Kevin De Bruyne
- Thread starter Robbie Boy
- Start date
I mean, even (the real) Man City beat us that year, so I wouldn't bet against it
Thats a helluva memory.
Not even sure what’s happening in this thread with these comparisons but I’m out 
Back to KDB.... Imagine De Bruyne feeding Goater, or that mental twat Danny Twatto playing the Cancelo role in today's team.
That’s exactly what I said yeah.
He was Chelsea’s most dangerous player all night and a lick of paint away from scoring two in a CL final rampacked with quality.
He was brilliant Lampard, absolutely superb.
I’ll say it again mind, I’m not a fan of comparing players that didn’t play at the same time. We’re in a strange era now where a couple of sides have been scoring more than ever, amassing more points than ever and being more dominant over the league than ever before, with possession stats in the silly figures.
I’m just not sure how we can fairly compare a top player from the mid-late 00’s with that.
Tiatto is the only man I've ever seen to make Lukaku's first touch look like Messi.
But football isn’t ever evolving and doesn’t follow linear development at all - some things improve whilst others devolve because of the changes. Players tend to learn a finite amount; one or two arts improve across the board with innovation whilst others decline because that particular forte does not fit with the current scheme of things. If that wasn’t the case, we would have eclectic players in all positions: superb at what is currently en vogue, as well as all the skills and crafts of times gone by - Beckenbauer and Gullit-lights across the pitch; defenders both superb in deep lines, 1on1 defending, marking and tracking as well as being able to pass out of the back and play effortlessly in high lines etc. etc.No, I'm being the exact opposite. Your argument is irrational because it is based solely on your subjective impression. As @padr81 said, football is ever evolving. If you transported a team from 10 years ago into today's time and play it against a team of similar relative quality today, it would get destroyed. So you can always only compare with your temporaries and it is a fact that City and Liverpool over the past five years or so were farther ahead of their domestic competition than any EPL team before them. And the argument that the domestic competition is weak is also pointless because the gap between the EPL and the second best league is also bigger than ever before.
Of course there are
If you transported a team from ten years ago, they would now be part of a mega squad, rotated thoroughly with superior players to what teams typically had on their benches, ergo they would be able to maintain a higher standard for a longer period of time. In reverse, you strip current sides of this resource and invariably they would fall, and fall below the mean because that level of high output pressing would become more unsustainable than it is now. You can’t level subjective impression at me whilst providing no objective analysis of the for and against of the argument you’re presenting - if you go down the route of timelines and skipping back and forth, be extensive to make your point water-tight, otherwise it looks selective and cherrypicked where these Übermenschen crush all ‘because evolution’, despite 10yrs taking us back to a lot of great teams who already knew how to deal with the press.
Your last portion of the final paragraph simply does not hold up to any scrutiny. A pool with only one of the recognised superpowers delivering cannot be the measure of a time when multiple clubs across the continent were legitimate contenders for the biggest competition. City are barely making a mark in a weak European pool, at a time when there was only Real and Liverpool to contend with rather than the veritable minefield we had in recent times gone by. And domestically, a time when you’ve only two strong sides and numerous terrible ones relative to their own bar, is simply not a great era unless Europe counterbalances that with top sides at their best, which is what we had when the PL was actually the top dog for those few years.
The Premier League was still stronger from 2007 to 2009. There were 4 teams making the quarter-finals 2 straight seasons and 3-4 straight seasons of 3 semi-finalists.
If the Ovebro game doesn't happen, 2 straight all English UCL finals would have happened.
If the Ovebro game doesn't happen, 2 straight all English UCL finals would have happened.
I reckon the margins of improvements in many of these areas are much smaller. Most running world records are 10-35 years old. Most of the fat was chewed off in the 1960s to 1980s and since then just about any improvement is down to faster tracks or bouncier spikes. The athletes are not inherently faster and many are actually slower because it’s such a finite and fluctuating talent pool of freaks at the very top.
Football was a bit behind and the progress varied between countries. In Europe most of the improvements took place as the game fully professionalised and then modernised in the 1970s to 1990s. Italy probably led the way and arguably hit its quality and physical peak in the 1980s and 1990s. England was further behind but fully caught up by the 2000s.
Improvements since then are more about either the ever-increasing concentration of wealth in the league to attract the best players, or the embracing of modern tactics. Either way I’m not convinced the game makes massive strides in a 10-year period. If it did the stars who were at their physical peak a decade ago would really struggle to adapt as the ‘game improved’. Yet in their mid-30s the likes of Cristiano, Messi, Benzema, Thiago Silva, Ibrahimovic continued to dominate despite their own reducing physical powers. And that’s the same pattern as in previous generations where, for example, Maldini was world-class in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, which would be impossible if the game had linearly improved throughout that time.
Thats a good point but those guys improved as did the science, I do think football being more tactical though helps too, probably more so, while the game has lost alot of its imagination teams are more efficient now (almost like the evolution of CR7 himself). I guess theres no definitive answer either way, but the eye test, watching a game from10 years ago looks like a different sport for the most part, 20 years ago much more so. I guess the rules etc.., less contact all play a part too.
Well I was wondering if he'd be up there with Henry as one of the most common names to be brought up whenever a best PL player ever discussion comes around
But it seems he's pretty far off.
But it seems he's pretty far off.
1-Lampard's totals are inflated by the plethora of penalties he took, while DeBruyne's aren't.
2- DeBruyne's assists per game ratio blows Lampard's out of the water.
We are comparing too different players. De Bruyne is one of the greatest offensive creators of his generation. Focusing on only goal totals does him a disservice (nevermind getting into the penalties).
This has always baffled me. In what way is a penalty lesser? You still need to score it. Ask Kev, he’s missed plenty.
Agreed. It's like they don't count for some. Or maybe they don't count when it's a player they want to denigrate.
You're really baffled that context regarding the percentage of goals that come from penalties matter when we are discussing goalscoring averages?
Yes, because you still need to score it. Next do the average without back post tap ins where the keeper is nowhere to be seen. They’re much easier to score than a penalty.
You're cherry picking. The average conversion rate from open play is 9.6% for this season. The average penalty conversion rate is over 70%.
Ofcourse it's easier to score from penalties than from open play. If player Y gets 10 more penalties in a season than player X, you'd expect him to get 7 more goals from penalties. But we wouldn't look as goals totals and see it as an apples to apples comparison.
I mean how nobody can see this baffles me.
4 in 5, that is against a side who won the champions league and got to 3 finals in that period.
I just think you have rose tinted glasses on a little here.
Call them "one of the most dominant sides in the history of the prem" if you want, it doesn't effect my initial point.
They're one of the better PL sides. They are not the most dominant.
Aye, since 2008 the style of the game transformed to move to possession football. Before players and managers didn't see any issue with possession turning over every 10 seconds as they were happy to accept the higher risk/reward of more direct football. So it's just very different - centre-halves don't deal with anywhere near as many aerial and direct balls, centre-midfielders compete for fewer second balls, defenders and keepers have to be able to keep the ball against pressure, etc.
Most dominant. Scored more goals, beaten more sides, gotten more points than anyone before them.
But as I said, call them what you like.
Yeah, at least second best.
Over a period of 9 years, United won 7 titles and lost the league by a point the other two times
City hasn't come close to that level of consistency yet. That's not even debatable it's factual.
One of the biggest problems for De Bruyne is City won the league in dominant fashion without him.
His game is aesthetically pleasing and he's had moments of sheer brilliance, but if you're comparing him to the domestic Henry, he's miles off that. Henry was a one-man wrecking machine in and outside of the team schematic both the star within team buildup and the superstar in terms of individual exploits. De Bruyne hasn't reached such a level. Interestingly enough, they're quite similar outside the league, so Henry doesn't have the massive one up on him there that Lampard does.
Cantona, Keane, Henry, Shearer and so on are players that fit the criteria of being massively influential in and outside of the team, and even then, someone like Cantona rarely gets plaudits for a tremendous period of dominance outside of United forums.
In an objective comparison between the domestic pomps of Yaya, Silva and Aguero, where should De Bruyne rank, and why does he rank there, is a question in and of itself before we expand. Who places where in terms of influence between the 4?
Henry won the WC, Euros, La Liga and the CL outside of England
What a random metric. They only won 4 in 5 and would be at 5 in 5 if it wasn't for a 99 points season by Liverpool
And while doing so probably collected +10 points on average or so.Somebody should make a table listing the highest points totals in EPL history. Pretty sure the top 5 places would all go to City and Liverpool under Pep/Klopp.
And if you’re stood at the back post for a cut back without a keeper conversion rate is about 95%, so let’s take those out too. Way more damaging to the integrity than penalties.
De Bruyne even has been City’s primary penalty taker in his time at the club, he was just shit at them so got removed. Penalties are worth 1 just as much as a halfway line lob, removing them because they don’t suit your point doesn’t change that.
It’s a really, really stupid mindset where penalties aren’t a skill seemingly. You could just as easily say “well let’s remove shots outside the box as they’re just luck” or whatever. If it’s part of the game then it counts equally.
Players are getting better because of adcancements in sports science, scouting and performance analyses alone. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
That aside, your entire argument seems to be that you currently have a weak European pool and I wonder which objectcive criteria back that up?
I don't think there even is such a thing as a 'weak pool'. Every era of footbal brings challenges with them that the top clubs have to deal with and they will do with varying success. If City and Liverpool are so far ahead of their contemparies (much farther than EPL teams before them) that means that they coped better with these challenges. And if the EPL is dominating the UEFA ranking like neber before, it means it is solving these challenges better than any prior version of it.
What you currently do is like people claiming Messi and Ronaldo weren't all that because they encountered a weaker pool of top players. But maybe the Robbens, Zlatans, Iniestas, Neymars etc only seemed weaker because they played besides two extraordinary contemporaries.
What a random metric. They only won 4 in 5 and would be at 5 in 5 if it wasn't for a 99 points season by Liverpool
Somebody should make a table listing the highest points totals in EPL history. Pretty sure the top 5 places would all go to City and Liverpool under Pep/Klopp.
You can engage in a strawman all you want but it doesn't address the point. All goals count but when someone's goal total is padded by a shot at which there's a 70% conversion rate, it doesn't make that player a better scorer than another who doesn't get as many.
Even if DeBruyne is a 60% penalty kick taker (ill indulge you), its a much easier chance to score than an open play shot.
You keep repeating the cherry picked example of a sitter but players don't get double digit open goal sitters in a season generally. Even if they do, there's a difference between getting yourself in an open position to have an easy chance, and simply taking a penalty that your teammates won for you.
Yeah, in far less dominant fashion (less points, goals, wins, ...) at a time the EPL was evidently weaker and poorer relative to other leagues than it is now.
I'm sure it was a great time to be a United fan though
@Berbaclass You are a master at ignoring actual points people make.
Again doesn't matter, De Bruyne is significantly better than Lampard which was the original question.
Yeah but they haven't won 3 in a row or something.
What? The time period where English teams were the best in Europe, you mean? When there was an English side in a European final from 2005 until 2012? That famous weaker and poorer league? OK, mate.
English teams were at the peak during that period.
Twice
Performance level, not what was won, as that's obviously a non-contest out the gate; outside of the Euros, there'd be an argument to be made that the players could be interchangeable and have the same influence and outcomes.
Those were clearly 2 different sides.
Which one are you talking about?
The one with Tevez, Rooney and Ronaldo or the one with Yorke, Cole and Keane?
I really don't get your point. I am not saying Manchester City are the greatest club in premier league history as that would be absurd. I am saying no one has ever dominated the league in the way City have for the last 5 years. Which is pretty clear based on
Winning 4 out of 5 in that time and only losing during the covid season.
Record points totals regularly
Record goals scored regularly
Incredibly low goals against constantly
Saying "Yeah but there was one season where they didn't win it so they didn't have 3 in a row is just a terrible argument.