Oh, you're one of those people who when confronted with judgments made by qualified by people which does not make sense to you, assume that it's the qualified people who are obviously idiots.
Good luck with that.
Two points here.
Firstly, obviously, rating football players is a fickle business. The variety of opinion is huge, comparing different types of players are inherently difficult and there are much more than 100 players good enough to warrant serious consideration. Pick a different set of 250 football people and they'd probably give you a quite different list, and you won't get far down the list before any kind of consensus melts away. The point however, and the reason why I quoted it is this: You don't get on a list like that unless you're a very, very good player. That's all.
Secondly, nobody reads through any list like that, no matter how many experts has made it, without having a number of WTF moments. You don't, I didn't, nobody does. It's just how do you deal with that? Is it smart to automatically assume that you know best, and that those WTF moments means it's a ridiculous list compiled by foolish people, or according to a stupid method? Or is it better to entertain the
possibility that maybe the players involved in those moments are better than you thought, or not as good as you thought? You know, chalk up the surprises as a note of caution telling you there may be a case for re-examining your judgments?
