Which is more important, longevity or peak?

[JSArsenal]

So I was reading that Ronaldo vs Ronaldo thread and a common theme was popping up. Which is more important, a player's peak level of performance or doing it consistently over a long period of time?

Does Pires' couple of years in the premiership make him a better LW than Giggs who did it for over 20 years?

Ronaldinho and Kaka are considered greats but they only really performed at the highest level for a few years.

Is someone like Zlatan better than Luis Ronaldo because the latter was ruined by injuries? (I know the answer to this one is no but where is the line drawn?)

Or has our view simply been warped by the exploits of Ronaldo and Messi? I can't really remember players putting in 30+ goal seasons for 10 years before those two showed up. Before this wouldn't really be a debate in my eyes now if you're a forward player it almost feels like you get underrated unless you manage to match that level of consistency.

 

[Tommy]

For my club, I'd take a great player with longevity over a player with a slightly higher peak but a short life span any day of the week.

And I think you're right regarding Messi/Ronaldo. They're so hopelessly far ahead stats-wise of everyone else that it's become a bit of a weird debate, but really, there's a few players who's peaks I'd have over Cristiano, just for entertainment value alone - Ronaldinho & Kaka

 

[harms]

There’s no real answer. All those situations are hypothetical, but they are rarely specified.

For example, if you’re picking a team to face aliens in a one-off for our future, you’ll pick players with the highest peak. If you’re a manager who creates a squad from a scratch, you’ll probably value longevity a lot more.

As for unspecified comparisons, I think it’s fair to take, say, 3 years peak to eliminate one season wanders, and to have longevity considered as a bonus.

 

[Matt007a]

Before Messi/Ronaldo a 5 year peak was considered pretty damn good. Players like Zidane, Ronaldinho and Ronaldo were generally speaking the best players on earth before those two came along and none of them had a peak longer than 5 years.

Both have their merits. A player with an unbelievable peak could win you a trophy you didn't expect one year due to amazing individual performances. But at a big club that already wins a lot of trophies, you probably want someone who is going to give you 8/10 every week for 10 years because the strength of the rest of the squad doesn't require a peak Messi in order to win things.

 

[1950]

Important for what? Internet circlejerk? Whatever helps you prove your point.

 

[11101]

The player who does it for longer is more important to his club, but the player who shines the brightest is the one who inspires us all to go to the park and kick a ball around. Choose which of those you value as more important.

 

[Green_Red]

Lets compare Giggs and Ronaldinho. Was Giggs a better player than Ronaldinho? Comparing Giggs and Pires is comparing two very similar level players. I personally never thought Pires was better, but some people did. With Giggs and Ronaldinho the difference is plain to see.

Its like comparing a single mountain that is the highest mountain in the world, with a mountain range that covers a very large area. Whats more beautiful to look at, the single mountain or the mountain range? Does that make the single mountains peak not the highest mountain anymore? No.

 

[Jib]

Peak if it's more than 1 season

 

[Adam-Utd]

I'd say peak if you win something and can be remembered for it. Longevity if you aren't a winner.

The best have both.

 

[Peyroteo]

Longevity. 20 years of 8/10 performances is better for a club than 3 years of 9/10 performances. It has its limits though, don’t thing Giggs > Ronaldinho is true because of it for example.

It depends from case to case really.

 

[Thisistheone]

Lets compare Giggs and Ronaldinho. Was Giggs a better player than Ronaldinho? Comparing Giggs and Pires is comparing two very similar level players. I personally never thought Pires was better, but some people did. With Giggs and Ronaldinho the difference is plain to see.

Its like comparing a single mountain that is the highest mountain in the world, with a mountain range that covers a very large area. Whats more beautiful to look at, the single mountain or the mountain range? Does that make the single mountains peak not the highest mountain anymore? No.

It's not about whats more beautiful though. What is more important to a club looking to win things? Giggs contributes more to a club winning trophies.

You also make Giggs sounds like a tiny little mountain range, when in fairness he had quite a high peak himself. Not as high as Ronaldinho but still extremely high to the point where he was the best winger in Europe.

 

[B20]

Peak any day. No way I'd trade my Maradonas, Ronaldos and Ronaldinhos for a bunch of Giggsies.

 

[Camy89]

I asked my girlfriend the same thing.

 

[Cal?]

Both, and that's why Cristiano and Messi are the 2 best players ever in this sport.

 

[Thisistheone]

Peak any day. No way I'd trade my Maradonas, Ronaldos and Ronaldinhos for a bunch of Giggsies.

'a bunch of Giggsies' like he's Steve Guppy or something!

As a fan of your club you'd be better off with 20 years of a Gerrard, Giggs, Scholes, Lampard, Totti, Zanetti, Maldini. Players who will never win the Balon D'or but are still world class and offer incredible service year after year.

 

[Jerzol78]

I'd say i depends on the club and its relative power vs. others.
If it is a club that is really strong anyway (in the league or an European superpower), I'd say: longevity - as it will be supported by the good player for many years and give a chance for getting trophies during those many years.
If a club is good but not among the best, and thus doesn't have too many chances to get trophies: peak - as it will give a chance to have an exceptional year and win something that would be harder to get without that special effort of a player with great peak
If a club is weak and fights to stay in the league - stability is needed, so longevity again to secure staying and not risking relegation due to sudden decline of a crucial player.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Depends on the height of the peak and the length of the longevity. No straight answer here.

I prefer a peak though, it's more magical. If I wanted consistency I'd move to Germany and work in a Volkswagen assembly plant.

 

[RedRob]

Don't think there's a straightforward answer. Andy Cole, for instance, is considered to have had his "best" season in 1998/99 and not unfairly - he was a key player in a Treble winning team. His "peak match" though will have been the one against Ipswich in 1994/95 when he scored five. His "most consistent" season was arguably 1997/98, wherein he finished behind only Bergkamp in the PPotY award.

With all that said, I'd rather have a Denis Irwin than a Nani in my team. But that's personal preference.

 

[Canagel]

Peak

 

[B20]

I prefer a peak though, it's more magical. If I wanted consistency I'd move to Germany and work in a Volkswagen assembly plant.

This

 

[zkap]

Depends on the height of the peak and the length of the longevity. No straight answer here.

I prefer a peak though, it's more magical. If I wanted consistency I'd move to Germany and work in a Volkswagen assembly plant.

I thought most would say there's no straight answer. I would even add it depends on the length of the peak or the player's ceiling during a prolonged period.
Longevity means very little if the player will be serving up barely above-average performances for two decades. On the other hand, peak means little if it's not going to be high or if it'll be very brief.

I think it's relative, particularly because it also depends on what the team needs. It can also depend on the position - if I were going for peak years, I'd like to see them in a striker/attacking midfielder, someone who can run the team and create something out of nothing, create excitement and score title-winning goals. If I were going for longevity, I'd want that in a centre-back, full-back or goalie, positions that are meant to give you stability and security. A peaking Marquez or Puyol can contribute less than a peaking Ronaldinho, who can win me the Champions League when he's on fire. I'd much prefer Marquez and Puyol to be consistently solid at the back for a decade, while Ronaldinho will do wonders for me even if his peak is short.

 

[RedRonaldo]

It depends at what level of consistency/longevity vs at what level/length of peak we are taking about.

Who would you choose below?

Scenario A (extreme case - decent longevity/consistency vs extreme short peak but poor consistency)
Consistency: 15 years of Premier league level, but never get a 9/10 or 10/10 rating, at best only 7/10 or 8/10, mostly at 6/10
vs
Peak: 1 years of Premier league level, only get 10/10 once in a match, 9/10 few times, winning player of month once, but with 14 years of division 1 level, mostly at 4/10 or 5/10

Scenario B (extreme case - average longevity/consistency vs good peak but very poor consistency)
Consistency: 15 years of Division 1 level, mosty 5/10 or 6/10, never higher than a 6/10
vs
Peak: 1 year at Premier league level, 14 years of Division 1 or 2 level, half of time playing at 3/10 to 4/10, occasionally at 7/10 or 8/10 few times a season

Scenario C (real case - Giggs vs Owen)
Consistency: over 20 years of Premier league 1st team level, 6 times included in PFA team of the year, winning domestic player of year award once
vs
Peak: 10 years of Premier league 1st team level, winning Ballon D'or once, PFA team of year once, and domestic player of year award once too

Scenario D (real case - Ronaldo vs Ronaldo)
Consistency: 13 years of world class level, with 11 years of Ballon D'or level , 5 times no.1 best player in the world
vs
Peak: 4 years of world class level, with 3 years of Ballon D'or level, 2 times no.1 best player in world, with some of peak performances (lets say top 5~10 games) being more impressive than anyone else, but also with 5~6 seasons of average/disappointing performances

 

[SilentStrike]

In general I'd pick peak above longetivity as it's more exciting, but what adds more value to a team is probably longetivity.

 

[Amar__]

Peak any day. No way I'd trade my Maradonas, Ronaldos and Ronaldinhos for a bunch of Giggsies.

So if you could pick for the future, you would pick Suarez over Gerrard for this Liverpool team?

 

[TheLord]

Definitely peak if it is sustained for a few years.

I’d much rather have peak Messi for a few years than Steven G or Frank Lampard or Ryan Giggs for 10 years.
But this choice is purely personal, and I can fully understand why many would disagree with me.


———

Addendum:
By “peak”, I mean the real peaks of geniuses - the Peles, the Maradonas, the Ronaldos, the Ronaldinhos, certainly not the “little” peaks of Mo Salahs and Luis Suarezes that some here are referring to!!

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Consistency, which points to longevity.

Peak anyone for one season isn't much value.

 

[Rozay]

So I was reading that Ronaldo vs Ronaldo thread and a common theme was popping up. Which is more important, a player's peak level of performance or doing it consistently over a long period of time?

Does Pires' couple of years in the premiership make him a better LW than Giggs who did it for over 20 years?

Ronaldinho and Kaka are considered greats but they only really performed at the highest level for a few years.

Is someone like Zlatan better than Luis Ronaldo because the latter was ruined by injuries? (I know the answer to this one is no but where is the line drawn?)

Or has our view simply been warped by the exploits of Ronaldo and Messi? I can't really remember players putting in 30+ goal seasons for 10 years before those two showed up. Before this wouldn't really be a debate in my eyes now if you're a forward player it almost feels like you get underrated unless you manage to match that level of consistency.

I think longevity, generally speaking, carries a little more weight with the masses. This is because of the distinction between ‘greatest’ and ‘best’ for me, and I think ‘great’ is often dependent upon trophies won, which of course takes time.

A couple of years ago I asked people to name a PL XI based on a peak of a minimum of one year. Most people’s teams looked very different to their overall PL XIs. Few people had Kanté in midfield or Vardy upfront for instance. For the record, I had Pires left wing too.

It’s hard, to me, to say a player is better than a player they were not ‘better’ than. I personally prefer conversation of peak, because if you reached a level that hasn’t been reached since, you should absolutely get the credit for it. That said, I think we need to be talking the minimum of one season. Otherwise you will be including Lingard or various others who had freak 6 game spells of magic.

 

[anant]

I believe longetivity should be used more as a filter rather than a criteria to compare players. As in, any player whose peak lasted 5 years or more should be considered equal in that metric.

 

[MJJ]

For my club, I'd take a great player with longevity over a player with a slightly higher peak but a short life span any day of the week.

And I think you're right regarding Messi/Ronaldo. They're so hopelessly far ahead stats-wise of everyone else that it's become a bit of a weird debate, but really, there's a few players who's peaks I'd have over Cristiano, just for entertainment value alone - Ronaldinho & Kaka

So you would rather Henderson over suarez/Tories?

 

[Tommy]

So you would rather Henderson over suarez/Tories?

"a great player with longevity over a player with a slightly higher peak but a short life span..."

The more apt comparison would be Gerrard vs Suarez - I'd take Gerrard for 15 years over Luis for 3 years. I'd take a bowel movement over Henderson.

 

[B20]

So if you could pick for the future, you would pick Suarez over Gerrard for this Liverpool team?

There's some other concerns besides who is better with those two but probably. Suarez was unforgettable. Maybe the best we've had.

 

[MJJ]

"a great player with longevity over a player with a slightly higher peak but a short life span..."

The more apt comparison would be Gerrard vs Suarez - I'd take Gerrard for 15 years over Luis for 3 years. I'd take a bowel movement over Henderson.

Gerrards peak was pretty good though and unlike Suarez actually won you something but you put Suarez in your current side and you win the PL.

 

[Amar__]

There's some other concerns besides who is better with those two but probably. Suarez was unforgettable. Maybe the best we've had.

That's ridiculous, IMO. Even as United fan I would rather Liverpool have another Suarez for 2-3 years than 15 years of Gerrard.

 

[jontheblue]

As others have said, way too many variables to give an answer to the question. But if we are looking from a fan's perspective, surely it's influenced heavily by trophies - if a player's peak is short but helps win trophies and either side of that peak you don't win trophies, you'll value that peak very highly. If they don't, does it matter ?

In reality, when Liverpool fans look back in 20 yrs time, will it really seem that important how good Gerard and some of that crop of players were and how long they were good for, given they didn't win the league ?

Matt007a above puts it very well

 

[Bogdannn]

So I was reading that Ronaldo vs Ronaldo thread and a common theme was popping up. Which is more important, a player's peak level of performance or doing it consistently over a long period of time?

Does Pires' couple of years in the premiership make him a better LW than Giggs who did it for over 20 years?

Ronaldinho and Kaka are considered greats but they only really performed at the highest level for a few years.

Is someone like Zlatan better than Luis Ronaldo because the latter was ruined by injuries? (I know the answer to this one is no but where is the line drawn?)

Or has our view simply been warped by the exploits of Ronaldo and Messi? I can't really remember players putting in 30+ goal seasons for 10 years before those two showed up. Before this wouldn't really be a debate in my eyes now if you're a forward player it almost feels like you get underrated unless you manage to match that level of consistency.

When I rate players, I look at their peak form far more than I look at longevity.
R9 and R10 are in my top 5 all time, Zlatan and Giggs are not.

 

[Zen86]

Longevity makes for great players, but peak makes legends.

 

[bosnian_red]

Really it depends on how close the peaks are. Someone like Ronaldinho is an all time great because his peak was ridiculous. If you're talking about a similar level peak like some would argue for Ronaldo vs Ronaldo (imo Cristiano beats him there too but anyway), then you look at the next stage which is longevity and there is only one winner. You put Pires and Giggs - but was Pires better than Giggs at their peaks?

So really I look at peak level first, and if it's somewhere around the same level, then you have to look at longevity and career and achievements.