Ballon D'or

Fat_Dragon said:
He was the top scorer in the CL and UEFA Men’s Player of the Year.
Click to expand...

Rightly so too.

But Rodri was the decider in the final.

Haaland barely touched the ball (18 across the whole match) and got the lowest rating of any Man City player in the final.
It's not unusual for him to have limited touches and involvement but then pop up with a goal, but he had one shot on goal in the entire match and it was straight at the keeper.


Haaland's an incredible player and one of the best strikers in the world, but Man City were already the best team in the world before they signed him, they did well with him, not just because of him.
 
TeaCider said:
Rightly so too.

But Rodri was the decider in the final.

Haaland barely touched the ball (18 across the whole match) and got the lowest rating of any Man City player in the final.
It's not unusual for him to have limited touches and involvement but then pop up with a goal, but he had one shot on goal in the entire match and it was straight at the keeper.


Haaland's an incredible player and one of the best strikers in the world, but Man City were already the best team in the world before they signed him, they did will with him, not just because of him.
Click to expand...
To he fair this season he hasn't been the same, he set the standard last season and he's not been the same, maybe he's been found out.
 
Fat_Dragon said:
There is more to winning the CL than just the final.
Click to expand...

That wasn't Man City's first final.
Almost all of that team had made the final 2 years previously, and  just missed out on the final in the previous season after conceding 2 rapid goals in injury time when cruising.

So clearly they were more than capable of making the final with or without Haaland.
 
GibbosEmpire said:
To he fair this season he hasn't been the same, he set the standard last season and he's not been the same, maybe he's been found out.
Click to expand...

De Bruyne has been injured for most of the season, and he's the best creative midfielders in the world.

Haaland's bound to get fewer opportunities without him.
 
It's a bit of a pointless argument really isn't it? It's so subjective and some of the votes that get cast are ridiculous anyway.

There are compelling cases for both Messi and Haaland. Messi was always going to win it though because although it's supposed to be just about who has been the best player in the world, a big part of it is also more like "sports personality of the year".

There's no way the (probably) best player of all time, finally leading his team to the most sought after trophy of all them, as best player in the tournament, wasn't going to win it.

He could've scored 0 goals for PSG and been sent off 5 times and he'd still probably have won it.
 
TeaCider said:
Aye.

Barcelona won La Liga by 14 points, and 17 ahead of 3rd placed Real Madrid.
They won the Copa del Rey.

Messi was comfortably the top scorer in
La Liga with 34 goals, and top of assists with 12.
He also won the European Golden Shoe.

He finished 5th in the rankings, largely because Argentina got knocked out early at the World Cup and Barcelona somehow blew a 4-1 lead in the quarter finals of the Champions League.

Modic won because of a Champions League title they scraped towards winning, being gifted the final by a one man disasterclass from Karius, and a good losing performance at the World Cup.

The World Cup and Champions League are the two biggest deciders in whoever wins it, probably understandably given they're the two biggest competitions in the World.
Click to expand...
The Ballon d'Or was an annual award, not football year so all Messi's best football in that season was in the previous calendar year. If it wasn't Modric that year it probably should have been Ronaldo ahead of Messi.

Modric was a bit of a strange one admittedly. He didn't even win the world cup. He's definitely a great a player but it's Messi/Ronaldo are hard to beat. I think people just wanted to give it to someone different.
 
Nano said:
The Ballon d'Or was an annual award, not football year so all Messi's best football in that season was in the previous calendar year. If it wasn't Modric that year it probably should have been Ronaldo ahead of Messi.

Modric was a bit of a strange one admittedly. He didn't even win the world cup. He's definitely a great a player but it's Messi/Ronaldo are hard to beat. I think people just wanted to give it to someone different.
Click to expand...

Officially, but I doubt the voters ever  actually just considered January to October.

Screenshot_20231025_092722_Chrome.jpg

Messi had a better individual 2018 than Ronaldo.
It's purely because of that Champions League title (which he played a part in securing, of course) that he finished ahead of him in the rankings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top