What do you mean, 'relevance?', you think there are only two exceptional talents in the whole of Brazilian league football?
Two exceptional talents don't make the whole league strong.
It makes for two exceptional talents. It is impossible for such a ravaged league to be strong from top to bottom, but I never claimed that it was.
Who cares about what waves the UEFA coefficients make in South America? We're talking about the relative strength of leagues not surfing.
The way you casually brush aside all of European football except for a few teams is impressive.
South American football is always brushed aside on here, you brought up coefficients like they have any true worth when, outside of the same handful of teams who qualify for the CL's latter stages, nothing has changed in years. The crux of the matter here is who gets to the latter stages of the CL and how they do against each other - that's what these super squads are built for.
Here's what Tim Vickery wrote in an article about Ganso earlier this year which highlights several points - the weak league, the time and space afforded to attacking midfielders, and how easy it is to look good as an attacking midfielder in Brazil:
So you bring this forth as a contention, and yet, top European sides keep their eyes peeled and more so than ever before are willing to pay astronomical prices to bring the cream of this league's attacking talent straight to their club?
The biggest issue facing Brazilian exports is not talent, but whether they settle. If the league was as weak as you contend, then these guys would be exposed as frauds once arriving in 'proper' European leagues.
I'm not going to argue point for point against that, too much work.
So you agree that since Gerrard et al haven't been playing well (either due to injury or other reasons) and Pastore et al aren't yet ready to take their places at the very top of this list, that leaves Özil in the top 2 or 3 behind Iniesta and possibly Sneijder, which is what I said.
So, you're essentially annointing a paper champion? Because in my book, it takes either 2 stellar seasons, or 3 very good ones (inclusive of latter stage CL performances) to be rated as such.
Özil is already in the top 2 or 3 attacking midfielders in the world,
There is nothing in that statement that suggests you considered any of what you said above, btw. Oezil is not already in the top 2 to 3 attacking midfielders in the world.
When all is said and done, Oezil has not done enough to be rated above those I mentioned previously and will need at least a couple more seasons in La Liga to make what you're saying a reality.
Bringing up Zidane and Ronaldinho is yet another attempt by you to shift the goalposts and make it seem like I am saying something I never said.
No it's not. You pretty much stated in de facto terms that Oezil is one of the top 3 attacking midfielders in the world, the elite from each generation are always bracketed together. By claiming he is what you stated, you've put him in the elite category for this generation.
You said Özil has done nothing in the late stages of a tournament and I demonstrated this claim to be false, even though as I mentioned before it I think this is largely irrelevant. Why are you evaluating players based on their performances in a tiny subset of their matches instead of their performances in all matches? You accuse me of bias and missing the point then base your evaluation of a player on 10% of their matches while ignoring the other 90%, and for Özil you choose the 10% which he played in the toughest club competition in the world and against the best team in the world while for Ganso you choose the 10% he played last year before his injury in the weak Paulista and Copa do Brasil.
I said precisely: Oezil has done nothing at the latter stages of a tournament or the crucial matches against Barca (the rest of La Liga is fodder for RM) to say he is de facto in the company of someone like Iniesta or Xavi.
Why in blue blazes would I be referring to under-21 football or the German FA cup with a statement like that? It should be clear I mean the CL, the WC, the Euros or the games against an actual opponent Real Madrid shouldn't trounce in their domestic league (Barca). If Oezil were in a more competitive league with proven CL latter stage-level opponents (England) I would've mentioned at least three domestic sides.
I mention these games because they are the ones that the elite must shine in to be called elite.
Boosting stats against fodder doesn't mean much if it is not backed up by big performances in the games everyone regards as the big ones.
And to be clear, it is you who is subjecting Oezil to the scrutiny a top 3 in the world player in his position is subjected to, not me.
That, with due respect, is nonsense. In the 2009/10 Bundesliga, the last year in which Özil played in the league, teams scored an average of 1.27 goals per game. In the 2010 Paulista, the last time Ganso played a full season's worth (well, half season), teams scored an average of 1.58 goals per game. The Brazilian leagues are the open, attacking ones. And the idea that any player can look superb in the Bundesliga is clearly false.
The logical fallacy here is that you think those numbers denote a more attacking league rather than a more clinical one.
I watch the Bundesliga because it's mental and goes back and forth non-stop for 90 minutes. It's not for the want of trying that teams haven't managed a higher average.
Brazilian football is rarely as end-to-end as German.
I don't know what point you are trying to make by mentioning Hoffenheim. There are examples of teams that do well for half a season before fading away in every league in the world.
That top the league and look like runaway winners who buckle under the pressure whilst playing breathtaking football with half their team looking like stars in the making? Really?
That can only happen in the Bundesliga.
What are you saying? Because it seemed like you were saying what Özil does for Real Madrid shouldn't count for much because the team is so much better than any other team in the league except for Barcelona, but when I showed he had been putting up similar numbers with a weaker team, then team strength has little to do with it?
I'm saying that the German league he came from is very difficult to gauge, which is very probably why we don't see talent pulled from there left right and centre. Where every team attacks and throws caution to the wind, you reserve judgement until you see what these players can do outside of such catered conditions.
Oezil came into a Real Madrid side that had 96!! fecking points the season before! This suggests that either the league as a whole is piss poor, or that Real Madrid were an immense side. Judging by their CL performance, everyone knows the latter isn't true. You combine a very, very good passer with a lob-sided league, constantly supplying a goal machine, and you're going to get a really high number of assists. It is only logical.
And yet, when faced with proper adversity in both the league (Barcelona) and the CL, did he still look like the player who strolled through La Liga?
Lastly, who doesn't take the numbers wracked up in La liga with a pinch of salt?
And you're wrong, see my points about relative league strength, lack of pressing, lower tempo, the highly attacking nature of the league and average quality of defenders (and defensive midfielders). Or see what Vickery said.
Do you actually watch Ganso play? Do you see the treatment he is served up? He is subjected to attention others do not get.
Are you saying if Lampard and Gerrard were fit that Özil wouldn't have made 26 assists in all competitions last season, or created 119 goal scoring chances in La Liga? What is the relevance of everything in the above quote? You said Ganso would do just as well as Özil does if put in his situation, I said you have no factual basis to make such a claim, and you responded by shifting the goalposts and answering a question no one asked.
I'm saying the context would be wholly different if all the attacking mdifielders of repute were fit and firing and we could compare across leagues and tournaments.
Then you'd actually have something to compare and contrast with rather than blindly firing off statistics, and then we could actually determine Oezil's true standing in the game at this current time.
Your statement about fact is as silly as me saying you have no factual proof 'Özil is already in the top 2 or 3 attacking midfielders in the world,'
both are obviously opinions.
Without context, numbers have little use outside of striker debates.
But apparently you can claim that Ganso would instantly be one of the most creative attacking midfielders in Europe based on his performances from the first half of 2010.
You know... outside of the few elite sides that horde as much key talent as they can, 'Europe' is a very small place. You make it sound vast when it is clear as day that Hazard, Pastore, Ganso and any other young, potentially outstanding player will have to move to one of these key teams to make any inroads to being a confirmed top-notch player. As you seem to be obssessed with stats, the players converting the chances will be as important as the talent these lads have.
Well no. You said Ganso was comfortably on par with Özil, not that if he stays healthy and after he has settled at a new club that he will then be comfortably on par with Özil.
You seem to want the burden of 'proof'. That is how we would have proof. My opinion hasn't actually changed, but with Ganso playing in Brazil, which you seem to contend is a soft gig, there will be no way to prove otherwise until he is in Europe, settled and playing for a big team.
Which is fine, Ganso and Pastore are both very exciting players with a lot of potential, but neither are "comfortably on par" with Özil right now.
They both have more talent than Oezil (they both have just as much vision, passing ability and technique, but they are superior in front of goal.) That puts them on par with him. Productivity cannot be accurately determined until they're all supplying top class forwards, and spare me that 'key chance' shite. Your eyes should tell you what you need to know about all 3.
Arguing your agenda is easy when you ignore all the evidence presented by the other person. Özil has been very slightly above average in front of goal in both of the last two seasons, as I pointed out. Ganso might be better, as I said, but for him to be "much better" as you claimed he would need to be at the level of the very best goal scoring attacking midfielders in the world.
That's rich considering you've just skipped the whole WC issue on a whim after it was pointed out Oezil didn't lead Germany to anything and faded the further into the tournament they got.
About Ganso's strike-rate. You are right, he does need to score a lot more to be up there with a Lampard or whoever, but to do so he needs to take on more shots and be more adventurous around the box. His shot technique and composure is already there, however, where the same cannot be said for Oezil who often turns to jelly and scuffs or kicks tamely straight into the keepers path.
I don't have the time to keep this back and forth going, I don't really have much else to add either. We're not going to agree, that much is clear, and until Ganso makes the move, subjectivity will be the order of the day.
