Who’s your money on being the bigger success in the PL: Wirtz or Cherki?

“almost nobody in France thinks that Mbappe or dembele are more talented than cherki”

@BalanceUnAutreJoint can you back that claim up because it looks ridiculous. Almost nobody = less than 5% of the French football loving population believe Mbappe/dembele are more talented than cherki?
He's confusing 'technical ability' with 'talent'. Players that can outrun greyhounds or who are super strong and ally that with an amount of technical ability are also talented. Football gifts take many forms. Mbappe and Dembele have things that Cherki doesn't have (he is extremely slow by comparison). Cherki also has things that the other two do not have.

But given that Cherki has done next to nothing in the senior professional game thus far and the other two are titans, you'd think old Balance would wake up and realise that there are many elements to this thing. But what he'll do is retreat into some 'we know different in France" or 'we judge players differently in France' nonsense. As if no one values technical ability outside of France.
 
Just go check out the French side of big social media and you'll see for yourself

There was a video of Cherki and Mbappe in training last int break and people were making viral tweets about how Mbappe stole the ball away cause he was about to get embarrassed



Mbappe has been mocked for failing dribbles and touches and trying to imitate Neymar for years. There's countless videos of him angered PSG fans telling him to "JUST RUN!!" because they were tired of him trying to playmake.

Even Barcola was getting more talented than Mbappe shouts (which I disagree with) around the end of the 23/24 season and especially Euro 2024


Yeah that video proves your point really well
 
You're just using an argument of authority because those are famous names with accomplished careers.
Not a single one of them is more naturally gifted than Cherki at football though which is what scouting is about in the end. Not how someone's career develops and what he accomplishes.

Pep is Foden's manager. Here we're talking about professional scouts observing players
irregardless of their club and coming to the general consensus that Cherki is the most talented they've seen.


And I insist again that you do not have any clue about anything regarding French football and you keep showcasing it by bringing up absolutely terrible examples.

Zidane was never a prodigy in his teenage years. He wasn't some super obvious genius talent. He was scouted late, it's not well known story that Dugarry was perceived as just as technically gifted as him when they first met in youth football.

I never said anything about Zidane being a prodigy, please point to where I did? I said as fully grown professional adult players at the top level, he and Platini have more talent (as in technical ability, by your metric), than I've seen from Cherki. Not tricks ans flicks, but technique. Passing ability. Playmaking. Pulling strings. iQ. Not rabonas. Lamela can do those.

I don't care what Zidane was doing when he was 10.
Cherki was scoring and assisting goals professionally at 16 and was being talked about as a phenomenon years prior to that even happening by those who followed youth football.

Youth football and senior football are completely different. Especially top level senior football. The fact that you keep harping on about this just suggests that you are the one who lacks knowledge, about football in general.
Good thing that almost nobody in France thinks Mbappe or Dembele are more talented than Cherki and that these aren't even close to the two names you'd hear the most often about when talent discussion come up (especially Mbappe who's consistently ridiculed for being insecure about his technique and was mocked for trying to copy Neymar for years)
I guess he'll just have to settle for winning World Cups with France. A tragedy.
 
You struggle when debating me, because you realise that just throwing out stats and jargon doesn't work. But that doesn't mean you have to follow me around the various threads.

If your expertise would be as big as your moth is, I might actually might follow you around. But the way things are your posts are just so irritating that it is difficult to ignore them.
 
If your expertise would be as big as your moth is, I might actually might follow you around. But the way things are your posts are just so irritating that it is difficult to ignore them.
Don't know what his posts are like generally, but when he's replying to incredibly outlandish claims by balance, I don't see his posts being over the top.
 
If your expertise would be as big as your moth is, I might actually might follow you around. But the way things are your posts are just so irritating that it is difficult to ignore them.
I think you might mean 'mouth' there. An enraged typo, no doubt.

You may find the posts less irritating if you leaned on logic, reason and your eyes more often than resorting to regurgitating obscure stats and hipsterish jargon in your arguments. With all due respect.

If you did the former, you might avoid illogical conclusions like 'Florian Wirtz is a better player than Kylian Mbappe,' and 'scoring 400 goals by age 26 is not that big a deal.'
 
Last edited:
He's confusing 'technical ability' with 'talent'. Players that can outrun greyhounds or who are super strong and ally that with an amount of technical ability are also talented. Football gifts take many forms. Mbappe and Dembele have things that Cherki doesn't have (he is extremely slow by comparison). Cherki also has things that the other two do not have.

But given that Cherki has done next to nothing in the senior professional game thus far and the other two are titans, you'd think old Balance would wake up and realise that there are many elements to this thing. But what he'll do is retreat into some 'we know different in France" or 'we judge players differently in France' nonsense. As if no one values technical ability outside of France.

To be honest, I don't see anything different here. The French fanbase will know Cherki because they have observed him more. The same way we talk highly of Ravel Morrison but no one in the world would rate him much as United fans.

You and a lot of Barcelona fans act the same about South American & Spanish talent - always talking about how good they were even when they were younger.

Also Cherki wasn't playing youth football at 16, he was playing both youth and adult football at the age of 16.
 
I’m going to do you both a favour: if you can’t discuss things cordially, go your separate ways before you start getting points for the most increasingly irreverent exchanges of the year.

I’m sure you have both figured out you’re not going to change the view of the other, and as such an impasse into catiness ensues, which probably means drawing a line through the discussion.
 
I’m going to do you both a favour: if you can’t discuss things cordially, go your separate ways before you start getting points for the most increasingly irreverent exchanges of the year.

I’m sure you have both figured out you’re not going to change the view of the other, and as such an impasse into catiness ensues, which probably means drawing a line through the discussion.

Yeah, you're right, I deleted the post.
 
To be honest, I don't see anything different here. The French fanbase will know Cherki because they have observed him more. The same way we talk highly of Ravel Morrison but no one in the world would rate him much as United fans.

You and a lot of Barcelona fans act the same about South American & Spanish talent - always talking about how good they were even when they were younger.

Also Cherki wasn't playing youth football at 16, he was playing both youth and adult football at the age of 16.

For the love of Football gods, leave the french fanbase out of this. While Cherki has always been rated, he has also been labeled as overrated in France because he didn't actually develop as quickly as the early hype would make you believe. Cherki was very good at 15-16 but he followed a normal trajectory from 17 to today. There is a number of players that have been far better in France from 17 to 21-22, it doesn't mean that Cherki isn't very talented or that he won't be great but there is no reason to pretend that he has been above everyone when he hasn't even been near them.

Also just to show how silly some of the points are Maupay is one of the best 16 years old in France history with the likes of Paganelli. And as you can guess neither became all time greats.
 
For the love of Football gods, leave the french fanbase out of this. While Cherki has always been rated, he has also been labeled as overrated in France because he didn't actually develop as quickly as the early hype would make you believe. Cherki was very good at 15-16 but he followed a normal trajectory from 17 to today. There is a number of players that have been far better in France from 17 to 21-22, it doesn't mean that Cherki isn't very talented or that he won't be great but there is no reason to pretend that he has been above everyone when he hasn't even been near them.

Also just to show how silly some of the points are Maupay is one of the best 16 years old in France history with the likes of Paganelli. And as you can guess neither became all time greats.
Paganelli is an all-time great interviewer though. Not sure what his potential as a teenager in that regards was though.
 
Yeah this flex about being the most talented at a non-professional age has little value in the real world unless said player goes on to make great use of said talent and even expand upon it as an adult. It’s especially not great if peers who were behind you go on to adult game and surpass your achievements to date with a sledgehammer, so I am not sure it’s the intended flex it’s being put up as.

And doing skills and tricks not backed up by effectiveness to the highest degree is not looked upon lovingly in an all-time regard, which is why so few of the greatest are also flashy tricksters.

Cherki has a niche, but arguments related to the adult game will look daft next to Platini, Zidane et al, until there is tangible worth.
 
Cherki has a niche, but arguments related to the adult game will look daft next to Platini, Zidane et al, until there is tangible worth.
So if there's tangible worth one day he will go from "absolutely not as talented as Platini and Zidane" to "as talented or more than them" ? That just sounds silly. Talent isn't determined by your achievements.

Ben Arfa will always be more talented than the likes of Griezmann or Benzema and he doesn't have half their career.
 
So if there's tangible worth one day he will go from "absolutely not as talented as Platini and Zidane" to "as talented or more than them" ? That just sounds silly. Talent isn't determined by your achievements.

Ben Arfa will always be more talented than the likes of Griezmann or Benzema and he doesn't have half their career.
Eh?!
 
Benzema himself says it
Everyone at Lyon who worked closely with both say it
The French players from that generation who trained and grew with both players say it

Ben Arfa was by far the most naturally talented French player of his generation.
 
To be honest, I don't see anything different here. The French fanbase will know Cherki because they have observed him more. The same way we talk highly of Ravel Morrison but no one in the world would rate him much as United fans.

You and a lot of Barcelona fans act the same about South American & Spanish talent - always talking about how good they were even when they were younger.

Also Cherki wasn't playing youth football at 16, he was playing both youth and adult football at the age of 16.
I've never talked about any Spanish or South American player being good as a kid unless they were good at the highest level in the professional game. The rest is meaningless to me.
 
So if there's tangible worth one day he will go from "absolutely not as talented as Platini and Zidane" to "as talented or more than them" ? That just sounds silly. Talent isn't determined by your achievements.

Ben Arfa will always be more talented than the likes of Griezmann or Benzema and he doesn't have half their career.
What does having immense skill that doesn't translate into effectiveness amount to? Very little, but "the streets won't forget" or some such. I bet you've never heard of Magico Gonzalez? A player with talent in the ball park of the great 10's of the 80's. Someone who even Maradona said had more talent than him. He's good for YouTube reels, yet his legend is buried outside of those that know of him, like Robin Friday, if you say who!? That's pretty much the point.

If Cherki's career carries on as is, he'll be a footnote in history soon enough despite his talent. And he definitely won't be categorised in the same bracket for ability as Platini or Zidane etc. Just like a Magico isn't spoken of alongside Zico, Maradona and Platini of his time. Only those that knew of his repute as a teenager will mention it, just as always happens throughout history.

Talent is defined by achievement, otherwise you're a footnote/novelty/pub quiz question. There's a reason why Ronaldinho is mentioned frequently in such discussions but a Djalminha or Denillson is not.
 
What does having immense skill that doesn't translate into effectiveness amount to? Very little, but "the streets won't forget" or some such. I bet you've never heard of Magico Gonzalez? A player with talent in the ball park of the great 10's of the 80's. Someone who even Maradona said had more talent than him. He's good for YouTube reels, yet his legend is buried outside of those that know of him, like Robin Friday, if you say who!? That's pretty much the point.

If Cherki's career carries on as is, he'll be a footnote in history soon enough despite his talent. And he definitely won't be categorised in the same bracket for ability as Platini or Zidane etc. Just like a Magico isn't spoken of alongside Zico, Maradona and Platini of his time. Only those that knew of his repute as a teenager will mention it, just as always happens throughout history.

Talent is defined by achievement, otherwise you're a footnote/novelty/pub quiz question. There's a reason why Ronaldinho is mentioned frequently in such discussions but a Djalminha or Denillson is not.

And talent isn't just dribbling. That's actually been a consistent issue with the way some judge players, for example Zidane's first touch is unmatched, his effective creativity and touch in tight spaces are also unmatched. Someone like Platini has almost no match when it comes to striking the ball and every type of passes, he made Football look easy when it's not. There are many players that are better dribblers but professional Football isn't' freestyle or Futsal, in fact for people who fail to understand this go watch some Futsal and keep in mind that a large number of their high level players were in Football academies, most of them are rejects.
 
I think Wirtz will achieve even greater success once he adapts to the intensity of the Premier League.
 
Talent is defined by achievement, otherwise you're a footnote/novelty/pub quiz question.

That would make the term "talent" redundant. If a player who was deemed enormously talented has an underwhelming career that doesn't automatically mean that he was never that talented to begin with and people just overrated him. There's also the option that he's simply an underachiever.
 
That would make the term "talent" redundant. If a player who was deemed enormously talented has an underwhelming career that doesn't automatically mean that he was never that talented to begin with and people just overrated him. There's also the option that he's simply an underachiever.

In Football it's redundant. None of the key abilities are innate, they are the product of thousands of hours, persistence and Football culture. I personally don't think that it makes much sense to compare supposed early level of "talent" because there is no actual uniformity, professional Footballers don't even showcase all of it during games.
 
In Football it's redundant. None of the key abilities are innate, they are the product of thousands of hours, persistence and Football culture. I personally don't think that it makes much sense to compare supposed early level of "talent" because there is no actual uniformity, professional Footballers don't even showcase all of it during games.

I have to disagree. Physical attributes are innate. Some players will be able to reach higher top speeds, others will have lower centers of gravities solely because of the proportions of their body and limbs. Certain shooting techniques for instance benefit extremely from smaller feet as does ball control in general. And cognitive abilities are innate to an extent as well. Some children have a predisposition to learn complex motoric movements, others have better perihpheral vision, multitasking abilities, reaction times and so forth. And then there are also "quasi-innate" abilities. If player A is a much better technician because he has trained his motoric abilities much more intensely, then player B at age 16, chances are that it will stay this way because player B won't be able to catch up considering the efficiency of motoric training regresses with age.
 
I have to disagree. Physical attributes are innate. Some players will be able to reach higher top speeds, others will have lower centers of gravities solely because of the proportions of their body and limbs. Certain shooting techniques for instance benefit extremely from smaller feet as does ball control in general. And cognitive abilities are innate to an extent as well. Some children have a predisposition to learn complex motoric movements, others have better perihpheral vision, multitasking abilities, reaction times and so forth. And then there are also "quasi-innate" abilities. If player A is a much better technician because he has trained his motoric abilities much more intensely, then player B at age 16, chances are that it will stay this way because player B won't be able to catch up considering the efficiency of motoric training regresses with age.

We are talking about Football abilities, so you are disagreeing with yourself. And physical attributes aren't innate, while genetics may play a role in the geometry of the body, the actual abilities are the product of exercise.
 
We are talking about Football abilities, so you are disagreeing with yourself. And physical attributes aren't innate, while genetics may play a role in the geometry of the body, the actual abilities are the product of exercise.

How so? Genetics influence how quickly children learn motoric abilities which also includes football technique. And while we can influence our muscle composition (fast and slow twitching fibres) to an extent, the proportions of our limbs can't be changed. Messi for instance has some of the shortest legs compared to the height of his torso, leading to a much lower center of gravity than players with a similar height, e. g. Iniesta. And Usain Bolt had a very unique relation between the length of his thigh and calf that enabled him to reach higher top speeds through extreme leverages while running.

All those things are innate and influence your ceiling as a footballer immensely.
 
How so? Genetics influence how quickly children learn motoric abilities which also includes football technique. And while we can influence our muscle composition (fast and slow twitching fibres) to an extent, the proportions of our limbs can't be changed. Messi for instance has some of the shortest legs compared to the height of his torso, leading to a much lower center of gravity than players with a similar height, e. g. Iniesta. And Usain Bolt had a very unique relation between the length of his thigh and calf that enabled him to reach higher top speeds through extreme leverages while running.

All those things are innate and influence your ceiling as a footballer immensely.

Sure.
 
And talent isn't just dribbling. That's actually been a consistent issue with the way some judge players, for example Zidane's first touch is unmatched, his effective creativity and touch in tight spaces are also unmatched. Someone like Platini has almost no match when it comes to striking the ball and every type of passes, he made Football look easy when it's not. There are many players that are better dribblers but professional Football isn't' freestyle or Futsal, in fact for people who fail to understand this go watch some Futsal and keep in mind that a large number of their high level players were in Football academies, most of them are rejects.
Exactly. Close control and silky tricks and touches are great when combined with a boatload of other attributes, but really don’t carry much weight in isolation, worse even, is that some who max out those quotients can be considered jesters by others because what they do on a pitch amounts to little if not complemented with a gamut of other attributes - Platini being able to play any pass at any time in pressurised, top-level, match defining moments is a tangible talent with real world worth an impact. The amount of times you can truly affect a game plays into the talent you have; as you’ve said, if you’re lacking in aspects that truly determine and define games, you’re little more than a side act no matter how silky you look whilst ultimately being ineffective compared to those that are actually looked to to repeatedly decide games.
 
That would make the term "talent" redundant. If a player who was deemed enormously talented has an underwhelming career that doesn't automatically mean that he was never that talented to begin with and people just overrated him. There's also the option that he's simply an underachiever.
The term talent is contextual and falls under an umbrella that asks for a lot more than the raw tools to become a special player in the adult game.

I’m sure many clubs have their Ravel Morrison, Fabio Paim or (to this point in time) Cherki types who were accelerant at early stages who then got left behind by peers for whatever reason. Talent and potential must mesh and that’s were so many fall down, and it’s not necessarily because they are underachievers over not having the full scope of the game others go on to utterly eclipse others with - one might say that scope rarely shows itself until quite a bit later than “talent” makes itself known. Someone like C.Ronaldo is a perfect example of this. Nobody on the planet had a clue his scope would manifest in such a fashion. He wasn’t even rated above Queresma or Fabio Paim for raw talent as a youngster, but then went on to show an almost unprecedented level of understanding of the game going on around him. There are thousands of other examples, but none as extreme. Even immense talent means little until it has tangible worth.

What we separate immediately are those with immense talent and obscene levels of innate understanding of the game, but again the latter ties into tangible effectiveness.
 
The term talent is contextual and falls under an umbrella that asks for a lot more than the raw tools to become a special player in the adult game.

I’m sure many clubs have their Ravel Morrison, Fabio Paim or (to this point in time) Cherki types who were accelerant at early stages who then got left behind by peers for whatever reason. Talent and potential must mesh and that’s were so many fall down, and it’s not necessarily because they are underachievers over not having the full scope of the game others go on to utterly eclipse others with - one might say that scope rarely shows itself until quite a bit later than “talent” makes itself known. Someone like C.Ronaldo is a perfect example of this. Nobody on the planet had a clue his scope would manifest in such a fashion. He wasn’t even rated above Queresma or Fabio Paim for raw talent as a youngster, but then went on to show an almost unprecedented level of understanding of the game going on around him. There are thousands of other examples, but none as extreme. Even immense talent means little until it has tangible worth.

What we separate immediately are those with immense talent and obscene levels of innate understanding of the game, but again the latter ties into tangible effectiveness.

Yeah. I have a limited and admittedly flawed use of talent, there are players that I will describe as talented and players that lack talent, meaning that the formers have a toolkit that can lead them to elite Football while the others will either struggle more to reach that level or not make it. I also tend to not compare "talent" especially with youth players because context matter, players aren't in equal situations and even from a physical standpoint they don't develop at the same pace, generally precocious players are the ones that are athletically ready at an earlier stage, it's not based on skills or smart and it's not rare for these players to be left behind at a later stage by players who were more skilled or savvier.
 
The term talent is contextual and falls under an umbrella that asks for a lot more than the raw tools to become a special player in the adult game.

I’m sure many clubs have their Ravel Morrison, Fabio Paim or (to this point in time) Cherki types who were accelerant at early stages who then got left behind by peers for whatever reason. Talent and potential must mesh and that’s were so many fall down, and it’s not necessarily because they are underachievers over not having the full scope of the game others go on to utterly eclipse others with - one might say that scope rarely shows itself until quite a bit later than “talent” makes itself known. Someone like C.Ronaldo is a perfect example of this. Nobody on the planet had a clue his scope would manifest in such a fashion. He wasn’t even rated above Queresma or Fabio Paim for raw talent as a youngster, but then went on to show an almost unprecedented level of understanding of the game going on around him. There are thousands of other examples, but none as extreme. Even immense talent means little until it has tangible worth.

What we separate immediately are those with immense talent and obscene levels of innate understanding of the game, but again the latter ties into tangible effectiveness.
In fairness to Cherki, he's way beyond the likes of Morrison (who I also cited) and Paim, who both barely made a start at the top level. Those guys were total failures (at football - maybe they've managed to build good lives for themselves otherwise, I have no idea).

Cherki actually has a career, though he's had some problems and hasn't developed as fast as others. The question is whether he can go on to become a great player (in fulfilment of his promise), not whether he can become a player at all.
 
Yeah. I have a limited and admittedly flawed use of talent, there are players that I will describe as talented and players that lack talent, meaning that the formers have a toolkit that can lead them to elite Football while the others will either struggle more to reach that level or not make it. I also tend to not compare "talent" especially with youth players because context matter, players aren't in equal situations and even from a physical standpoint they don't develop at the same pace, generally precocious players are the ones that are athletically ready at an earlier stage, it's not based on skills or smart and it's not rare for these players to be left behind at a later stage by players who were more skilled or savvier.
Yep, we also look at different aspects of talent at different ages, which is why it is such a nebulous term. Game understanding is such an enormous factor as an actual professional in a professional environment where your literal job is asking you to be as effective as you can be - at the unders level, you want to see the technical proficiency that gives the greatest platform and foundations for players who have or develop that game understanding to flourish. I'm certainly looking at and marvelling at different qualities in a young, non-professional than I am in what needs to round out to the finished article. There's also the hope and expectation that those clear and apparent skills and, most likely beautiful aesthetic in a youngster, can become something tangible and effective. In fact, it has to become tangible and effective otherwise the spotlight turns to those who are effective and have real-world use and threat.

I'll always, always look for aesthetic and technical marvels because they bring a joy and sense of appreciation for the skills on display, but objectively, they have to be as effective as the next player earning plaudits for us to say they aren't actually lacking in the varied aspects that make the whole when it comes to talent. It can actually be quite sad to watch the most talented youngsters get caught up to and then surpassed by others with a wider array of components to make it the top - it's absurd to think "talent" caps out because someone has fantastic skills; how well they can be applied to games that mean something/everything is crucial.
 
In fairness to Cherki, he's way beyond the likes of Morrison (who I also cited) and Paim, who both barely made a start at the top level. Those guys were total failures (at football - maybe they've managed to build good lives for themselves otherwise, I have no idea).

Cherki actually has a career, though he's had some problems and hasn't developed as fast as others. The question is whether he can go on to become a great player (in fulfilment of his promise), not whether he can become a player at all.
For sure Cherki is a different in that he has made a name for himself in the adult game and his story is yet to be concluded, but the reason I mentioned those players in particular is because they are (or at least were) considered phenoms of their clubs' modern academic history. Paim was the talk of the Sporting academy and was supposed to take the adult game by storm with his talent, same goes for Ravel and of course, the assumption with the 16-year old Cherki was that he'd be Ballon d'Or level by now, which isn't close to how things panned out.

I'm (or was) a big follower of Cherki's career and at the age he is now, he's got a healthy amount of time to make good on his talent, but if things were to end tomorrow, he'd be mostly remembered as a novelty act in the grand scheme of his era.
 
It's also about a person's mentality outside of the purely football effectiveness-related aspects. How long are you able to keep yourself dedicated and pushing 100% with the more mundane side of being an adult athlete? How much stress can you handle? Are you a difficult arsehole etc.? There are always players each generation that have both the talent and effectiveness to be great but still don't make it in terms of being an internationally recognised great (long term at least) because of other personal qualities that have little to do with their football capability. A Djalminha or Edmundo would be an example of that, imo...there was little those guys didn't know about how to effectively play great top-level football. Players like Ben Arfa and Denilson are more on the side of genuinely glaringly flawed players that end up surpassed/disappointing because there's a lack of game understanding or certain skills there. Maybe Ben Arfa was a bit of both.
 
Yep, we also look at different aspects of talent at different ages, which is why it is such a nebulous term. Game understanding is such an enormous factor as an actual professional in a professional environment where your literal job is asking you to be as effective as you can be - at the unders level, you want to see the technical proficiency that gives the greatest platform and foundations for players who have or develop that game understanding to flourish. I'm certainly looking at and marvelling at different qualities in a young, non-professional than I am in what needs to round out to the finished article. There's also the hope and expectation that those clear and apparent skills and, most likely beautiful aesthetic in a youngster, can become something tangible and effective. In fact, it has to become tangible and effective otherwise the spotlight turns to those who are effective and have real-world use and threat.

I'll always, always look for aesthetic and technical marvels because they bring a joy and sense of appreciation for the skills on display, but objectively, they have to be as effective as the next player earning plaudits for us to say they aren't actually lacking in the varied aspects that make the whole when it comes to talent. It can actually be quite sad to watch the most talented youngsters get caught up to and then surpassed by others with a wider array of components to make it the top - it's absurd to think "talent" caps out because someone has fantastic skills; how well they can be applied to games that mean something/everything is crucial.
This discussion is becoming very detailed now and a lot of different things are being said. However, I'm not quite sure I agree with you here (if I'm reading what you said right). You're talking about skills becoming 'tangible and effective'. Skills and technique are in and of themselves tangible and effective IMO, not just for the aesthetic. If a player can dribble really well, can pass really well, even sometimes in the case of tricks - these are all things that are inherently useful as they can be used to beat, bypass and confuse defenders, which leads to space being created, which leads to chances, which leads to goals.

For me, the promising people with talent don't fall by the wayside because they have skills and don't 'turn them into something effective' (as I said above, I don't agree with that construction). It's more because they can lack the discipline that is necessary to succeed at the highest level, and with their lack of application, they find it harder and harder to do their natural thing against better and better opponents as they rise up the ranks.

So many of the people we've mentioned have that rebellious, maverick mindset where they don't want to train, where they get distracted by off the field stuff etc. Jorge 'Magico" Gonzalez, who you mentioned, didn't want to train and liked to party. Cherki was previously accused of being a poor trainer - maybe that's why he didn't develop as quickly as expected. Morrison was a poor trainer and had off the field issues.

So it's not about them changing to become more effective - if they work at their game and work at their fitness, they will naturally become effective because they can simply do things that other players cannot do.

I think part of the problem with such players is that they're already so much better than everyone else initially, so they feel like they don't have to train or work. That's why they can sometimes get left behind.

I think about someone like Maradona, who is the prime example of the flawed genius/maverick archetype. He had all the red flags - drugs, women, clashes with authority, etc. It all caught up with him at the end, and he had a shorter career than he should have had. But maybe the reason he reached the top and can't be said to have squandered his incredible gift, is because he was (in his own way) dedicated to the sport and he trained like a demon, especially early in his career and in the run up to World Cups. Consider the difference in his build between the 82 and 86 tournaments - he knew he had to get much stronger after being bullied with his slighter frame in 82.
 
What does having immense skill that doesn't translate into effectiveness amount to? Very little, but "the streets won't forget" or some such. I bet you've never heard of Magico Gonzalez? A player with talent in the ball park of the great 10's of the 80's. Someone who even Maradona said had more talent than him. He's good for YouTube reels, yet his legend is buried outside of those that know of him, like Robin Friday, if you say who!? That's pretty much the point.

If Cherki's career carries on as is, he'll be a footnote in history soon enough despite his talent. And he definitely won't be categorised in the same bracket for ability as Platini or Zidane etc. Just like a Magico isn't spoken of alongside Zico, Maradona and Platini of his time. Only those that knew of his repute as a teenager will mention it, just as always happens throughout history.

Talent is defined by achievement, otherwise you're a footnote/novelty/pub quiz question. There's a reason why Ronaldinho is mentioned frequently in such discussions but a Djalminha or Denillson is not.
Legend* is defined by achievement - talent is the potential of your body and mind

Cherki's just moved to City, and played some good games already, so if he continues as is, the trajectory is still looking upward, despite his shortcomings of today. Ronaldinho wasn't an instant (star-level) success, so also shows how it all isn't decided in just a few months time.

Was his name actually Magico, though? :lol:
 
This discussion is becoming very detailed now and a lot of different things are being said. However, I'm not quite sure I agree with you here (if I'm reading what you said right). You're talking about skills becoming 'tangible and effective'. Skills and technique are in and of themselves tangible and effective IMO, not just for the aesthetic. If a player can dribble really well, can pass really well, even sometimes in the case of tricks - these are all things that are inherently useful as they can be used to beat, bypass and confuse defenders, which leads to space being created, which leads to chances, which leads to goals.

For me, the promising people with talent don't fall by the wayside because they have skills and don't 'turn them into something effective' (as I said above, I don't agree with that construction). It's more because they can lack the discipline that is necessary to succeed at the highest level, and with their lack of application, they find it harder and harder to do their natural thing against better and better opponents as they rise up the ranks.

So many of the people we've mentioned have that rebellious, maverick mindset where they don't want to train, where they get distracted by off the field stuff etc. Jorge 'Magico" Gonzalez, who you mentioned, didn't want to train and liked to party. Cherki was previously accused of being a poor trainer - maybe that's why he didn't develop as quickly as expected. Morrison was a poor trainer and had off the field issues.

So it's not about them changing to become more effective - if they work at their game and work at their fitness, they will naturally become effective because they can simply do things that other players cannot do.

I think part of the problem with such players is that they're already so much better than everyone else initially, so they feel like they don't have to train or work. That's why they can sometimes get left behind.

I think about someone like Maradona, who is the prime example of the flawed genius/maverick archetype. He had all the red flags - drugs, women, clashes with authority, etc. It all caught up with him at the end, and he had a shorter career than he should have had. But maybe the reason he reached the top and can't be said to have squandered his incredible gift, is because he was (in his own way) dedicated to the sport and he trained like a demon, especially early in his career and in the run up to World Cups. Consider the difference in his build between the 82 and 86 tournaments - he knew he had to get much stronger after being bullied with his slighter frame in 82.

The Maradona frame stuff it's not the catalyst nor was an issue with him ever. There is no way to avoid the treatment he had in 82, or in 86, the main thing was that he played for and with a team that played like that and had asimilar prepration to a club one. Also in 86 it was tad less over the top the leniance to let everything go in the way the 82 Italy and Brazil game went and that old lady luck giving her blessings, or better said timing, because he could have easily end broke both Cups like in Bilbao.

In fact the best Maradona was prior to his 83 injury. Or better said, clearly the one I preffered interms of fitness and athletism.

What it's true regarding stuff around fitness it's that the 86 team, and even more Maradona in his typical fashion when he was fully dedicated, did a special preparation to deal with height in México and they did like some sort of pre season club plan. mostly imposible to do it in current Pro football in terms of schedule and also in personality of the players to trully put the NT above everything to do so. In this last aspect, the current squad has lots of points in common with those old NTs squads, similar approach and attitude. We needed that extra malice, mean and ubber commintmentt more than having zilliuons of top forwards and offensive mids above everyone trying to fit them in a single 11.

So many of the people we've mentioned have that rebellious, maverick mindset where they don't want to train, where they get distracted by off the field stuff etc. Jorge 'Magico" Gonzalez, who you mentioned, didn't want to train and liked to party. Cherki was previously accused of being a poor trainer - maybe that's why he didn't develop as quickly as expected. Morrison was a poor trainer and had off the field issues.

I think that players have diff builds, genetics and personalities that can make them approach or even take advantage when they shouldn't regarding training. It's more or less the same with personalities, sthg in a very clever way Mou always did. With some it works to tease them, with others you have be nice, with others you have to avoid them. From Sivori, to Aguero, to Tevez, Maradona and to some extent all of them were in general terms: lousy trainers, because for most of them that it was just to keep shape and to relax instead of intensity "like a game" when training. In order to properly play later in the field, given it's what they liked, feel and demanded. Their talent and delivery in real matches it's what allowed them that low socks, untied boots angle to not create huge issues with his mates.
All in all, we might guess too that Aguero would have been even better, with a lot less injures, that Diego went wayyy over the top into dammaging himself with this approach combine with his vida loca lifestyle, some fellas were right in the middle like Romario, that at least didn't indulged in extreme addictions and so on. But at the end of the day it works a tad too much of an excuse regarding certain really talented fellas that actually weren't on the ubber/ off the charts level as a package to become a genius (a term I like to use) alike players.


Someone who even Maradona said had more talent than him.

As a side note, yes Diego said that, yet you have to actually know the nuances of Diego regarding praising and relantionship with players in general to actually get him regarding this sort of quotes.
No matter if the one in the receiving end is R9, Ronaldinho, Rolfi Monetengro, some obscure 3rd division player from Argentina or el Magico.

Just in case, I get the point you were doing Fort and using el Magico.
BTW EL Magico had quite a very good to great seaons in Spain, it wasn't all of it a mere game here and there. With a tad better timing he could have even a better carreer than the one he had. In fact Barcelona letting go Diego would have been more than probably el Magico situation (in Diego's case it wasn't only his lifestyle gossip, was also that HUGE injury many people do not get how serious was it, in those days even more and that actually affected his game) if him was the only around in those days in Can Barca, he was really close to be a Barca player.
 
Well this is looking like a no contest at the minute. Wasn't expecting that when creating the thread.