Soccer / kroos

thedreamteam
Kroos, Schuster and the overestimation of the past
A few days ago I was surfing on Twitter and I found a tweet from the famous Spanish football statistician Alexis Martín Tamayo, better known as @Misterchip2010. In that tweet, Alexis referred to Bernd Schuster and is one of the few players in history who can boast of having been chosen three times among the best three players in the world, according to the magazine France Football. So far everything is fine, nothing out of the ordinary. However, I noticed one of the comments and the response that Misterchip himself gave to one of the users who claimed that Kroos is much better than Schuster could have been as a footballer. What bothered me about his response is that he humiliated this user and denigrated his opinion by being young and not having seen Schuster play. In turn, all this was born due to a dispute between Bernd Schuster and Toni Kroos, when the former German player criticized the bad moment of Kroos and will classify it as a "diesel tractor". In turn, the Madridista responded through Twitter with a sarcastic "Who is Schuster"; a response to the height of the criticism he received. In a comment by Schuster made with all evil and born of the envy of seeing that a German player of this generation, who may or may not be better than him, has obtained the titles and recognitions that he did not have from the world of football . What do I want to go with all this? To which both situations are born of a ridiculous overestimation of the past and the belief that all past time was better. I personally, have never been in favor of comparing players from different periods, because I think these comparisons are odious and often out of place. But in these cases I can not simply remain silent in situations that bother me and that I see incomprehensible. First of all, I have to say that I obviously did not see Schuster playing. I know that in his time he was a great player and one of the best in his position without a doubt. I must also say that, although Kroos is one of the best midfielders of his generation, he is a rare player and a bit overrated; from which it seems that you could never say anything bad about him, when the reality is that he has two seasons far from his best level. What I do not agree with and I will never agree with is the constant overestimation of the past to the detriment of today. I am a profound detractor of those who say that football before was much better than modern football. I believe that each era has its particular characteristics and players should be judged in their proper measure according to the correct context. For example, Misterchip brought out that particular record of Schuster having been chosen three times in the short list of the Golden Ball and it is true, it is a true fact. But he forgets a very small detail: before 1995, France Football's Golden Ball only rewarded European players, meaning that South Americans did not count for these types of prizes. In a time where they played Zico, Maradona, Sócrates, Hugo Sánchez; It is simply laughable that Bernd Schuster could be the second best player in the world. The reality is that if all South Americans could have been eligible at the time, Schuster was not even tenth, because he was not better than any of them. This small, but very important detail, makes any argument regarding the prizes of that time devoid of any validity. Not to mention that at that time the Golden Ball was a rather strange prize, which rewarded any player who did things more or less well. If you do not believe me, check all the Gold Balls of that time and you will find winners and ternadoes that do not make sense. To compare times is simply something absurd, because football is simply not the same, it has evolved completely. The past is overestimated and the present is undervalued. I'm not in favor of one or the other, I just think that things are taken out of context. For example, many current players are ignored, but the reality is that modern football is more difficult and competitive than before. Sometimes they think that scoring 40 goals is any little thing when before if a striker scored 15 goals is because he had a superlative season. All this without mentioning that the defenses are now much more technical and tactical. And I could continue mentioning many more aspects and examples, but I would go 10 more pages. What I want to emphasize is that you do not fall into the temptation of comparing times lightly and much less without having informed yourself about them; prove not to be stupid.
0.00
13
1

thedreamteam
Kroos, Schuster and the overestimation of the past
A few days ago I was surfing on Twitter and I found a tweet from the famous Spanish football statistician Alexis Martín Tamayo, better known as @Misterchip2010. In that tweet, Alexis referred to Bernd Schuster and is one of the few players in history who can boast of having been chosen three times among the best three players in the world, according to the magazine France Football. So far everything is fine, nothing out of the ordinary. However, I noticed one of the comments and the response that Misterchip himself gave to one of the users who claimed that Kroos is much better than Schuster could have been as a footballer. What bothered me about his response is that he humiliated this user and denigrated his opinion by being young and not having seen Schuster play. In turn, all this was born due to a dispute between Bernd Schuster and Toni Kroos, when the former German player criticized the bad moment of Kroos and will classify it as a "diesel tractor". In turn, the Madridista responded through Twitter with a sarcastic "Who is Schuster"; a response to the height of the criticism he received. In a comment by Schuster made with all evil and born of the envy of seeing that a German player of this generation, who may or may not be better than him, has obtained the titles and recognitions that he did not have from the world of football . What do I want to go with all this? To which both situations are born of a ridiculous overestimation of the past and the belief that all past time was better. I personally, have never been in favor of comparing players from different periods, because I think these comparisons are odious and often out of place. But in these cases I can not simply remain silent in situations that bother me and that I see incomprehensible. First of all, I have to say that I obviously did not see Schuster playing. I know that in his time he was a great player and one of the best in his position without a doubt. I must also say that, although Kroos is one of the best midfielders of his generation, he is a rare player and a bit overrated; from which it seems that you could never say anything bad about him, when the reality is that he has two seasons far from his best level. What I do not agree with and I will never agree with is the constant overestimation of the past to the detriment of today. I am a profound detractor of those who say that football before was much better than modern football. I believe that each era has its particular characteristics and players should be judged in their proper measure according to the correct context. For example, Misterchip brought out that particular record of Schuster having been chosen three times in the short list of the Golden Ball and it is true, it is a true fact. But he forgets a very small detail: before 1995, France Football's Golden Ball only rewarded European players, meaning that South Americans did not count for these types of prizes. In a time where they played Zico, Maradona, Sócrates, Hugo Sánchez; It is simply laughable that Bernd Schuster could be the second best player in the world. The reality is that if all South Americans could have been eligible at the time, Schuster was not even tenth, because he was not better than any of them. This small, but very important detail, makes any argument regarding the prizes of that time devoid of any validity. Not to mention that at that time the Golden Ball was a rather strange prize, which rewarded any player who did things more or less well. If you do not believe me, check all the Gold Balls of that time and you will find winners and ternadoes that do not make sense. To compare times is simply something absurd, because football is simply not the same, it has evolved completely. The past is overestimated and the present is undervalued. I'm not in favor of one or the other, I just think that things are taken out of context. For example, many current players are ignored, but the reality is that modern football is more difficult and competitive than before. Sometimes they think that scoring 40 goals is any little thing when before if a striker scored 15 goals is because he had a superlative season. All this without mentioning that the defenses are now much more technical and tactical. And I could continue mentioning many more aspects and examples, but I would go 10 more pages. What I want to emphasize is that you do not fall into the temptation of comparing times lightly and much less without having informed yourself about them; prove not to be stupid.
0.00
13
1

thedreamteam
Kroos, Schuster and the overestimation of the past
A few days ago I was surfing on Twitter and I found a tweet from the famous Spanish football statistician Alexis Martín Tamayo, better known as @Misterchip2010. In that tweet, Alexis referred to Bernd Schuster and is one of the few players in history who can boast of having been chosen three times among the best three players in the world, according to the magazine France Football. So far everything is fine, nothing out of the ordinary. However, I noticed one of the comments and the response that Misterchip himself gave to one of the users who claimed that Kroos is much better than Schuster could have been as a footballer. What bothered me about his response is that he humiliated this user and denigrated his opinion by being young and not having seen Schuster play. In turn, all this was born due to a dispute between Bernd Schuster and Toni Kroos, when the former German player criticized the bad moment of Kroos and will classify it as a "diesel tractor". In turn, the Madridista responded through Twitter with a sarcastic "Who is Schuster"; a response to the height of the criticism he received. In a comment by Schuster made with all evil and born of the envy of seeing that a German player of this generation, who may or may not be better than him, has obtained the titles and recognitions that he did not have from the world of football . What do I want to go with all this? To which both situations are born of a ridiculous overestimation of the past and the belief that all past time was better. I personally, have never been in favor of comparing players from different periods, because I think these comparisons are odious and often out of place. But in these cases I can not simply remain silent in situations that bother me and that I see incomprehensible. First of all, I have to say that I obviously did not see Schuster playing. I know that in his time he was a great player and one of the best in his position without a doubt. I must also say that, although Kroos is one of the best midfielders of his generation, he is a rare player and a bit overrated; from which it seems that you could never say anything bad about him, when the reality is that he has two seasons far from his best level. What I do not agree with and I will never agree with is the constant overestimation of the past to the detriment of today. I am a profound detractor of those who say that football before was much better than modern football. I believe that each era has its particular characteristics and players should be judged in their proper measure according to the correct context. For example, Misterchip brought out that particular record of Schuster having been chosen three times in the short list of the Golden Ball and it is true, it is a true fact. But he forgets a very small detail: before 1995, France Football's Golden Ball only rewarded European players, meaning that South Americans did not count for these types of prizes. In a time where they played Zico, Maradona, Sócrates, Hugo Sánchez; It is simply laughable that Bernd Schuster could be the second best player in the world. The reality is that if all South Americans could have been eligible at the time, Schuster was not even tenth, because he was not better than any of them. This small, but very important detail, makes any argument regarding the prizes of that time devoid of any validity. Not to mention that at that time the Golden Ball was a rather strange prize, which rewarded any player who did things more or less well. If you do not believe me, check all the Gold Balls of that time and you will find winners and ternadoes that do not make sense. To compare times is simply something absurd, because football is simply not the same, it has evolved completely. The past is overestimated and the present is undervalued. I'm not in favor of one or the other, I just think that things are taken out of context. For example, many current players are ignored, but the reality is that modern football is more difficult and competitive than before. Sometimes they think that scoring 40 goals is any little thing when before if a striker scored 15 goals is because he had a superlative season. All this without mentioning that the defenses are now much more technical and tactical. And I could continue mentioning many more aspects and examples, but I would go 10 more pages. What I want to emphasize is that you do not fall into the temptation of comparing times lightly and much less without having informed yourself about them; prove not to be stupid.
0.00
13
1
0.00
10
0
0.00
10
0
0.00
10
0
0.00
3
0
0.00
3
0
0.00
3
0
0.00
8
9
0.00
8
9
0.00
8
9
0.00
2
2
0.00
2
2
0.00
2
2
0.00
1
1
0.00
1
1
0.00
1
1
0.00
4
0
0.00
4
0
0.00
4
0
0.00
5
0
0.00
5
0
0.00
5
0