exaggeration shows either profound ignorance in your part or extreme bias.

Yaya is not in the same ball park as Song, he is far ahead of him. Therefore your argument is invalid.

Do you have a mathematical equation telling me that without doubt Walcott is not in the same ball park as Messi? No right?

Your words fit perfectly here:

"In conclusion, if you can provide a mathematical equation that without fault can establish player A to be player B then, and only then can the opinion that player B is better than player A be invalid; so you can ridicule others all you want. But as is the case that providing such an equation is impossible, you can just accept the idea that some people will have opinions that might seem ridiculous to you, but are valid nonetheless. And you then can move on."

Talk about hypocrisy.

Lord Spencer wrote:

english_jewel wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

alexjanosik wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:Simply put, being a better player is not a mathematical equation. You can't put a rating on players like PES. There tons of elements you need to take into account.

First, the player himself:
1- Position.
2- His suitability for that position.
3- Skills.
4- Fitness record.
5- Personality.
6- Physical attributes.
7- Mind.

The team he is playing for:
1- The teams strength.
2- His usefulness for the team.
3- The team tactics.
4- Team chemistry.
5- Team style.

The environment:
1- Weather.
2- Fans.
3- Club pressure.

And these are just a taste of the hundreds of criteria that affect a players ability. To say that Song is better than Yaya for Arsenal is a completely valid opinion (valid meaning the opinion to be reasonable; validity as philosophical term means when an opinion can be true). To say that Song is better than Yaya as a DM is also completely valid. There are no proofs anyone can bring to justify their claim. Football experts are divided on the issue, and since you don't have an overwhelming advantage for Yaya, the opinion is Valid.

OK, so take all of those factors you can come up with and Yaya ranks better in more of them because he is a better player. IT's really not that hard. You know when it's trophy time and Arsenal and Song are losing to a relegation team in the Carling Cup and Yaya is dragging City past United to win the FA cup. That's when a players true colors come out and the cream rises to the top.

I mean your post would make some sense if we were comparing Yaya and De Rossi or Essien or someone like that but Song??? Give me a break, the guy has never accomplished anything, he's not a leader and he is a good player but no where near these other players.

You can list a whole bunch of aspects but the bottom line is Yaya is better unless you're a blind Arsenal fan probably the same type of fan who were saying Arsenal's keeper was the second best in the PL and then he shipped 8 to United.

From my post you would understand how some players would work in some systems better than others, hence RG's preference for Song over Yaya. I mentioned those factors and the existence of many others to argue the futility of comparing two players, since there is no mathematical equation that does so. Football is a subjective sport (thank God) and while opinions on the ability of the players is governed by the factors above and many others, it is a sub conscious equation that is not free of bias. Bottom line is, you can't directly say that player A is better than player B i all systems and with all coaches and at all times.

De Rossi never accomplished anything more significant than a Copa Italia at a senior level. As his WC medal is one who took while being absent from most of the tournament. Hell, there are many players who won very little and yet are considered great. In the modern game there is Gerrard, who only has a CL (a big trophy but the numbers stand) to his name. Also there was Batigol who only won one Serie A.

Again, I argued the fact that arguing Song is better than Yaya is a valid argument however you define validity. I am not arguing that Song is better, but that an opinion that Song is better is not a ridiculous opinion. I myself don't rate both of them, and actually share the opinion of Guardiola about Busquets (who I rate, but not much). I can't see where the fact that someone who says Song is better than Yaya makes that persons judgment to be faulty.

Barcelona and Arsenal's systems are very similar so it's not a reach at all to sat Yaya would be very good in Arsenal's system. Barca expected Yaya to be technical, physical, have a good passing rate, be a rock in the center of the field, good going forward, provide killer passes in the final third and be good in the air on set pieces because BArca's a bunch of midget's (which Arsenal could also use), and protect a high backline. HE did all of them very well so it is a very easy jump to say he would be great in Arsenal's system. He jumped to the PL and in his first year looked like he'd been playing there his whole life. HE is just a better player, there really is no argument. IT's not a knock on Song as he's a fine player but Yaya is just better it's obvious. IT's not like one plays for Stoke and the other plays for Arsenal the systems are similar.

And Guardiola did not want to get rid of Yaya. Him and Busquets were going to split minutes and Yaya didn't want to do that. Pep even said it's one of the moves he regrets the most in selling Yaya as he wanted to keep him and loves him as a player.

I know there are players who don't win anything and are really good, but Song has been in games with trophies on the line and hasn't played as well as Yaya. HE steps up in big games it's a factor in why he's better. I mean he played in the back 4 for the first time in the CL final and bossed United, and like I said dragged City to the FA cup and scored in the final two games one against the second best team in the world.

It's just not close at all. You could ask any scout, or level headed fan. Even the guy I'm arguing with wont say Song is better and neither will you so what are we really talking about?

I am talking about the validity of the comments. My argument is that it is not completely ridiculous to have an opinion that Song is better than Yaya, as that opinion is valid, i.e. can be true. Hence, the fact that someone made valid opinion, it does not put their argumentative skills into question. Also, it means that it does not warrant anyone ridiculing them for making that valid opinion.

These are three points, points 2 and 3 are direct effects from point one.

Point one is the validity of the opinion that Song is better than Yaya. Which I provided supporting evidence in the shape of the impossibility of absolutely the truth of the above claim for two players who are in the same ball field. And also provided the case that trophies do not make player A better than player B, which you also agree with.

I also disagree on the fact that Barca and Arsenal's system are very close. They are certainly not, as proven by the lack of tracking back and the more direct style of play, as well as the random behavior of the offensive players.

In conclusion, if you can provide a mathematical equation that without fault can establish player A to be player B then, and only then can the opinion that player B is better than player A be invalid; so you can ridicule Arsenal's fans all you want. But as is the case that providing such an equation is impossible, you can just accept the idea that some people will have opinions that might seem ridiculous to you, but are valid nonetheless. And you then can move on.

Simple question.
Do you need a mathematical equation to tell you that Messi is better than Walcott?
Or are you now going to tell me that Walcott is better for the system?
Bottom line is.
Yaya is twice the player Song will ever be in any system.One doesnt need a mathematical equation for it(and i love Math,greatest thing in the world after Barca and Sharapova).
One just needs to watch the both of them play.

Apparently you failed to read the part about both being in the same ball park ability wise, Messi is not in the same ball park as Walcott, he is far ahead of him. Therefore your argument is invalid. Yaya being "twice" the player Song is a ridiculous statement, such exaggeration shows either profound ignorance in your part or extreme bias.

Yaya is not in the same ball park as Song, he is far ahead of him. Therefore your argument is invalid.

Do you have a mathematical equation telling me that without doubt Walcott is not in the same ball park as Messi? No right?

Your words fit perfectly here:

"In conclusion, if you can provide a mathematical equation that without fault can establish player A to be player B then, and only then can the opinion that player B is better than player A be invalid; so you can ridicule others all you want. But as is the case that providing such an equation is impossible, you can just accept the idea that some people will have opinions that might seem ridiculous to you, but are valid nonetheless. And you then can move on."

Talk about hypocrisy.

First, I mentioned two phases of judgment. The first being objective, as that of the number of experts and lay men who would say player A is as good as player B. Hence, based on that opinion player A would either be in the same level, lower, or higher than player B.

In this case, Messi by common consensus would surely be higher than Walcott. However, it would not be the same with Yaya ans Song, where although Yaya will have an advantage, he would not have a clear advantage. If anyone does a point and Yaya is found to have a clear advantage, then there will be no need for the equations I was talking about.

Hence, I did not contradict myself.

It is only when two players are in the same level/tier/ball park and in the same position that it becomes impossible to differentiate them, since then it becomes more subjective. There is no need to have an equation for putting players in different levels since that bit is very obvious by glance. Like it is obvious to say boiling water is hotter than Ice, while you can't differentiate between water that is 15 C and water that 15.2 C easily.

alexjanosik wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

english_jewel wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

alexjanosik wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:Simply put, being a better player is not a mathematical equation. You can't put a rating on players like PES. There tons of elements you need to take into account.

First, the player himself:
1- Position.
2- His suitability for that position.
3- Skills.
4- Fitness record.
5- Personality.
6- Physical attributes.
7- Mind.

The team he is playing for:
1- The teams strength.
2- His usefulness for the team.
3- The team tactics.
4- Team chemistry.
5- Team style.

The environment:
1- Weather.
2- Fans.
3- Club pressure.

And these are just a taste of the hundreds of criteria that affect a players ability. To say that Song is better than Yaya for Arsenal is a completely valid opinion (valid meaning the opinion to be reasonable; validity as philosophical term means when an opinion can be true). To say that Song is better than Yaya as a DM is also completely valid. There are no proofs anyone can bring to justify their claim. Football experts are divided on the issue, and since you don't have an overwhelming advantage for Yaya, the opinion is Valid.

OK, so take all of those factors you can come up with and Yaya ranks better in more of them because he is a better player. IT's really not that hard. You know when it's trophy time and Arsenal and Song are losing to a relegation team in the Carling Cup and Yaya is dragging City past United to win the FA cup. That's when a players true colors come out and the cream rises to the top.

I mean your post would make some sense if we were comparing Yaya and De Rossi or Essien or someone like that but Song??? Give me a break, the guy has never accomplished anything, he's not a leader and he is a good player but no where near these other players.

You can list a whole bunch of aspects but the bottom line is Yaya is better unless you're a blind Arsenal fan probably the same type of fan who were saying Arsenal's keeper was the second best in the PL and then he shipped 8 to United.

From my post you would understand how some players would work in some systems better than others, hence RG's preference for Song over Yaya. I mentioned those factors and the existence of many others to argue the futility of comparing two players, since there is no mathematical equation that does so. Football is a subjective sport (thank God) and while opinions on the ability of the players is governed by the factors above and many others, it is a sub conscious equation that is not free of bias. Bottom line is, you can't directly say that player A is better than player B i all systems and with all coaches and at all times.

De Rossi never accomplished anything more significant than a Copa Italia at a senior level. As his WC medal is one who took while being absent from most of the tournament. Hell, there are many players who won very little and yet are considered great. In the modern game there is Gerrard, who only has a CL (a big trophy but the numbers stand) to his name. Also there was Batigol who only won one Serie A.

Again, I argued the fact that arguing Song is better than Yaya is a valid argument however you define validity. I am not arguing that Song is better, but that an opinion that Song is better is not a ridiculous opinion. I myself don't rate both of them, and actually share the opinion of Guardiola about Busquets (who I rate, but not much). I can't see where the fact that someone who says Song is better than Yaya makes that persons judgment to be faulty.

Barcelona and Arsenal's systems are very similar so it's not a reach at all to sat Yaya would be very good in Arsenal's system. Barca expected Yaya to be technical, physical, have a good passing rate, be a rock in the center of the field, good going forward, provide killer passes in the final third and be good in the air on set pieces because BArca's a bunch of midget's (which Arsenal could also use), and protect a high backline. HE did all of them very well so it is a very easy jump to say he would be great in Arsenal's system. He jumped to the PL and in his first year looked like he'd been playing there his whole life. HE is just a better player, there really is no argument. IT's not a knock on Song as he's a fine player but Yaya is just better it's obvious. IT's not like one plays for Stoke and the other plays for Arsenal the systems are similar.

And Guardiola did not want to get rid of Yaya. Him and Busquets were going to split minutes and Yaya didn't want to do that. Pep even said it's one of the moves he regrets the most in selling Yaya as he wanted to keep him and loves him as a player.

I know there are players who don't win anything and are really good, but Song has been in games with trophies on the line and hasn't played as well as Yaya. HE steps up in big games it's a factor in why he's better. I mean he played in the back 4 for the first time in the CL final and bossed United, and like I said dragged City to the FA cup and scored in the final two games one against the second best team in the world.

It's just not close at all. You could ask any scout, or level headed fan. Even the guy I'm arguing with wont say Song is better and neither will you so what are we really talking about?

I am talking about the validity of the comments. My argument is that it is not completely ridiculous to have an opinion that Song is better than Yaya, as that opinion is valid, i.e. can be true. Hence, the fact that someone made valid opinion, it does not put their argumentative skills into question. Also, it means that it does not warrant anyone ridiculing them for making that valid opinion.

These are three points, points 2 and 3 are direct effects from point one.

Point one is the validity of the opinion that Song is better than Yaya. Which I provided supporting evidence in the shape of the impossibility of absolutely the truth of the above claim for two players who are in the same ball field. And also provided the case that trophies do not make player A better than player B, which you also agree with.

I also disagree on the fact that Barca and Arsenal's system are very close. They are certainly not, as proven by the lack of tracking back and the more direct style of play, as well as the random behavior of the offensive players.

In conclusion, if you can provide a mathematical equation that without fault can establish player A to be player B then, and only then can the opinion that player B is better than player A be invalid; so you can ridicule Arsenal's fans all you want. But as is the case that providing such an equation is impossible, you can just accept the idea that some people will have opinions that might seem ridiculous to you, but are valid nonetheless. And you then can move on.

Simple question.
Do you need a mathematical equation to tell you that Messi is better than Walcott?
Or are you now going to tell me that Walcott is better for the system?
Bottom line is.
Yaya is twice the player Song will ever be in any system.One doesnt need a mathematical equation for it(and i love Math,greatest thing in the world after Barca and Sharapova).
One just needs to watch the both of them play.

Apparently you failed to read the part about both being in the same ball park ability wise, Messi is not in the same ball park as Walcott, he is far ahead of him. Therefore your argument is invalid. Yaya being "twice" the player Song is a ridiculous statement, such exaggeration shows either profound ignorance in your part or extreme bias.

Yaya is not in the same ball park as Song, he is far ahead of him. Therefore your argument is invalid.

Do you have a mathematical equation telling me that without doubt Walcott is not in the same ball park as Messi? No right?

Your words fit perfectly here:

"In conclusion, if you can provide a mathematical equation that without fault can establish player A to be player B then, and only then can the opinion that player B is better than player A be invalid; so you can ridicule others all you want. But as is the case that providing such an equation is impossible, you can just accept the idea that some people will have opinions that might seem ridiculous to you, but are valid nonetheless. And you then can move on."

Talk about hypocrisy.

First, I mentioned two phases of judgment. The first being objective, as that of the number of experts and lay men who would say player A is as good as player B. Hence, based on that opinion player A would either be in the same level, lower, or higher than player B.

In this case, Messi by common consensus would surely be higher than Walcott. However, it would not be the same with Yaya ans Song, where although Yaya will have an advantage, he would not have a clear advantage. If anyone does a point and Yaya is found to have a clear advantage, then there will be no need for the equations I was talking about.

Hence, I did not contradict myself.

It is only when two players are in the same level/tier/ball park and in the same position that it becomes impossible to differentiate them, since then it becomes more subjective. There is no need to have an equation for putting players in different levels since that bit is very obvious by glance. Like it is obvious to say boiling water is hotter than Ice, while you can't differentiate between water that is 15 C and water that 15.2 C easily.

You are tying yourself up in knots son.
First you claim that Song being better than Yaya is a valid opinion as it cant be mathematically proven otherwise.
Then I ask you whether Walcott being better than Messi is a valid opinion as it cant be mathematically proven otherwise.
Then you say that no first the experts have to agree that they are in the same ballpark,only then does your stupid logic apply.
So supposedly the experts can be guaranteed to tell the absolute truth about the players being in the same ballpark when you yourself claim that math is the only truth.
And why is there no need for an equation to put players in different levels.How is it obvious by first glance since Math is the only absolute truth?
Then I did an attribute comparison to prove that Yaya is miles ahead of Song(not in the same ballpark just to go along with your dumb logic).And you didnt respond there instaed claiming that experts have to decide whether they are in the same ballpark or not(apparently when it suits you they can be conveniently used to tell the absolute truth even without a mathematical equation to back them up).
And then when I ask you name which expert claimed Song to be better you come with nothing again trying to change your stance.
Oh I almost forgot.The Al Jazeera journalist.His word must be the gospel truth,even better than a mathematical equation.

In short Son you dont need a mathematical equation to tell you Yaya is better.One is a world class midfielder who has won it all and is a champion player.The other is just average.Anybody with an iota of football intelligence can figure it out.Just need to watch the both of them play.

You want to sound clever on an internet forum.Take your BS theories to the Offtopic Section.But dont try to look clever by posting nonsense on a football thread.
You just end up looking stupid.

dnmac4 wrote:
It's just not close at all. You could ask any scout, or level headed fan. Even the guy I'm arguing with wont say Song is better and neither will you so what are we really talking about?

Raptorgunner wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:
It's just not close at all. You could ask any scout, or level headed fan. Even the guy I'm arguing with wont say Song is better and neither will you so what are we really talking about?

I dont know why you bring up Song vs YaYa, what you said was that YaYa is better then Jack Wilshere. You said that Man city has better midfield then Arsenal, when we had both Cesc and Nasri. I know you hate Arsenal with a passion but even a blind man could see we had better midfield then Man City.

Song might not be as good as YaYa, and there is no way YaYa is better then Jack.

jibers wrote:

Raptorgunner wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:
It's just not close at all. You could ask any scout, or level headed fan. Even the guy I'm arguing with wont say Song is better and neither will you so what are we really talking about?

I dont know why you bring up Song vs YaYa, what you said was that YaYa is better then Jack Wilshere. You said that Man city has better midfield then Arsenal, when we had both Cesc and Nasri. I know you hate Arsenal with a passion but even a blind man could see we had better midfield then Man City.

Song might not be as good as YaYa, and there is no way YaYa is better then Jack.

lol at saying wilshere is better than jack. I can't take you seriously. Toure is better than wilsher at pretty much everything, bettr dribbler, passer, shooter and better defensively. What is wilshere better at? next thing you'll tell me wilshere is better than scholes was. Complete BS.

jibers wrote:

Raptorgunner wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:
It's just not close at all. You could ask any scout, or level headed fan. Even the guy I'm arguing with wont say Song is better and neither will you so what are we really talking about?

I dont know why you bring up Song vs YaYa, what you said was that YaYa is better then Jack Wilshere. You said that Man city has better midfield then Arsenal, when we had both Cesc and Nasri. I know you hate Arsenal with a passion but even a blind man could see we had better midfield then Man City.

Song might not be as good as YaYa, and there is no way YaYa is better then Jack.

lol at saying wilshere is better than jack. I can't take you seriously. Toure is better than wilsher at pretty much everything, bettr dribbler, passer, shooter and better defensively. What is wilshere better at? next thing you'll tell me wilshere is better than scholes was. Complete BS.

RedEyesWhiteBeard wrote:

jibers wrote:

Raptorgunner wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:
It's just not close at all. You could ask any scout, or level headed fan. Even the guy I'm arguing with wont say Song is better and neither will you so what are we really talking about?

I dont know why you bring up Song vs YaYa, what you said was that YaYa is better then Jack Wilshere. You said that Man city has better midfield then Arsenal, when we had both Cesc and Nasri. I know you hate Arsenal with a passion but even a blind man could see we had better midfield then Man City.

Song might not be as good as YaYa, and there is no way YaYa is better then Jack.

lol at saying wilshere is better than jack. I can't take you seriously. Toure is better than wilsher at pretty much everything, bettr dribbler, passer, shooter and better defensively. What is wilshere better at? next thing you'll tell me wilshere is better than scholes was. Complete BS.

jack wilshere did something that your WHOLE MIDFIELD couldnt even dream about doing against barcalona...and you are comparing him to yaya toure...a fcking dm....

Ade wrote:Wow Jack is better than Yaya? I thought I seen it all

jibers wrote:

Raptorgunner wrote:

dnmac4 wrote:
It's just not close at all. You could ask any scout, or level headed fan. Even the guy I'm arguing with wont say Song is better and neither will you so what are we really talking about?

I dont know why you bring up Song vs YaYa, what you said was that YaYa is better then Jack Wilshere. You said that Man city has better midfield then Arsenal, when we had both Cesc and Nasri. I know you hate Arsenal with a passion but even a blind man could see we had better midfield then Man City.

Song might not be as good as YaYa, and there is no way YaYa is better then Jack.

lol at saying wilshere is better than jack. I can't take you seriously. Toure is better than wilsher at pretty much everything, bettr dribbler, passer, shooter and better defensively. What is wilshere better at? next thing you'll tell me wilshere is better than scholes was. Complete BS.

Ade wrote:Wow Jack is better than Yaya? I thought I seen it all

RedEyesWhiteBeard wrote:

Ade wrote:Wow Jack is better than Yaya? I thought I seen it all

are you kidding me? this guy is comparing the players in terms of their ATTACKING qualities, we all know yaya is a great dm, but to say he is better at jack at offensive qualities? no way, not even close and ive seen him play a lot.

cyberman wrote:Yaya hasnt been a DM for 2 years now lol

Id take Anderson over all of them...

Raptorgunner wrote:

Ade wrote:Wow Jack is better than Yaya? I thought I seen it all  

YaYa was a great player, when he was at Barcelona, YaYA was one of the best in the world, he would have ate any player alive, we are talking about now and I think Jack is better then YaYa.

Sushi Master wrote:I'd put Jack about equal to Yaya, even though they serve different roles. Jack also has an extreme potential, IMO he'll be better once he matures.

In that whole thread, it was concluded that Arsenal had a better midfield than City, because we had Nasri, Fabregas, Sheva, Walcott, Song, Wilshere, Ramsey, Rosicky... Every Arsenal player was better than their City counterpart, apart from Song, which we agreed Yaya is better. I think some people compared Yaya to Song, which is wrong because he should be compared to Song. This is what I concluded, it might not be the same opinion others share.

Anyways, our midfield isn't obviously at the same caliber as last season. But Song is still class and that's final You know, when he doesn't run like a fool leaving our midfield exposed.

REWB wrote:

Ade wrote:Wow Jack is better than Yaya? I thought I seen it all  

are you kidding me? this guy is comparing the players in terms of their ATTACKING qualities, we all know yaya is a great dm, but to say he is better at jack at offensive qualities? no way, not even close and ive seen him play a lot.