2017 Wimbledon Final: Federer v Cilic

[brokenshoelace]

Well, I wasn´t in the mood for mentioning this, but since the conversation won´t move away from this... in 1981 French sports newspaper L´Equipe elected no one else but Pelé the "Athlete of the Century" -- and they made a poll with journalists from all over the world. There was a ceremony on the Parc des Princes, after a Brazil and France football match. I guess a little later Pelé gave a football clinic on the gardens of the White House to kids, Ronald Reagan was doing the throw ins (for you guys that doesn´t now football to well, for example Englishpeople, this is done with your hands).



So, in my book you elect the greatest athlete based on one single parameter: How many times the guy had a person with a huge nuclear arsenal under his thumb as his assistant? The current score is:

Pelé: 1
Rest of the world (including Maradona): 0

Pele isn't even the greatest player from Brazil (that would be the Phenomeno).

 

[Federberg]

Well, I wasn´t in the mood for mentioning this, but since the conversation won´t move away from this... in 1981 French sports newspaper L´Equipe elected no one else but Pelé the "Athlete of the Century" -- and they made a poll with journalists from all over the world. There was a ceremony on the Parc des Princes, after a Brazil and France football match. I guess a little later Pelé gave a football clinic on the gardens of the White House to kids, Ronald Reagan was doing the throw ins (for you guys that doesn´t now football to well, for example Englishpeople, this is done with your hands).



So, in my book you elect the greatest athlete based on one single parameter: How many times the guy had a person with a huge nuclear arsenal under his thumb as his assistant? The current score is:

Pelé: 1
Rest of the world (including Maradona): 0

So what? They're French!

Did Reagan know anything about soccer?

 

[mrzz]

Pele isn't even the greatest player from Brazil (that would be the Phenomeno).

HAHAHAHAHA! Really? Sorry Broken, couldn´t help (I really laughed when I read it).

You mean that fat guy who traps the ball with his shin? Why people on this board keep trying to say that guys who only won 1 world cup are great?

 

[mrzz]

So what? They're French!

Did Reagan know anything about soccer?

In general, French also cannot tell a watermelon from a football, but at least two Frenchmen in history could (Platini and Zidane). Anyway the poll was organized by a French newspaper, but the voters were from all over the world.

It does not matter if Reagan knew or not about socce.... wait! What? Soccer? What the hell is that? Rule number 3 about football discussions, third Paragraph:

* If a person uses the world "soccer" for football he is immediately disqualified for any discussion, past, future or present. No excuses are accepted.

 

[Federberg]

In general, French also cannot tell a watermelon from a football, but at least two Frenchmen in history could (Platini and Zidane). Anyway the poll was organized by a French newspaper, but the voters were from all over the world.

It does not matter if Reagan knew or not about socce.... wait! What? Soccer? What the hell is that? Rule number 3 about football discussions, third Paragraph:

* If a person uses the world "soccer" for football he is immediately disqualified for any discussion, past, future or present. No excuses are accepted.

Lol! I agree mate. But what can we do. There are so many yanks in this forum, we have to make sure we don't confuse them!

 

[Busted]

I actually meant "glorious" in the specific sense of the word...that it brought glory to Roger: another Major, #19, etc. And I don't think his fans are any different from the rest of us. No one is going to watch that match again. I'm perfectly happy that Rafa won RG in '08, but I wouldn't watch that match again, either.

I console myself with the fact that Roger had mono in 2008 or else he'd have played better and Nadal had no illness/health issues to excuse the 2011 6-3, 6-0 Tour finals beat down Roger put him. Shhh! Don't spoil it for me. That mono excuse has made that FO loss bearable for over 9 years...

 

[Moxie]

I console myself with the fact that Roger had mono in 2008 or else he'd have played better and Nadal had no illness/health issues to excuse the 2011 6-3, 6-0 Tour finals beat down Roger put him. Shhh! Don't spoil it for me. That mono excuse has made that FO loss bearable for over 9 years...

If you need that little blue blanket to help you sleep at night, far be it from me to wrest it away from you. But if you want to live in a glass house, please remember the proscription against throwing stones.

 

[brokenshoelace]

HAHAHAHAHA! Really? Sorry Broken, couldn´t help (I really laughed when I read it).

You mean that fat guy who traps the ball with his shin? Why people on this board keep trying to say that guys who only won 1 world cup are great?

Well, technically, Ronaldo won 2 (he was there in 1994). If Pele gets credit for a World Cup in which he played one match, then it's fair to say Ronaldo has 2.

Secondly, Messi has zero World Cups. Does that mean Iniesta is a greater player? It's a team sport, and the World Cup is an event that takes place once every 4 years and lasts just one month. So many conditions has to be right for you to win it and so much hinges on so many factors that's it's ridiculous to use it as the main assessment for a player's greatness. How many players have won more than one World Cup anyway?

Ronaldo at his prime, in absolute terms (as opposed to relative terms) is surely an infinitely better player than Pele. It's just the natural progression of sports. Faster, more explosive, more athletic, and honestly, flat out more talented. People only remember the injury plagued out of shape version of Ronaldo for some reason. From 1996-2002, he was unplayable.

 

[mrzz]

Well, technically, Ronaldo won 2 (he was there in 1994). If Pele gets credit for a World Cup in which he played one match, then it's fair to say Ronaldo has 2.

Sigh... here we go. Ronaldo was there in 1994 but he is one of the very few players who didn ´t set foot on the field (three in total). So he played zero matches there. Pelé in 1962 played the first match and got injured midway through the second -- so he played in two matches. There is no comparison there.

Secondly, Messi has zero World Cups. Does that mean Iniesta is a greater player? It's a team sport, and the World Cup is an event that takes place once every 4 years and lasts just one month. So many conditions has to be right for you to win it and so much hinges on so many factors that's it's ridiculous to use it as the main assessment for a player's greatness. How many players have won more than one World Cup anyway?

I only responded to this notion that number of world cups is the main factor -- it all started in the Maradona conversation. In fact the idea is not to count the number of world cups won, but to assess if a player was fundamental or not to his team -- surely Iniesta is just one more guy there, for example (even if I rather not say my opinion about how Spain won that WC).

Pelé´s numbers are better than Ronaldo´s, period. More goals, more assists, more titles, more everything.

Ronaldo at his prime, in absolute terms (as opposed to relative terms) is surely an infinitely better player than Pele. It's just the natural progression of sports. Faster, more explosive, more athletic, and honestly, flat out more talented. People only remember the injury plagued out of shape version of Ronaldo for some reason. From 1996-2002, he was unplayable.

He is stronger and faster, sure. Big deal. It is like saying that, say, Berdych is better than Borg. More talented... gasp. Technically there is simply no comparison. Pelé could play on any position, could use both legs, could score with his head, was a better passer, had better ball control. Just look at him trap the ball with his chest (I guess Ronaldo never did that in his life). The only good thing Ronaldo has, technically wise, is decent ball control at full speed (but Neymar is miles ahead of him in this regard). We call him fat Ronaldo here for a reason.

I get the natural progression part, but honestly I really believe that the top guys from the past would have adapted easily to today´s conditions.
This is a matter of opinion, sure. But in the end this is all matter of opinion.

Look, he was never unplayable. If the shitty defenders of the shitty medium and small clubs in Spain could not stop him, fine, but this is not a big deal. A good defense in general would stop him. He was a very good striker, sure, but that´s all.

When you play football, in general everyone on the team knows who is "the guy", the guy you look to when things are rough, when players start running and hiding from the ball. Pelé was the always "the guy", Ronaldo never had this role, at least not in the national team, and I would guess not in his clubs (in fairness, Maradona surely was "the guy" in Argentina).

There is one thing people don´t realize when looking at the Pelé videos: they´re endless. There is a series of documentaries about his goals and plays, and it never ends. Hours and hours of absurd goals, dribbling, long distance passes, no look passes, and so on... of course you can find some ten minutes of fantastic clips by Ronaldo. For each minute of those you can find one hour of Pelé´s...

 

[atttomole]

I disagree a little about the 'the guy' thing. Ronaldo at his best was also 'the guy' because he had an imposing game, and was able to produce game winning performances, just like Pele. I remember WC 2002, semi finals and finals, when Ronaldo, far from his best, produced the goals when they were needed most. He was also brilliant at Copa America in 1999 and 2001. The only thing that Pele had, that Ronaldo did not have, is the ability to score with headers. The rest is pretty even, and I would give an edge to Ronaldo on speed of execution. Ronaldo was a bit unfortunate in that he never really reached his prime due to injuries. Ronaldo could also play various positions. I watched most of his matches in the Serie A. At Inter he played as forward, but sometimes he would play on the wings, or behind the main striker, so he was definitely a versatile player. Ronaldo excelled in the big matches at Inter, and we all know how good the marking is in Italy, particularly against star players. Maradona also performed miracles at Napoli. That is the reason why for most Italians Maradona and Ronaldo are considered the best, because the Serie A is a pressure cooker. In the Serie A, you rarely see attacking players dribbling past a clutch of opponents, and then scoring a goal. For that reason, you will not have that many highlights where players do multiple dribbles that result in goals.

Having said that, I think it's better to compare athletes who play team sports separately from athletes that compete individually. For me, comparing Federer, Woods, Jordan, James, Bolt, Maradona, Pele or Nikclaus with each other does not make much sense, considering that its hard enough to compare athletes from the same sport.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I only responded to this notion that number of world cups is the main factor -- it all started in the Maradona conversation. In fact the idea is not to count the number of world cups won, but to assess if a player was fundamental or not to his team -- surely Iniesta is just one more guy there, for example (even if I rather not say my opinion about how Spain won that WC).

Pelé´s numbers are better than Ronaldo´s, period. More goals, more assists, more titles, more everything.

First of all, I must say I enjoy this riled up version of mrzz. You're usually so calm and chilled out. We finally cracked you. Found your weak spot. Muhahahahaha.

Anyway, I disagree Iniesta is just one more guy. Pretty sure Spain wouldn't have won all those major trophies without him. I get your point in that he's not the unplayable star that nobody has an answer for like Messi or a prime Cristiano, but he's probably the best midfielder I've ever seen. This is neither here nor there for the sake of this conversation, but he definitely deserves more respect than that.

He is stronger and faster, sure. Big deal. It is like saying that, say, Berdych is better than Borg. More talented... gasp. Technically there is simply no comparison. Pelé could play on any position, could use both legs, could score with his head, was a better passer, had better ball control. Just look at him trap the ball with his chest (I guess Ronaldo never did that in his life). The only good thing Ronaldo has, technically wise, is decent ball control at full speed (but Neymar is miles ahead of him in this regard). We call him fat Ronaldo here for a reason.

Whoaaaaaaaa. Leeeeeeeet's be real here. Ronaldo could use both legs better than pretty much any striker in history. People really should go back and watch his old Barcelona and Inter Milan tapes. And "the only good thing Ronaldo has techincally is decent ball control at full speed"? He's the greatest finisher I've ever seen, and that has to count for technique. He's a fantastic dribbler both in static one-on-one situations and at full speed. You're really selling him short here.

I get the natural progression part, but honestly I really believe that the top guys from the past would have adapted easily to today´s conditions.
This is a matter of opinion, sure. But in the end this is all matter of opinion.

I sort of agree with this to be fair. But that doesn't mean that their numbers aren't hugely inflated due to playing in eras of sub-standard defending, tactics, training regimens, diets, etc...

Look, he was never unplayable. If the shitty defenders of the shitty medium and small clubs in Spain could not stop him, fine, but this is not a big deal. A good defense in general would stop him. He was a very good striker, sure, but that´s all.

This is ridiculous. He terrorized Serie A before his knee injury when Serie A was far and away the best league in the world, and boasted defenders such as Maldini, Nesta, Cannavaro, Costacurta, Thuram, etc... About 4 of those guys, including Maldini and Nesta called him the greatest player they've ever played against (Zidane called him the best he's seen). See what defenders have to say about him. Just the other days I was reading the quotes.

And I wouldn't bring up shitty defenders and then boast about Pele's numbers. How good was the defending in the Brazilian league in the 60's?

When you play football, in general everyone on the team knows who is "the guy", the guy you look to when things are rough, when players start running and hiding from the ball. Pelé was the always "the guy", Ronaldo never had this role, at least not in the national team, and I would guess not in his clubs (in fairness, Maradona surely was "the guy" in Argentina).

Now this is just factually incorrect. Ronaldo was most certainly the guy at Barcelona, miles and away the guy at Inter, and without a doubt the guy in Brazil's 1998 World Cup and 2002 World Cup. His 2002 World Cup exploits speak for themselves, and he was so much the guy in 1998 that his performance in the finals and subsequent revelations re: his pre-match injury remains one of the most controversial in Brazilian football history.

 

[mrzz]

What? Sorry but I disagree with all that. I will speak for what I followed in detail, the 1998 and 2002 World Cups. Ronaldo wasn´t the go to guy. In 1998 Brazil was a very bad team who was lucky to reach the final. We should have been eliminated by the dutch in the semis -- we were lucky that striker Kluivert (?) was as blind as bat and lost 238476324876 goals, so we progressed in the penalty shootouts. Ronaldo did score the goal in that match -- a perfect long distance pass by Rivaldo that put him in front of the goal, he finished it with his shin facepalm.

The hard match in 1998 was Denmark, Brazil won 3-2, Ronaldo was a non factor there. The only goal he participated was the third, he tried to pass to Rivaldo -- who finally scored after other player corrected his wrong pass.

His "injury" in the final is not known, probably a panic attack.

2002 -- Rivaldo and Ronaldinho Gaucho (that actually I am not exactly a fan of) were the guys who "solved" the hard matches -- and we were lucky to pass the round of 16 against Belgium, the referee wrongly ruled out a legal goal by Belgium while it was 0-0.

I really, really, really don´t know what you call dribbling if you say that Ronaldo is good at it. He is, at best, ok.

About his spell in Italy... his numbers are, at best, good. There is a reason he did not stay there for long. Given the dirty sport football is, I really would take with a grain of salt all this quotes. If he had handled all those defenders the way you are putting, his numbers would be much better. Just to mention one guy Adriano had at least two seasons way better than Ronaldo´s in Italy.

When I say "the guy", is not the guy the press talks about after the game -- they generally know beforehand about who they will talk too (as I said, football is dirty). "The guy" is the one other players look to, you notice that following the whole match. Hardly a striker is this guy (even if I can think of some), generally is mid-fielder, or at least a striker who is able to play on the "intermediaria" (fck, how do you call the space between the box and the midfield in English? Maybe there isn´t even a word for it... how can you people even think about football).

About Brazilian defender´s in the sixties -- there were no cameras, and they would break people legs and then ask if it hurt. That´s how good they were. Anyway Pelé scored a lot also in Libertadores (south american version of Champions League), that in the sixties and seventies referees would allow kick in the head as legal, and a lot over European clubs, not only in the (then) World Championship matches, but in dozens of small tournaments played in Europe that were common that time.

But I quit following football since around 2008. It is too damn dirty, but frankly the main reason is that the difference between an amateur and a pro in football is too small for me. The day I realized that the gulf between a top guy and an amateur in tennis was 2874322 times bigger than in football, it was the last straw that broke the camel´s back. I played three times a week for years without following a match on TV -- but now I live in São Paulo where you can´t find a court/field anymore...

P.S. Yeah, I discuss differently football than tennis (or other topcis), one thing is the fact that I know with who I am arguing with -- you, BB and Federberg not only have thick skin but also know me already, so no need to worry about hurt feelings. But, sure, the first thing you do here in Brazil is to kick a football, the second is to talk about it, so I am used to it -- and in that regard, believe me, I am being nice...

 

[atttomole]

I can see, mrzz, that you are more passionate about football than tennis. There is a thread in the football forum where similar discussions have been done, but I have not seen that many posts of yours there.
Edit; I have seen your recent posts on the Pele vs Maradona thread. Now I get you.

 

[mrzz]

I can see, mrzz, that you are more passionate about football than tennis. There is a thread in the football forum where similar discussions have been done, but I have not seen that many posts of yours there.
Edit; I have seen your recent posts on the Pele vs Maradona thread. Now I get you.

Thx for the invite, attomole. But, as I said, it´s been years since I stopped following football. In 2014 I saw the world cup matches -- and the matches I saw before that were from the previous world cup. I knew Brazil was in for a hard time, lucky escape against Chile (saved by the crossbar on extra time -- I predicted a loss in extra time in that match), and the infamous 7x1 (I predicted a 4 x0 loss, won a good bet).

What got me in to the discussion is that I genuinely believe you guy are nuts! I mean, I am not arguing the point here, just being honest about the way I feel when I read the posts. First time I saw (I guess) one @britbox post about Maradona and Pelé I simply could not believe it, it felt like someone arguing that McEnroe is way better than Federer. Then comes Broken and tells me that not only McEnroe, but also Cilic. Again, I am not arguing (don´t need to respond to that as it was an argument), just telling how freaking stunned I was -- that is surely why I sound so passionate.

 

[Federberg]

Lol! It shows you how shit that final was. The thread has devolved into Maradona vs Pele vs Ronaldo. Btw.. is there a name for the Maradona vs Pele wars? MaraPel? Peldona?

 

[brokenshoelace]

What? Sorry but I disagree with all that. I will speak for what I followed in detail, the 1998 and 2002 World Cups. Ronaldo wasn´t the go to guy. In 1998 Brazil was a very bad team who was lucky to reach the final. We should have been eliminated by the dutch in the semis -- we were lucky that striker Kluivert (?) was as blind as bat and lost 238476324876 goals, so we progressed in the penalty shootouts. Ronaldo did score the goal in that match -- a perfect long distance pass by Rivaldo that put him in front of the goal, he finished it with his shin facepalm.

The hard match in 1998 was Denmark, Brazil won 3-2, Ronaldo was a non factor there. The only goal he participated was the third, he tried to pass to Rivaldo -- who finally scored after other player corrected his wrong pass.

His "injury" in the final is not known, probably a panic attack.

2002 -- Rivaldo and Ronaldinho Gaucho (that actually I am not exactly a fan of) were the guys who "solved" the hard matches -- and we were lucky to pass the round of 16 against Belgium, the referee wrongly ruled out a legal goal by Belgium while it was 0-0.

I really, really, really don´t know what you call dribbling if you say that Ronaldo is good at it. He is, at best, ok.

About his spell in Italy... his numbers are, at best, good. There is a reason he did not stay there for long. Given the dirty sport football is, I really would take with a grain of salt all this quotes. If he had handled all those defenders the way you are putting, his numbers would be much better. Just to mention one guy Adriano had at least two seasons way better than Ronaldo´s in Italy.

Dude, you know I like you, but I'm not sure how closely you followed Ronaldo's career. You think he was at best an "OK" dribbler?

Enjoy:



This isn't even a matter of opinion. He's an exceptional dribbler, as you can see above.

 

[brokenshoelace]

And by the way, the McEnroe = Maradona analogy is insane. The majority outside of Brazil actually believe Diego is the best football player of all time, and not Pele. Nobody says that about Mac. I think mrzz is seeing it from a Brazilian perspective a little too much.

 

[Federberg]

Dude, you know I like you, but I'm not sure how closely you followed Ronaldo's career. You think he was at best an "OK" dribbler?

Enjoy:



This isn't even a matter of opinion. He's an exceptional dribbler, as you can see above.

Thank you for this. It really frustrates me that because of the 1998 mystery people go on about Zinadine as if he was the better player. Zidane wasn't even the better player in that tournament. Before the final, there was no question who the talk of the tournament was. I remember, I was there for several matches. And after that the final was held against Ronaldo and his extra-curricular activities and injuries didn't help. But I have to say... the fact that a Brazilian can say what @mrzz has been saying about him shocks me. I am a huge Romario fan, but I'm sorry... Ronaldo in his pomp was exceptional

 

[mrzz]

Dude, you know I like you, but I'm not sure how closely you followed Ronaldo's career. You think he was at best an "OK" dribbler?

Enjoy:



This isn't even a matter of opinion. He's an exceptional dribbler, as you can see above.

Why the hell I argue with amateurs?

Ok, he is good. But, first of all, he is Brazilian for heaven´s sake. See the other Ronaldo, Neymar, Rivaldo, Romário, you will find hours of such dribbles. I will tell you why:

The ones you see in the beginning, where you pass your foot over the ball from one side to the other, is the basic dribble you try all the time -- if you have the minimum coordination to do that, and that he does. This will work (fool the defender while you keep control of the ball) some percentage of the time -- you try it 20 times in a match, you can make it work 3 times. You look like a god in the highlights, due to the selection.

There are two variations of this dribble: end it up moving the ball to the inside and let it hit your other leg -- classic "futsal", or indoor football move. Those guys do it all the time (so it is quite popular here, no wonder he would try it).

The second one you suddenly move your foot under the ball on the way out, and then move the ball forward -- the "elastic" which Rivelino made famous in the 70´s. He did twice on the video (ok, I never saw those). Rivelino did it twice per match.

Oh, and he also uses the other classic futsal dribble, where you step on the ball while you spin your body. You should see "Falcão" from futsal doing this.

All this talk for one basic point: those are percentage plays: I remember him trying them over and over in our national team matches. His success rate is not particularly high. (while I agree that, on the run, his success rate is quite good).


The video goes on and later more and more dribbles are his classic ones, full speed and quick acceleration in one direction. He is quite good at that, surely.

I think mrzz is seeing it from a Brazilian perspective a little too much.

Yeah, the right perspective.

But I very much doubt this notion (not your word, but your sources). I was in Buenos Aires a few months ago and once in a bar I saw some Argentinians discussing wildly. One guy left saying "you are nuts". They were precisely arguing about Maradona and Pelé, 2 for each side. Actually all Argentinians who think Maradona is better than Pelé are Boca Juniors supporters. They also think that blue and yellow uniform is beautiful, and that Palermo, their striker who once was able to miss three penalty kicks in one match, was a football player.

 

[mrzz]

the fact that a Brazilian can say what @mrzz has been saying about him shocks me

Argh!!! In 1998 a whole nation was complaining about him. People on the street were saying that he could only score against small clubs in Spain. I am just one more who was disappointed. But I do not give him a hard time for 1998 because, as I said before, Brazil sucked hard that year.

You mentioned Zidane -- for me the guy was pure class. You can tell a guy is good when he plays looking forward, and not looking down the ball. Take him out of France and they wouldn´t even reach round of 16.