Quote Originally Posted by thehumblegringo View Post
It falls down on every level. We interpret football wrong in my opinion if it's wholly based on stats.

Cruyff consistently said that he wouldn't swap the way Holland played in 74 even if it won them the World Cup.

You will probably disagree with that but i believe football is an art and a form of entertainment. That was one of the reasons i was so disgusted by Slade's "brand" of football.

Messi is a football genius and he does so much more than score goals or assist.
He opens space, and controls the game. It will be a dark day when he retires.

You have a very british or american way of interpreting the game that involves no subjectivity or joy but just data data data.
Not at all, I prefer my football to be entertaining rather than functional, and I'd be happier with a buccaneering attacking side that finish mid table than a dour Russell Slade style team that finish higher up.
An appreciation of the stats side of sports doesn't mean you don't appreciate the artistry or individual genius that also is a part of it. If anything I would say it enhances it.

I can understand this article though - even the best player of all time will have a point where they are overpaid if you continue to increase their salary.
There is a finite pool of money you can win as a club so even the most influential players will have a limit to how much their worth is.
In reality though it is impossible to be perfectly accurate with these things, and it ignores the commercial side of football, which is a massive consideration for players like messi (less so for players like xhaka)