Mavericky Puig

[companyofcules]

He is a Pub player and MLS soft football fits him. He had the oportunity to get into the gym to make some problems go away but he failed. There's nothing to see here.

 

[vegitot]

Bruh it is 2024. Not 2018 or 2020.

Please remind yourself again that I hold Xavi as the no 1 midfielder of all time. Of course he could play much more creatively and more daring if he wanted to, but he didn't, especially not in his greatest years. His assists in those years came as a result of him not looking for the final ball all the time, and the team trusting him and his vision completely. Please take a look for Ibra's quote regarding Xavi in his thread.
I am absolutely certain that Puig would reach a lot higher numbers than you'd think, had he taken Xavi's place there. I am just as sure that the team would be (much) worse with Puig rather than Xavi. I believe that if Puig had taken Iniesta's place in that XI, he would be the one making a lot of assists, and I think the team could've been on about the same level.

No one care if you enjoy Puig or not. But saying Puig can pefectly replace Iniesta is another level of stupidity

If you put this in your signature you wouldn't have to post it every week.

Should be ashamed of your appeal to authority fallacy as well, you should never feign stupidity to 'support' your ideas.

Then can you enlighten people here why no European team or Spain NT never lay an eye on him?

 

[Iniesta Ultra]

Then can you enlighten people here why no European team or Spain NT never lay an eye on him?

So why are no big clubs in for him, oh sensei?

Probably because he doesn't run around headless chicken off the ball and rarely defends in MLS so European teams just assume he'd do the same there. If they looked back at his time at Barca they'd know that's not true he's only putting in the effort needed to dominate in his current environment.

Why did Palmer get trash minutes from Gateshead at the Euros when he's their best player? Why did Joao Neves only get 77 min in the Euros? How is a finished CR playing every minute?

Did they stop teaching logical fallacies in school when you grew up? Appeal to authority means nothing.

 

[vegitot]

Probably because he doesn't run around headless chicken off the ball and rarely defends in MLS so European teams just assume he'd do the same there. If they looked back at his time at Barca they'd know that's not true he's only putting in the effort needed to dominate in his current environment.

Why did Palmer get trash minutes from Gateshead at the Euros when he's their best player? Why did Joao Neves only get 77 min in the Euros? How is a finished CR playing every minute?

Did they stop teaching logical fallacies in school when you grew up? Appeal to authority means nothing.

Palmer or Neves at least not play in MLS. You act like all European teams are dumb and only you can see the truth, then stop complaining why Barca don't buy back, not in million years

Puig is still a headless chicken. He can only play in MLS because opponent let him to play. They can push him whenever they want

 

[ajnotkeith]

Probably because he doesn't run around headless chicken off the ball and rarely defends in MLS so European teams just assume he'd do the same there. If they looked back at his time at Barca they'd know that's not true he's only putting in the effort needed to dominate in his current environment.

Why did Palmer get trash minutes from Gateshead at the Euros when he's their best player? Why did Joao Neves only get 77 min in the Euros? How is a finished CR playing every minute?

Did they stop teaching logical fallacies in school when you grew up? Appeal to authority means nothing.

That isn't always a fallacy if the authority is valid.

Authority can certainly be wrong, but the likelihood of authority being wrong decreases if many different authorities on a subject all have the same opinion.

Basically for you to be right, you would have to know better on this particular issue than all of the top managers in the world and all of the top scouts in the world practically, which is not absolutely impossible, but simply incredibly unlikely. You also don't have any statistical or objective evidence underlying your points.

With someone like Palmer the argument changes as he has credentials and is rated by a lot of important figures in football. He also scored like 22 goals last season in the Premier League which is more than double Riqui's total in the MLS, for example, he also had more assists, in a far stronger league.

Puig has no real credentials and no top experts who rate him so it's hard to put forward an honest argument for him as being a top player. The reality is his level is probably where he is now, a leading MLS player, but nothing much more than that. At best, he could play in a relegation or mid table LaLiga side.

 

[Maradona37]

That isn't always a fallacy if the authority is valid.

Authority can certainly be wrong, but the likelihood of authority being wrong decreases if many different authorities on a subject all have the same opinion.

Basically for you to be right, you would have to know better on this particular issue than all of the top managers in the world and all of the top scouts in the world practically, which is not absolutely impossible, but simply incredibly unlikely. You also don't have any statistical or objective evidence underlying your points.

Going off topic a bit as this isn't about the player, but...

While that is true and I totally agree with you on the appeal to authority fallacy (in terms of better authorities and an abundance of them descreasing the likelihoold of it being a genuine fallacy), there is also the issue of group think. It's less likely in a science realm, but in a more emotional realm like football even top managers are susceptible to going along with the general consensus, even in the days of data-driven analysis. Certainly it was true in the old days when people got a feel for a player.

I am not saying you are wrong on this debate or any other debate (I don't know much about this player), but I am just saying that even very knowledgeable people (and even en masse) are susceptible to unconscious bias or believing media hype or propaganda. Especially in a powder keg emotional sport like football. We can see that with some of the Ballon d'or winners who likely shouldn't have won. I believe many people voted for them just because other people were and it amplified from there.

But of course, as you imply, non-authoritative people are even more vulnerable to bias and making posts more with the heart than the head (many fans love players because they WANT them to be good rather them genuinely being good, for example), so you still make some great points.

Just offering some thoughts because I genuinely agree with what I quoted from you. albeit with the above caveats.

 

[ajnotkeith]

Going off topic a bit as this isn't about the player, but...

While that is true and I totally agree with you on the appeal to authority fallacy (in terms of better authorities and an abundance of them descreasing the likelihoold of it being a genuine fallacy), there is also the issue of group think. It's less likely in a science realm, but in a more emotional realm like football even top managers are susceptible to going along with the general consensus, even in the days of data-driven analysis. Certainly it was true in the old days when people got a feel for a player.

I am not saying you are wrong on this debate or any other debate (I don't know much about this player), but I am just saying that even very knowledgeable people (and even en masse) are susceptible to unconscious bias or believing media hype or propaganda. Especially in a powder keg emotional sport like football. We can see that with some of the Ballon d'or winners who likely shouldn't have won. I believe many people voted for them just because other people were and it amplified from there.

But of course, as you imply, non-authoritative people are even more vulnerable to bias and making posts more with the heart than the head (many fans love players because they WANT them to be good rather them genuinely being good, for example), so you still make some great points.

Just offering some thoughts because I genuinely agree with what I quoted from you. albeit with the above caveats.

I agree with this. The problem is with taking authority as an absolute truth in today's society is they will always have considerations or motivations that means their opinions are not completely objective. Actually it's a really interesting topic, and objective evaluation skills encompass so many aspects, such as understanding of human nature, society, understanding of statistics, understanding of psychology etc. To be high level in evaluating anything you need to have a good understanding of all these topics as they all interlink in why authorities may come to a certain opinion.

For instance, if we are talking about football, managers suffer from natural biases due to job pressure, financial pressures, fan pressure etc, that may mean they make choices they do not think are the best ones due to external factors. Let's say a manager really wants to test some youth player and really rates him, but doesn't want to take the risk due to having naturally volatile job security as football, and maybe fearing the consequences if they are wrong - it would be then disingenuous and not 100% objective to take his opinion on a player as absolute fact as he suffers from biases that external observers simply do not. That is before we get to the fact there are things like nepotism in football that can muddy the waters further.

This is why taking multiple different sources, and multiple different TYPES of sources, is imperative, as you are accounting more for different biases people may face, and making sure you are not sampling too much of the same type of source, because as you described, the same type of source in this instance (managers) all suffer from similar biases and pressures due to their role, which can mean their opinions are not independent of each other.
There is also the fact that in football, or any industries really, there is a tendency to learn the pre-existing methods and accepted logics, and not to challenge them, as a human naturally might think there's no chance they could be right whilst many other more qualified people are wrong. But it does happen and the fact you have those outside thinkers who challenge the norms is why we see development.

However, it doesn't mean you should always fall into contrarianism for the sake of it. Authority on subjects is oftentimes right and I feel there's become a kind of mental tic amongst 'free thinkers' to just challenge any norm for the sake of going against the grain rather than objectively evaluating if the belief is correct based on all evidence.

 

[Maradona37]

I agree with this. The problem is with taking authority as an absolute truth in today's society is they will always have considerations or motivations that means their opinions are not completely objective. Actually it's a really interesting topic, and objective evaluation skills encompass so many aspects, such as understanding of human nature, society, understanding of statistics, understanding of psychology etc. To be high level in evaluating anything you need to have a good understanding of all these topics as they all interlink in why authorities may come to a certain opinion.

For instance, if we are talking about football, managers suffer from natural biases due to job pressure, financial pressures, fan pressure etc, that may mean they make choices they do not think are the best ones due to external factors. Let's say a manager really wants to test some youth player and really rates him, but doesn't want to take the risk due to having naturally volatile job security as football, and maybe fearing the consequences if they are wrong - it would be then disingenuous and not 100% objective to take his opinion on a player as absolute fact as he suffers from biases that external observers simply do not. That is before we get to the fact there are things like nepotism in football that can muddy the waters further.

This is why taking multiple different sources, and multiple different TYPES of sources, is imperative, as you are accounting more for different biases people may face, and making sure you are not sampling too much of the same type of source, because as you described, the same type of source in this instance (managers) all suffer from similar biases and pressures due to their role, which can mean their opinions are not independent of each other.
There is also the fact that in football, or any industries really, there is a tendency to learn the pre-existing methods and accepted logics, and not to challenge them, as a human naturally might think there's no chance they could be right whilst many other more qualified people are wrong. But it does happen and the fact you have those outside thinkers who challenge the norms is why we see development.

However, it doesn't mean you should always fall into contrarianism for the sake of it. Authority on subjects is oftentimes right and I feel there's become a kind of mental tic amongst 'free thinkers' to just challenge any norm for the sake of going against the grain rather than objectively evaluating if the belief is correct based on all evidence.

Yeah true. That's a really good post by you.

I am a bit of a contrarian myself at times (like with Bellingham for example). However, as you say, we have to be wary of being contrary for contrary's sake, and just so we can beat our chests about being 'free thinkers'. I know for me I don't like conforming to the norm on many subjects, even when I suspect that norm may actually be right.

So that's something for the likes of me and other contrarian types who are contrary for the sake of it sometimes to work on. But like you say, conformists on a particular subject have their own biases.

I think the key is to realise that - as you say - now and then a non-expert can actually be right on a topic and an expert wrong. But as you also say, a vast array of different sources makes it less likely that prevailing expert opinion is wrong.

I think it's a good debate that we can never fully resolve because - ultimately - all humans are fallible, and even experts in a field have gaps in their knowledge. It's impossible really for anyone to know everything about a subject. Humans just aren't that flawless. There's a limit to our intelligence.

 

[Bobo32]

Hm, I believe you both (ajnotheith and Maradona37) seem to make good, if a little trivial, points. Although I mostly skimmed through your posts here tbh.
I believe it is much more interesting to see your analyses regarding the player, his games, the potential thought processes of those who has rated him and those who didn't rate him, etc.
I can only talk for myself, but I have spent my life with football, played and coached and watched a lot of games. I watched every Barcelona game for 20 years. I trust my eyes, and I believe you should too, and not be too shy about your own opinion regarding players. It's more fun to read, even when you disagree.
How often did we not see a player who seemed terrible under one manager or in one club be a complete success elsewhere? A player is dependent on his team and his surroundings.
Why Puig mattered a bit for me was because I thought his style (which I very much like) was pretty much dependent on a Barcelona success. When he couldn't make it there, I thought it would be very rough for him. Well he went to the MLS and seem to almost dominate, but he plays in another way there, like the star of the team. Some of his numbers are almost Depay-like now...
To add to my point - had Sergio Busquets been born 5 years earlier, so trying to break through under Rijkaard, I am confident he would have no caps for Spain. We would not even know about him now.

 

[Maradona37]

Hm, I believe you both (ajnotheith and Maradona37) seem to make good, if a little trivial, points. Although I mostly skimmed through your posts here tbh.
I believe it is much more interesting to see your analyses regarding the player, his games, the potential thought processes of those who has rated him and those who didn't rate him, etc.
I can only talk for myself, but I have spent my life with football, played and coached and watched a lot of games. I watched every Barcelona game for 20 years. I trust my eyes, and I believe you should too, and not be too shy about your own opinion regarding players. It's more fun to read, even when you disagree.
How often did we not see a player who seemed terrible under one manager or in one club be a complete success elsewhere? A player is dependent on his team and his surroundings.
Why Puig mattered a bit for me was because I thought his style (which I very much like) was pretty much dependent on a Barcelona success. When he couldn't make it there, I thought it would be very rough for him. Well he went to the MLS and seem to almost dominate, but he plays in another way there, like the star of the team. Some of his numbers are almost Depay-like now...
To add to my point - had Sergio Busquets been born 5 years earlier, so trying to break through under Rijkaard, I am confident he would have no caps for Spain. We would not even know about him now.

Fair enough mate. I agree with your general points about how to rate players, watching them and giving an opinion and debating with others.

I can't talk about Puig though - I am not a Barca fan (though I like them) and haven't really watched him play. I wouldn't be able to give a good opinion.

If he is talented though I wonder why he's spending his young years in MLS? I am sure he has some talent, so why isn't he at a club in Europe? It does seem a little odd. Money maybe?

I haven't really read much of the thread. I was really just interested in the point ajnotkeith made about logical fallacies as I find them interesting.

I'd say the main point you make there is that circumstance, environment and sometimes downright luck is everything in football.

 

[Bobo32]

Fair enough mate. I agree with your general points about how to rate players, watching them and giving an opinion and debating with others.

I can't talk about Puig though - I am not a Barca fan (though I like them) and haven't really watched him play. I wouldn't be able to give a good opinion.

If he is talented though I wonder why he's spending his young years in MLS? I am sure he has some talent, so why isn't he at a club in Europe? It does seem a little odd. Money maybe?

I haven't really read much of the thread. I was really just interested in the point ajnotkeith made about logical fallacies as I find them interesting.

I'd say the main point you make there is that circumstance, environment and sometimes downright luck is everything in football.

It is not everything, but it is very much!
Especially environment though, they are so, so dependent on it. Xavi said it about himself, he was nothing without his team mates (he couldn't dribble and so on), and his career path is really telling as well, the way it turned around when he was 28 years old 2008 (also a little bit when he was 23 2003)
I can't really speak much about why Puigs career took this turn to the MLS. I guess it is nice for him to live in L.A and be the star of their "soccer" team. I suppose he is a big Barcelona supporter as well so another Spanish team might not be what he wants. I don't know what other European teams were interested or anything about the details.

What I can say is that he a uniquely talented player in some ways, with his own style. He is a bit more energetic than the usual la masia product and I guess that's why he is a little more thrilling to watch for me. He makes me sit up from my chair sometimes when I watch him, just like Messi, Busquets, Iniesta or Thiago did.

 

[Maradona37]

It is not everything, but it is very much!
Especially environment though, they are so, so dependent on it. Xavi said it about himself, he was nothing without his team mates (he couldn't dribble and so on), and his career path is really telling as well, the way it turned around when he was 28 years old 2008 (also a little bit when he was 23 2003)
I can't really speak much about why Puigs career took this turn to the MLS. I guess it is nice for him to live in L.A and be the star of their "soccer" team. I suppose he is a big Barcelona supporter as well so another Spanish team might not be what he wants. I don't know what other European teams were interested or anything about the details.

What I can say is that he a uniquely talented player in some ways, with his own style. He is a bit more energetic than the usual la masia product and I guess that's why he is a little more thrilling to watch for me. He makes me sit up from my chair sometimes when I watch him, just like Messi, Busquets, Iniesta or Thiago did.

Fair enough, thanks for the info on him.

On Xavi, that speaks to what I always used to say about football: it is a game of synergies and specialists - players being the best at what they do and other team-mates being the best, and that totals into a brilliant team.

I don't believe football is about a player being 'complete' or a jack of all trades. I'd rather have players who are specialists and the best at what they do, and can operate in that way in their team. It accentuates their strengths and they can compensate for their team-mates' weaknesses.

Isn't that what a team is, after all? Guys who do different things well. Guys who do almost everything to all-time great level (Messi, Maradona, Pele) are anomalies.

 

[ajnotkeith]

Hm, I believe you both (ajnotheith and Maradona37) seem to make good, if a little trivial, points. Although I mostly skimmed through your posts here tbh.
I believe it is much more interesting to see your analyses regarding the player, his games, the potential thought processes of those who has rated him and those who didn't rate him, etc.
I can only talk for myself, but I have spent my life with football, played and coached and watched a lot of games. I watched every Barcelona game for 20 years. I trust my eyes, and I believe you should too, and not be too shy about your own opinion regarding players. It's more fun to read, even when you disagree.
How often did we not see a player who seemed terrible under one manager or in one club be a complete success elsewhere? A player is dependent on his team and his surroundings.
Why Puig mattered a bit for me was because I thought his style (which I very much like) was pretty much dependent on a Barcelona success. When he couldn't make it there, I thought it would be very rough for him. Well he went to the MLS and seem to almost dominate, but he plays in another way there, like the star of the team. Some of his numbers are almost Depay-like now...
To add to my point - had Sergio Busquets been born 5 years earlier, so trying to break through under Rijkaard, I am confident he would have no caps for Spain. We would not even know about him now.

Well, looking at Puig, I don't see that much, in my opinion. It goes without saying he is physically poor but I don't think his tactical and positional understanding is very good either. He doesn't defend and at times when he played for Barca he was all over the place and couldn't hold his position. He lacks so much off the ball and I don't think he makes up for it on the ball to be able to play at a top level which is why he's playing at LA Galaxy.

So his only real 'position' if any is a pure 10 or false 9 at a lower level, and I don't think he is particularly amazing there. He seems decent technically and sometimes can play a killer pass but doesn't have any stand out qualities attacking wise, which he needs to to make up for zero defense and bad physicality.

However that doesn't mean you can't just like his style as a player or like the way he approaches the game, find him an entertaining watch etc. He can objectively not be top level and still be your favourite and most entertaining player to watch, and even though the MLS is not close to Barca-level, it's still not an awful league, and he's still a good footballer for performing well there. Just isn't close to being a starter at a big club like Barca.

 

[Maradona37]

However that doesn't mean you can't just like his style as a player or like the way he approaches the game, find him an entertaining watch etc. He can objectively not be top level and still be your favourite and most entertaining player to watch, and even though the MLS is not close to Barca-level, it's still not an awful league, and he's still a good footballer for performing well there. Just isn't close to being a starter at a big club like Barca.

No opinion myself as I said as I haven't watched him. But speaking more widely, it is definitely possible to enjoy watching players who are entertaining even if they're not great players or good enough for the top level. I have seen plenty when I watched Rangers and Celtic. Matt O Reilly will never play for a CL contender, but he's good to watch.

 

[ajnotkeith]

No opinion myself as I said as I haven't watched him. But speaking more widely, it is definitely possible to enjoy watching players who are entertaining even if they're not great players or good enough for the top level. I have seen plenty when I watched Rangers and Celtic. Matt O Reilly will never play for a CL contender, but he's good to watch.

Yeah, analysing how good a player is is really different to how enjoyable they are to watch. In fact, whilst it's really effective, a lot of top level football is just mechanical, physical battling, pass and move and mostly running. Football definitely lost some glamour with the advent of the new age of physicality. It's rare to see a top team that will let their players express themselves anymore because they just get closed down too fast.