Player Comparisons

[KB1862]

In Football, especially in todays game, whenever a player breaks records or achieves great things both at club and International level they're immediately compared to players of the past but is it really fair to compare players from different eras? 

Players also shouldn't be compared based on trophies their club has or hasn't won. 

Type of pitches and defending styles are a factor. 

Take Messi and Maradona for example. Maradona played in an era where players would hack him down and grass ripped up at his feet while dribbling yet he made it look easy. Messi on the other hand has played on much better playing surfaces and tough tackling isn't approved of much these days but the defenders have become more technical and fitter than they were back in Maradona's day.

Players and Managers that they work alongside also play a factor. 

Take the Lampard, Gerrard and Scholes debate for example. Gerrard played alongside a lot lesser players than Scholes and Lampard did. Gerrard not winning the Premier League is often the go to answer for many to rule him out of the running but would he have won it had he moved to Chelsea or United? Would Lampard or Scholes won what Gerrard did had they played for Liverpool? 

I'm sure we all have our own opinions on which of the 3 is better but it should be a comparison on the individual player rather than trophies won. Milan Baros won more Champions Leagues than Ibrahimovic but I wouldn't say he was better than him

Another player that fits into this factor is Harry Kane. Since becoming England's all time leading goalscorer he has drawn comparison to previous players like Wayne Rooney and even Jimmy Greaves. Don't get me wrong what Kane has achieved is sensational and deserves all the credit for being there to get as many goals as he has for England. Not to mention he's just the second Englishman to win a golden boot at the World Cup joining Gary Lineker. 

However, Wayne Rooney played in a time where the golden generation was coming to an end, England began declining and the players being called up for England was questionable at times. Not much in terms of star quality. He played in a time that England failed to qualify for Euro 2008, had a dismal 2010 and 2014 World Cup before making his final tournament appearance at Euro 2016 which ended in humiliation against Iceland. 

Then there's Jimmy Greaves. 44 goals in 57 games for England is an outstanding record but during his time the Euros was only limited to just 4 teams meaning less games for him to add to his tally. 

Rooney may have more England goals had he played in todays England squad. Kane might have even been more clinical playing in Rooney's era. Greavsie could have had more England goals if there were more games available. 

Player comparisons are all part of football and will always happen but there are these type of factors that play a part when comparing them. 

What do you guys think? Are player comparisons subjective or do they hold credit? 

[Fan of Big Tone]

It’s really difficult to compare players especially from different eras there are so many variables to consider most of which you have highlighted @KB1862 in your very interesting post.

From a personal perspective back in the day I was always interested to hear Tony Hateley compared to Tommy Lawton both were prolific headers of the ball and both played for the Pies or the Maggies as they were known in those days.

I never had the pleasure of seeing Tommy Lawton but of course I did see Tony Hateley who became my hero but I don’t think it’s fair to compare him to Tommy Lawton. I guess if I had seen Tommy play I might now be called “Fan of Tommy”.

[TheSkipper]

In my opinion, comparing players in football is a common practice that can provide valuable insights, but it’s not always straightforward. Sometimes, comparing players can help teams make strategic decisions by highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. For example, comparing the statistics of two strikers can help a team decide which player to start in a game.

However, there are also times when comparing players simply doesn’t work. This can happen when players have different roles on the field or when they play in different leagues or competitions. In these cases, it’s difficult to make a fair comparison because the players are being evaluated based on different criteria.

[KB1862]

That's a player comparison that can be used basing them on similar positions to assess whether or not they'd be a worthwhile signing to improve a squad or whether you already have better already there. Although, it could be useful for them to be a decent back up option. 

However, like @TheSkippermentioned, leagues can also be a factor. We've seen many stars come from places like Serie A, La Liga, Bundesliga etc with huge expectations, high numbers and be compared to some of the best in Europe only to flop when entering the Premier League.

It's also about how a player plays in a teams system when comparing. If you have a player that bags 30+ goals in a season with their team playing football like Man City, they might not get that many opportunities or suit playing in a team that likes to pump the ball long. So playing styles of clubs and players also plays a part in comparisons. 

[liampie]

i dont think you can compare players careers very easily, least not when you mention whos the better player. matt le tissier is one of the players i enjoyed watching when sky shown old pemier league games. he stayed loyal to southampton and i think hes one of the best english players that has played in the premier league. can i compare him to a different player, say like gareth bale? to a degree but it mostly becomes incomparable.

paul scholes, frank lampard and steven gerrard are all great midfielders but i dont think opinions can be formed on comparing their careers. i think ability takes over as the important measure but for clubs they can find similar players who fit their system by comparing stats but i always think you will never get a straight replacement.

example ruben rodrigues and dan crowley, they wont compare but are similar players. notts has seen crowley as the replacement i believe for ruben, but hes going to be vastly different.

[cheeky~k8]

Very interesting, its hard to compare players in detail as they all have different aspects that make them work together well.

[Chris]

I think it depends on the type of comparison and how far you compare the players.

When I talk about Paul Scholes, Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard - I do compare them up to a certain point. Then it comes down to personal opinion. I believe technically Gerrard was the better player but ability wise, Scholes had techniques miles better than him or Lampard. All three were superb players; the reason why Lampard and Gerrerd didn't work well with England mostly comes down to the formation and tactics.

This is where I feel a comparison comes into play, as if we take the Notts formation. Lampard would take the Ruben Rodrigues role and Gerrard would fit into the Matt Palmer role. Leaving someone like Owen Hargreaves to play the John Bostock role.

Lampard and Gerrard have a similar style, but one is better suited to play behind the strikers and the other can make attacking runs. Maybe they could even rotate positions, but Lampard wouldn't be good playing too defensively. You would have to give clear instructions on what they can and can't do, with a level of freedom.

Clubs use comparisons as a means to replace talent. If anyone read or watched the Dan Crowley interview, he spoke about how he was labelled similar to Jack Wilkshire.

Comparisons can be helpful when you want to find a player who suits your system and playing style. They can help you find a direct replacement from the transfer market or train a young player to take that position.

I think they can be useful and fun for talking points, but also negative because it's very difficult to make a fair comparison.

Both Messi and Ronaldo are amazing players, and it's fairer to compare them when they were playing in Spain. Yet once they went their own ways, joining Juventus/Manchester United and PSG. It really does end.

[KB1862]

@Chris You're right comparisons are fun talking points as there are ways of comparing players but factors must come in to play. 

As you have compared Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard, it's a fair comparison that you've laid out as there's context and thought behind it. But when people use the whole "Gerrard never won the Premier League" as a way of ruling him out of the debate is where the comparison becomes void because you can't base a players career and ability on team performances. As the saying goes "1 players doesn't make a team but he can make a difference" and that's what Gerrard did. Had it not been for Gerrard, Liverpool wouldn't have achieved what they did. Especially in 2005 against AC Milan. He single handedly dragged Liverpool back from 3-0 down and got them that UCL. 

Then, if they decide to go down the route of team performances, take Lampard and Scholes out of their clubs that they had success with and trophies they won would Chelsea and Man United have still gone on to win those things? Quite possibly cause they both had great players. 

5 hours ago, Chris said:

the reason why Lampard and Gerrerd didn't work well with England mostly comes down to the formation and tactics.

100% agree with this many pundits like Gary Lineker also mention this when talking Sven. Plus add in the fact that England at that time was divided with the club rivalry that was going on behind closed doors which didn't help matters. Sven never found a way to get Lampard, Scholes, Gerrard and Beckham working as a super midfield that on paper it should have been. 

5 hours ago, Chris said:

Both Messi and Ronaldo are amazing players, and it's fairer to compare them when they were playing in Spain. Yet once they went their own ways, joining Juventus/Manchester United and PSG. It really does end.

This is another comparison that is subjective to factors. It's a great debate and can go either way but when things get thrown in about Ronaldo at the age of 21 compared to Messi at the age of 21 is incomparable as Messi was at Barca with the likes of Xavi, Iniesta, Ronaldinho etc. While Ronaldo was coming from Sporting to trying to make it in the Premier League with Man United. There's a big difference. But as you said when they were in La Liga the comparison becomes a level playing field then up for debate. 

I do get the whole point of comparisons to add to the team but when it comes to transferring players, there's more of an assessment in the comparisons as they compare playing styles for how they'd fit in the team as you said. 

There's ways of comparing players and then there's comparisons that need to have factors taken in to account.