Maradona37
Well-known member
Inspired by the Gerrard discussion I was having, but also something that has long been on my mind.
For some reason, players like the above are seen as the pinnacle of football for some, but I just can't stand them. All five of them are amongst my most hated players to watch through the 30 odd years I have been following football.
I think it's a difference in ideology - I see football as an art, technical mastery, almost like ballet, to me prime Barca is the peak of the sport. But others clearly wanna see technically inferior athletes dominate with pace, power etc.
Now it's obviously not that black and white - I am not saying all these players are technical donkeys or that all technical players lack physicality (though Haaland sort of is technically wank). But there's no doubt that their athleticism, stats and 'moments' are what attract the bulk of their fans.
I mean look at who they're compared to. People asking 'who's better? Messi or Ronaldo? Neymar or Bale? Iniesta or Gerrard? Kane or Haaland? Rodri or Bellingham?' When it's abundantly clear in all five of those comparisons that the first-named player is far more talented and this is proved by the fact that - in most cases - that player had a better career and won more.
I just find it absolutely bizarre that we live in a world where a fucking footballing leper like Erling Haaland will likely go down as a BETTER player than geniuses like Xavi or Andres Iniesta or Luka Modric - simply because he's far more of a brute and scores many more goals.
Part of it is probably the English influence (they love players like this) as well as the proliferation of American fans to the game - many Americans are obsessed with stats, athleticism, height, power, fame off the pitch (other than maybe Bale, these are some of the most shameless self-promoters you could ever have the misfortune to meet), which all of the above have in abundance. You can tell a lot of Americans are like that when they start making analogues to 'Brady', 'Lebron' and bringing in American sports that have NOTHING to do with football. Some American fans are good (eg KingLeo on here), but some think we should play football like NFL, and have the same values for our game like they have for gridiron. A shy, small, technical wizard like Iniesta doesn't cut it for those types. He isn't enough of a PR merchant. He doesn't run fast enough or smack enough shots at goal.
I am not trying to be close-minded - I know athleticism is a big part of football. But for some it's by far the main part of football. This crosses over into how teams are evaluated too - there's no disputing that a venn diagram of people who think Ronaldo is better than Messi or Bale better than Neymar or those that think Bellingham is a genius, would consider Spain, Barca, Man City 'boring' because 'they keep the ball too much and aren't direct enough'
Obviously there are many styles of football, but you can break football down more vaguely into possession teams and counter-attack teams. And the athletes fit better into counter-attack, fast break teams.
It's also the type of player I am, at an infinitely lower level. I have (had) pace, but I am small, not very strong, more of a technical dribbler and passer, more of a playmaker. I played with a guy who thought he was brilliant (he is rubbish) and his game revolved around brute force, hacking people down, strength, getting in people's faces, smacking shots at goal (95 percent of which flew over the bar). He couldn't pass well or dribble. He called C Ronaldo the GOAT and said he was much better than Messi, and given the dogshit overly physical, downright dirty way he played football it's easy to see why he thought that.
The key word is subtlety. Players who are more technical are also more subtle, and cerebral. The above guys are offensively in your face and everything they do looks so strained and 100 miles per hour. It just doesn't look effortless, as a footballer or sportsman should. Most of them also have the first touch of a donkey.
I could go on but rant over.
For some reason, players like the above are seen as the pinnacle of football for some, but I just can't stand them. All five of them are amongst my most hated players to watch through the 30 odd years I have been following football.
I think it's a difference in ideology - I see football as an art, technical mastery, almost like ballet, to me prime Barca is the peak of the sport. But others clearly wanna see technically inferior athletes dominate with pace, power etc.
Now it's obviously not that black and white - I am not saying all these players are technical donkeys or that all technical players lack physicality (though Haaland sort of is technically wank). But there's no doubt that their athleticism, stats and 'moments' are what attract the bulk of their fans.
I mean look at who they're compared to. People asking 'who's better? Messi or Ronaldo? Neymar or Bale? Iniesta or Gerrard? Kane or Haaland? Rodri or Bellingham?' When it's abundantly clear in all five of those comparisons that the first-named player is far more talented and this is proved by the fact that - in most cases - that player had a better career and won more.
I just find it absolutely bizarre that we live in a world where a fucking footballing leper like Erling Haaland will likely go down as a BETTER player than geniuses like Xavi or Andres Iniesta or Luka Modric - simply because he's far more of a brute and scores many more goals.
Part of it is probably the English influence (they love players like this) as well as the proliferation of American fans to the game - many Americans are obsessed with stats, athleticism, height, power, fame off the pitch (other than maybe Bale, these are some of the most shameless self-promoters you could ever have the misfortune to meet), which all of the above have in abundance. You can tell a lot of Americans are like that when they start making analogues to 'Brady', 'Lebron' and bringing in American sports that have NOTHING to do with football. Some American fans are good (eg KingLeo on here), but some think we should play football like NFL, and have the same values for our game like they have for gridiron. A shy, small, technical wizard like Iniesta doesn't cut it for those types. He isn't enough of a PR merchant. He doesn't run fast enough or smack enough shots at goal.
I am not trying to be close-minded - I know athleticism is a big part of football. But for some it's by far the main part of football. This crosses over into how teams are evaluated too - there's no disputing that a venn diagram of people who think Ronaldo is better than Messi or Bale better than Neymar or those that think Bellingham is a genius, would consider Spain, Barca, Man City 'boring' because 'they keep the ball too much and aren't direct enough'
Obviously there are many styles of football, but you can break football down more vaguely into possession teams and counter-attack teams. And the athletes fit better into counter-attack, fast break teams.
It's also the type of player I am, at an infinitely lower level. I have (had) pace, but I am small, not very strong, more of a technical dribbler and passer, more of a playmaker. I played with a guy who thought he was brilliant (he is rubbish) and his game revolved around brute force, hacking people down, strength, getting in people's faces, smacking shots at goal (95 percent of which flew over the bar). He couldn't pass well or dribble. He called C Ronaldo the GOAT and said he was much better than Messi, and given the dogshit overly physical, downright dirty way he played football it's easy to see why he thought that.
The key word is subtlety. Players who are more technical are also more subtle, and cerebral. The above guys are offensively in your face and everything they do looks so strained and 100 miles per hour. It just doesn't look effortless, as a footballer or sportsman should. Most of them also have the first touch of a donkey.
I could go on but rant over.
Last edited:
