₦airaland Forum

Oboi dem wan kill dybala

Ibime:
Gheorge Hagi - only 45 goals in Italy and Spain. I can't count Romanian or Turkish league of that time.
Juninho Pernambucano - only 100 goals in Europe
Scholes - 2000s era.

Ryan Giggs - not a CAM


I will repeat my question.

Name 3 CAMS from 1990s era with more goals than Zidane.

This is looking worse than JAMB question.

Why are you discounting goals on different leagues? Ligue 1 was not a tough league or European powerhouse when Zidane was playing there.

In fact, French teams have only made UCL final twice since the competition started. So if you want discount any league goals, you must remove all of Zidanes 45 goals in France...


Also how is Scholes not a 90s era midfielder?

Ibime:
Give me 3 CAMS and leave story for Mathias.

All I want is 3 CAMS that scored more than Zidanes 125 career club goals.

If you ask me about Iniesta, I can pull any name from the top of my head without looking even Oscar, Ozil, Kevin Nolan them. . . .

So all I want is 3 CAMs from 1990s era that outscored Zidane. It's not a hard task. Simples.

George Haji
Junininho Pernambucano
Paul Scholes

I can add Ryan Giggs, Beckham, etc.

No WPOTY winners there.

So what's your point exactly?

raumdeuter:
Where Zidane is distinguished is in his big game performance

He won best player 3 times one was in 2000
2000 he had 5 club goals 1 assist in all comps

Exactly. Obviously his triumphs with France were what swung it for him, not any nebulous goals.

He had 2 league goals in 98 ffs

Ibime:
Such lies can only be told to you young ones.

I have set y'all a challenge to name 3 CAMS from 1990s era that bettered Zidane's 125 club career goals. . . please oblige by daybreak.

Ordinary David Beckham has more career goals than Zidane, and he was a right midfielder, not a winger.

Based on Goals Beckham should have at least won wpoty if that's the angle you want to follow.

Youri Djorkaeff that scored more than Zidane didn't even win a pin.

The years that Zidane won the league, he scored 9, 9, and 11 goals in all comps for the season. I think he even had only 2 league goals in 98.

Leave story for mattias.

raumdeuter:
nihilist below are zidanes stats, Do you have any followup questions to ask

When I tell you to limit those lies to people who didnt watch games then

Lobatan. And that's transfermarkt that we know are generous with their assists counts o.

Zidane passed the eye test not the numbers test.

Ibime:
Iniesta was not a CM. Now he is. Even the Raumdeuter that brought this CM argument typed in clear cold letters that "Iniesta was an AM".

Scholes on the other hand was a CM for the 2nd half of his career. Go and check his stats from 1996 to 2004 when he played as an AM (in 4-4-2). Dude was registering 10 to 20 goals per season without fail. So the stats don't back you up.

And BTW, nobody called Scholes the greatest Playmaker of all time and nobody called Drogba the greatest striker of all time. But when it comes to Eunuch, we hear all sort of poetry and eulogy.

If you are an attacking player, you must have stats. Simple. You cannot be an AM, winger or striker and say you are not into scoring or assisting. Fa, fa, fa, foul!

Defensive players are the only ones we will judge qualitatively.

Scholes has been called one of the greatest midfielders of all time, same as Iniesta. Those doing the naming were not looking at stats. Which stats did the likes of Zidane have?

diggz:
You are missing the point bro. I specifically peaked on bykbyk post to expose how limited their way of judging players can be especially when we choose to put the search lights on "football legends"(in quote). You are free to drop the contributions of any of the legends if u so choose to. I am definitely not against it.

I wasn't the one who started the quantitative bullshyytee of analysing players on NL. I am not even going to pursue that route.

However, to read bykbyk poetic response to the contributions of iniesta is highly hypocritical being that he is quick to condemn certain players for not having much or quantitative contributions to show for in games.

As far as I am concerned, the NL standard used in judging players like hazard should be used across board not writing poems. Abi,why must we decide to exclude iniesta from quantitative contributions just because he doesn't have it?

Or can you bail bykbyk out and tell us iniestas contributions without being poetic?

I see your point.

No sympathy for Bykebyke- if that's the case, then fine.

I still feel that numbers are there to bolster a point, not be the point themselves

Drogba's biggest contribution to the team was his attitude. When he's on the pitch, you know he's there and that anything can happen. That's why he's a legend...not because he had the 1 fantastic season.

Ibime:
Ballack was not an AM at Chelsea, he was a holding player. Goals conceded record speaks for him. As AM at Bayern and Leverkusen, his goals speak for him.

Drogba was not lauded for his 16 goal seasons. It is his 2007 season of 33 goals that brought him to prominence.

Ballack was a CM, like Iniesta. 14 assists in 4 seasons is paltry.

Drogba had 1 spectacular season out of 6 but he is a legend. Throughout his stay at Chelsea, he averaged less than 20 league goals per season. Those are Troy Deeney numbers. Yet Drogba is a Legend.

Volume of passes means zilch. Nothing. Jordan Henderson is currently the highest volume passer in the league today...it doesn't prove that he's better than anybody

Scholes and Iniesta have roughly the same number of passes per game. Scholes was also registering 1 or 2 leahue assists per season. Scholes was not crap was he?

diggz:
Bruv I only typed names of manU legends without checking anything out.

If I ask you to talk about the contributions of drogba,anelka ,lampard ,ballack ,essien,makalele, calvaho, Ashley Cole, and even Malouda.... will u just come drop some poems?

So Iniesta doesn't have contributions ni?
If you want to judge the Chelsea legends there based on stats, you will disappointed. Lampard is the only exceptional person stat wise there.

Apart from 2 non- consecutive seasons at the club, Drogba was scoring 8, 10, 5 league goals per season. And that's a striker.

I think Ballack had only 14 league assists in his 4 years playing for us.

Omo leave story. Some players have to assessed qualitatively not quantitatively.

diggz:
Bruv if I ask you to write about the contributions of Paul scholes or Keane or Ronaldo or Rooney etc to your team Na only grammar you go carry come?

Paul Scholes is not too different to Iniesta stats wise . 60 passes per game. 1 or 2 assists a season etcetera etcetera.

Bilic at West Ham too. Michail Antonio has spent half his season at Right Wingback

hensben:
For how long and how many club adopted it before conte that almost every club now want to use it?

Roberto Martinez used it at Wigan. Mazarri started this season with 3 at the back at Watford. Koeman played 3 at the back occasionally at Soton last season.

It's not new bruh, trust me.

bigkesh:
Wenger played 3-4-3 last night

Conte got Spurs, United, Barca and Three lions to play 3-4-3


He already has a big influence on English football,while Judas is still looking for a way to contribute Positively to the game

Barca were playing 343 way back under Pep sef, and Spurs played 343 before Conte this season sef.

diggz:
Tell me what Ur moronic legend did as a coach? A lousy phool who got disgraced with his lousy mouth.

Conte is a zillion times better than the British fraud. Dimatteo is a God to Garri fraud Neville.

Bite me!

My name is Nihilist, and I endorse this message.

nateevs:
I am not going to criticize the system on the back of one loss. The reason we've led the league for most of the season is because we defend very well and we are difficult to contain in attack in a 3-4-3.

The reasons we won the league were:

Hazard
Lack of European Commitments
New formation initially bamboozling our opponents
Hazard
Kante

The system was new back then and people weren't exactly sure how it worked.

Then Spurs came and exposed how to overload the left flank and open us up for a goal or two. Teams began to see wagwan. Our cleansheets were the first casuaty. We had something like 9 cleansheets in a row at one point. Now we havent had a cleansheet in the league for 4 months.

The goals are beginning to dry up as well. Costa is clearly struggling for chances, and we're relying a bit heavily on set piece goals.

Now yesterday,Main Man got Marked.

If there's any doubt why the system needs to be tweaked, just look the amount of points we've dropped recently. We've gone from 'We've won the league to I hope we win the league'.

Anyway, my main gripe isn't really about the 343 per se. It's about using the 343 against the big boys. Check this thread for comments during those games and you will see what I mean.

nateevs:
Except you forgot that Spurs switched to a 3-4-3 after meeting Chelsea first time. You should look up how Spurs are doing with the formation.

The difference between Chelsea and Spurs is that Chelsea are doing this with 8 defensive players, hence the stats you posted. This is essentially why the players in a 3-4-3 system, matters.


The problem is not the formation, the problem is the personnel.

Spurs don't play 343, at least not with out and out wingers like we do. They play something closer to 361. Alli and Eriksen stay relatively narrow and pack the midfield unlike Hazard and Pedro who stay wide and cut inside.

Plus Spurs don't play that system all the time. They're already back to playing 4231 in their last 2 or 3 games.