Why is petty to specify male? In boxing you go pound for pound right? You compare athletes to their competitors. If you were to write a list of best tennis players over the last 10 years, surely you’d specify male and females when it came to rankings. Is this any different?
The Guardian's top 100 male footballers in the world 2019 | Top 10 revealed
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Top 10 revealed:
- Lionel Messi (Barcelona)
- Virgil van Dijk (Liverpool)
- Sadio Mane (Liverpool)
- Cristiano Ronaldo (Juventus)
- Mo Salah (Liverpool)
- Kylian Mbappe (PSG)
- Robert Lewandowski (Bayern Munich)
- Raheem Sterling (Manchester City)
- Alisson (Liverpool)
- Frenkie de Jong (Barcelona)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f4nc8vehOiZhEB2_3L2bvXTpag29VcEKJ0PJeo5Runc/edit
There's the breakdown. Judge 7 had Messi below Chilwell, Ricardo Pereira and Raul Jimenez. Judge 16 was even worse.
There's the breakdown. Judge 7 had Messi below Chilwell, Ricardo Pereira and Raul Jimenez. Judge 16 was even worse.
De Jong above De Bruyne is just weird.
De Bruyne is pretty high given that he missed most games during last seasons title win. This season City are not doing great even if De Bruyne has been playing very well.
Yes, it is different, in the same way it would be for Basketball, Rugby or Baseball etc. This forum has hundreds of threads discussing the "best" such and such, all relating to football and every single one of us are fully aware we aren't talking about female football and thus don't need to specify "male."
Also, it's from the Guardian, so it is 100% agenda driven pettiness.
What the hell are some of you on, yapping about the inclusion of "male"? That level of pedantry is terrifying.
I'd love to see him justify that.
I think the only one with an agenda is you dude. Having 'male' as a specification in the headline is something pretty innocuous.
Is this list based on 2019 form or current player rating based on every players career and current form taken into consideration?
Just put “the top 100 footballers”
No further qualification necessary
No further qualification necessary
Should be top 100 earth based human male footballers.
Should be:
"Top 100 male footballers (with excuse that we didn't do top100 female list first)"
"Top 100 male footballers (with excuse that we didn't do top100 female list first)"
Or "Top 100 male footballers voted by female"
De Bruyne not even in top 10? Below De Jong? Seriously?
Shite list.
Shite list.
I think the only one with an agenda is you dude. Having 'male' as a specification in the headline is something pretty innocuous.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying it wasn't innocuous and I'm not the one who brought it up. Someone said that those pointing out adding "male" was unnecessary were being petty. I simply pointed out that it's not as petty as adding it in the first place. Something can be both pretty innocuous and petty. If you went up to 100 people in the street and asked them to name the best footballers, you know full well they'd all list male footballers and as I've already pointed out, we have these kinds of threads all the time on here and everyone lists males. So it was 100% being petty.
As for it being agenda driven, it's in the Guardian. The Guardian doesn't hide it's "wokeness." They don't deny their agenda. They aren't like the BBC, who will claim and try to be politically neutral. It's not worth a long drawn out discussion over, so it's best to leave it here, but there is no point trying to argue that adding "male" isn't a totally trivial adjunct and that it was done in a publication that is open about it's agenda.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying it wasn't innocuous and I'm not the one who brought it up. Someone said that those pointing out adding "male" was unnecessary were being petty. I simply pointed out that it's not as petty as adding it in the first place. Something can be both pretty innocuous and petty. If you went up to 100 people in the street and asked them to name the best footballers, you know full well they'd all list male footballers and as I've already pointed out, we have these kinds of threads all the time on here and everyone lists males. So it was 100% being petty.
As for it being agenda driven, it's in the Guardian. The Guardian doesn't hide it's "wokeness." They don't deny their agenda. They aren't like the BBC, who will claim and try to be politically neutral. It's not worth a long drawn out discussion over, so it's best to leave it here, but there is no point trying to argue that adding "male" isn't a totally trivial adjunct and that it was done in a publication that is open about it's agenda.
City win the league and get one player in the top 10 whereas Liverpool who finished 2nd get 4. Seems a little harsh.
Liverpool won the CL and have got many more points over the year. Also De Bruyne was injured a lot and Laporte is out now. Leicester have beeen amazing too and they got noone that high since they don't play in the CL.
That doesn't justify having almost half of the top ten when the team wasn't capable of winning the league title for that calendar year, while the team that beat them managed to get one player in at 7. Demonstrates the single biggest issue with this polls. It isn't about how good a player individually.
So which placement is the biggest joke?
my nominations:
my nominations:
- Pukki making the list at all for scoring 9 PL goals
- Lucas Moura making the list for that one game in Amsterdam
- Lukaku making the list for scoring 15 league goals from open play in 2019
- Eriksen making the list despite taking a break from competitive football after the CL final
- Kane making #15, despite being a non-factor (due to injury) for the first half of 2019 and scoring 12 goals from open play across competitions in the second half
It is not based on how good someone is, but rather how good they have been this year. Messi is clearly number 1, but after that it is really open. Liverpool have had almost 0 long injuries to key players and have been winning games all the time. I personally don't think Salah has been that good so he should probably be lower, but a big name helps you. It is the same with Ronaldo and many others on the list. Allison is also boosted by winning copa america so if they want one keeper in top 10 then it should be him. I think Laporte was a beast when he played, but his injury rule him out from a high spot. Same with De Bruyne even if he got really high anyway.
My top 10 this year
1. Messi
2. VVD
3. Dr Bruyne
4. Mane
5. Immobile
6. Lewandowski
7. Alexander Arnold
8. Sterling
9. Ronaldo
10. Vardy
1. Messi
2. VVD
3. Dr Bruyne
4. Mane
5. Immobile
6. Lewandowski
7. Alexander Arnold
8. Sterling
9. Ronaldo
10. Vardy
I think Kane has been pretty good when he played so he should be high. Eriksen probably not.
Vardy should be above Kane based on league form, but Kane has been boosted by international goals.
There is a strong european bias of course and they rate CL performances above everything else it seems.
Guardian also did a top 100 female football players list, hence the addition of the word ‘male’ in this one.
in short, it means feck all so get over it.
in short, it means feck all so get over it.
Harsh? Misguided or contrived I’d say
I understand how the system works, I didn't realise I had to qualify it with 'this year,' I considered that to be implied. Ultimately, it matters just as much that you play for a big team. You put Salah in the Spurs squad and he performs to the same level, and he doesn't make top ten.
One could argue that Ødegaard should have been on the list based on his form the last 12 months and the way he is currently dominating games in la Liga. I am pretty sure he will be top 10 within a few years.
I disagree with you on the whole but agree with the bolded mate
Good lord, could someone remove the bullshit discussion over the inclusion of the word 'male', that'd be great.
Alisson 9th best player in the world 
1st most overrated player ever.
1st most overrated player ever.
A big name helps as well as playing for a big side. De Gea was even on the top 100 list even if he was terrible last season and not great in this one either. He also got dropped for Spain. Pogba our highest player too mainly on name although he had 1.5 good month during our good run. He is a great player, but this year have been poor or injured. Ndidi not on the list even if he has been great all year.
DDG and Pogba weren't terrible last year though. That's the vast over exaggeration usually applied when a team isn't doing great. He DDG wasn't up to his usual standard, but he was still better than the vast majority of keepers out there.
Anyway, I digress. The list sucks!
He's not far off the top 10 imo. But i'd have Jan Oblak ahead of him. The problem with these type of lists is having different positions included, it makes it a bit more tricky to compare them.Alisson 9th best player in the world
1st most overrated player ever.
De Gea had an average season last year, made some really bad errors for us that cost us big time post PSG. His distribution is also feckin terrible. Marcus Rashford, Paul Pogba and David de Gea are for me our 3 best players and all about even.
Not for me. He's barely had anything to do at Liverpool. His highlight reel from the club itself was all shots straight at him. He's benefitted massively from what's in front of him.
I thnk it is supposed to be 2019form but some of the individual choices by judges are dodgy. Will still probably look better than the caf's version as there are more people voting for the Guardian version and they've done that 'remove highest score' thing to reduce outliers.
I see, I could probably do something similar by checking RM scores and merging them for the last 3 windows but meh.