Once and for all this must be settled....By what criteria do we judge who is good from who isn't...
How do we decide that someone is overrated as opposed to underrated....
As you all know I believe in facts and statistics, for if not by those anybody could say their opinion is valid. I understand fully when people say that awards are sometimes flawed but humans by nature are flawed and so to use that as a counterargument seems inane.
At the day's end I'd like to think that awards are distributed by people who are much closer and involved with the players we only get to watch on TV and so if they decide that a player deserves something then well over 90% of the time they are correct.
I see people here rating players in categories like Speed, Skill and Passing as if it were a computer game. Now I am not saying there isn't a significant value to mere fan observation but really how can your assessment as a mere fan carry more weight than the kudo's a player has earned already in his career?
I was arguing last night with some friends that by his records Ronaldo is probably the best striker to ever play.....I was opposed immediately and on what grounds? A mate of mine suggested Klinsmann another Weah....on the basis that they think from watching these others that they had better skill or technique etc.
Now understand the ignorance.....I am telling them I acknowledge how good those players were but by what Ronaldo has achieved it makes him better than they were...
Basically that is the problem...how can your personal feeling take precedence over fact. And many times I see it happen here on Soccerlens. When someone FEELS like a player is shite they talk like it is a fact. That is annoying for me.
http://sites.google.com/site/sunjosephproject
)
