Nah not Jupitans. They have a reputation for being despicable creatures, like space scousers. Saturnites or Venusians would be most appropriate for a one off game.
Luis Nani | 2011/12 Performances
- Thread starter Kelvin
- Start date
- Status
it depends on Mars' tactics...the red planet play narrow so Nani could exploit them wide
i think World Class should really depend on a players ability - there aren't a set number of world class strikers, midfielders etc
a good example of this is at fullback
who are the world class left backs at the minute?
evra - inconsistent for a year
cole - pish this season
abidal - very good but hardly stand out
marcelo? havent seen enough of madrid
not a lot of world class talent there
The earth vs mars definition is as good as any other for the nebulous "world class" tag.
Unless anyone's got a better one?
Unless anyone's got a better one?
So you mean only 11 players in the world can be world class at a time?
Edit: Running Little Behind
Pfft, Venusians? We might as well just have Plutoians as linemen while we're at it, the dwarf planet swine!
Squad. He said squad.
I reckon it's an old-school world cup squad too. None of this 25 man nonsense.
I reckon it's an old-school world cup squad too. None of this 25 man nonsense.
He is world class and has been for the last 2 years.
Nah, it's a pretty crap definition. If there's a lack of really good left backs around two or three automatically become world class based on this definition. Whereas someone whose performing week in week out at a much higher level may not make it because greater competition in his position.
It should be related to performance levels instead.
It should be related to performance levels instead.
I've always deemed world class to mean that a player is in the top ten in the world for his position. By my definition of it, Nani is easily world class (so to are Valencia, Rooney, Vidic, Evra etc).
10 seems a lot. I always feel the club should be more exclusive, so the standard is a little higher than with the top 10 in a position all included.
Just goes to show how meaningless the term actually is, that definitions vary so much.
Just goes to show how meaningless the term actually is, that definitions vary so much.
What wingers are better than him though? (Ronaldo and Messi don't count)
That means you would have 110 players who you consider world class
My definition of world class would be your squad to play a Mars XI and any players that could replace their counterpart without weakening it noticeably. For instance while Eto'o, Rooney, RVP, Aguero and Villa might not all get in the squad you could probably interchange them without weakening the squad.
How so? What is world class performance level?
See my definition.
That isn't such an outrageous claim when you consider how many pro footballers there are..
But I would say for some positions the top 10 would be world class for me (central midfield, centre halves, strikers) whereas for others (goalkeepers, full backs each side, wingers each side) I would count the top 5 as world class.. So that'd leave us with 10 strikers, 10 wingers, 10 full backs, 10 centre halves, 10 central midfielders and 5 goalkeepers, totalling 55 world class players.
Yours is a good one. Works for me.
I was just curious to hear a definition from someone who was knocking the earth vs mars criteria.
Robben and Ribery are two that come to mind
They're the only two that come to mind.
I'd rate Nani ahead of Ribery and bloody close to Robben.
That Di Maria scrote would be up there, I suppose. Iniesta is arguably a winger, come to think of it.
I'd rate Nani ahead of Ribery and bloody close to Robben.
That Di Maria scrote would be up there, I suppose. Iniesta is arguably a winger, come to think of it.
Who will be the leftback in your squad? I think its just a vague term you can't define it like that.
I think Bilbo's definition of world class is spot on tbh.
Mine would be the best 2 leftbacks in the world, doesn't matter who they are, if you're the best leftback in the world by very definition you have to be "world class". I'm not an expert on leftbacks since Cole and Evra had a dip in form.
Obviously no definition is totally perfect and there are eras when you're just lacking in a certain area (which is probably what you were getting at with the leftback line of questioning) but as far as working definitions go it's not bad.
I like Dion's definition.
World Class to me describes someone whose at the top of the game. If you want to know someone's quality, it doesn't help to run things like med school where they give out a certain number of each grade, say 4 A's, 4 B, 4 C's, 8 D's and F's. You might have a class full of the best doctors in the world, it doesn't give you much information to say one got an F.
If you want to let someone know how good Nani is compared to the rest of the talent in the world, it's helpful to say he's up there with the best.
If you're in the World XI, you're the best player in the world at your position, I'd say that's quite different from rating someone's class at the world level.
on their day.. On his day Nani is better, that's the thing with wingers,so it's really hard to say who's better. I would take Nani anyday before robben since his injury record is awfull.
As for ribery, one week he is raping his fullback, the other one he is kicking them and diving since he can't do a thing against some average defender.
I don't rate Ribery that high at all, I think he never fullfiled his potential, injuries were probably the main reason.
The point is definition doesn't matter, you just can't say one player is world class just for the sake of it.You are either world class or you aren't imo. Obviously if you are going to take the term "world class" literally than yeah your right but I think its used as a quality benchmark now a days.
It's not a good definition at all. See Varun's post. Some positions might occupy several world class players, but they can't be defined as world class because the squad has a player limit? What if some of the players who didn't make it were equally as good as those who did?
The problem with the "World squad" definition, and also the "top X in his position" one is that a player can be world class based on his performances, then perform at the exact same level and be dropped out of the "world class category" because someone else bursts onto the scene and usurps him.
But as far as definitions go, the World squad one is probably the one which gives us the desired amount of players in the world class bracket. I'd say 25 world class players in the world would be an adequate number to not dilute the term..
But as far as definitions go, the World squad one is probably the one which gives us the desired amount of players in the world class bracket. I'd say 25 world class players in the world would be an adequate number to not dilute the term..
On their day, Robben and Ribery are both better players. You make a fair point though when you refer to their injury records. That would be a reason for me taking Nani ahead of them.
Robben is really in a different class from the two of them though. At his very best on the wing, he was one of the best players in the world. I don't think we can say that about Ribery, and we certainly can't say it for Nani as of yet.
Ribery isn't better player than Nani on his day, not a chance. But I would be wrong if I say Nani is better than him too.
Comparing their quality, robben is probably best of those three, but I said why I would pick Nani ahead of Robben.
As for Ribery, nevermind this season, his injury problems are nothing better than Robben's. He missed too many games in last few seasons, so it's fair to say Nani's last season was better than any of Ribery's last, correct me if I am wrong. This season he is quality though, and is having better season than Nani, at least for now.
How can you set a limit on it? You're basically saying you can have 3 keepers and 2 of every outfield player plus 3 extras to make up your 25 man squad, which means the world would then consist of 3 World Class goalkeepers, 4 central defenders, 4 fullbacks (2 left, 2 right), 4 midfielders, 4 wingers (2 left, 2 right) and 4 strikers, and then 3 extra players for any position. Anyone else is not World Class.
How can you set a definite limit on something like World Class ability, purely on the basis of "Do they fit in a squad to play against a Mars team?" You can't I don't think.
Seriously people. Dion's definition above. It acknowledges the issue of limits and numbers. You have the squad and then any people who are as good as the people in that squad. So if you had 50 people, all equally good wingers and as good as the world squad wingers, they are all world class.
Of course that doesn't normally happen and on the whole you have a relatively small group of players who are world class. Otherwise what's the point? Then you just need another term to describe people who aren't just good, they're among the very best in the world in that position.
Of course that doesn't normally happen and on the whole you have a relatively small group of players who are world class. Otherwise what's the point? Then you just need another term to describe people who aren't just good, they're among the very best in the world in that position.
You can say that about Nani. It's just that he's not at his very best as consistently as Robben.
The last time all three of them were on the pitch at the same time, Nani was the best winger on the night.
Why don't we all just agree being world class means being one of the best in the world in your position? Or better yet, just leave the term to be used by people like Jamie Redknapp who are incapable of elaborating on a point beyond a couple of words.
It's all very well picking holes in the definition. Nobody has come up with a better alternative. Which either means the phrase is completely pointless and should never be used (which is what i often think) or the mars football match is the definition of choice.
A world squad should be based on aspects like experience as well
I'd find it difficult to leave out someone like Giggs/Zanetti from a world squad given their class and experience
I think a better definition of world class is players who do it at the highest level consistently
I'd find it difficult to leave out someone like Giggs/Zanetti from a world squad given their class and experience
I think a better definition of world class is players who do it at the highest level consistently
Seriously people eh? Well if Dion said it then who are we to argue? Let's set about picking this squad then eh? Give these martians a good going over. Who picks it, who decides who is good enough to be in it? I don't think there are 4 wingers better then Nani, therefore I'd have him as World Class. Others don't agree though. So who defines World Class? Who's opinion counts? Yours? Mine? Dions?
My definition works to fix both those issues though. It's only problem raised so for is when there is a lack of talent temporarily in any one spot.
There's been better suggestions though. Even then there's no point taking a poor definition and running with it because you haven't seen better ones, why not just not use it at all, the fact it is based on a number limit which we know is too small makes it pointless.
- Status