Discussion in 'Community' started by FORCE_SKIN, Feb 7, 2004.
Bundesliga Goal of the Week
NBC is going to have Tim Howard as lead analyst for Chelsea-City this Sunday.
Will his beard get it's own dressing room?
Here's a link to that Pajtim Kasami goal from last night. Now, Martin Jol is claiming it was as good a goal (or better!) than Marco van Basten's goal from 1988. I can see that it's of a similar ilk, but I'm still gonna give the prize to the Dutchman. Why? Because he was a truly classy player. A top, top footballer. Thus it follows he knew what he wanted to do, and knew he could execute it. It was no fluke. Kasami is... well... deeply average, so it follows that his strike was more hit and hope. A once in a lifetime combination of ambition and technique that he couldn't hope to replicate if he tried a hundred more times. Thoughts?
It wasn't even as good as Wilshere's that weekend.
You can now resume your customary lol@Arsenal
Thoughts? Nonsense. You judge a goal by the goal, not by what that player has done in other games. The discussion is about how good the goal is, not how good the player is. By your argument only the best ever player could score the best ever goal. Nonsense.
That said, Crouch's goal against Man City was better.
Yes. I'd argue that the better a player is, the better a great goal by them is. Any old footballer can hit and hope, and any old footballer might eventually hit a pearler. Kasami's was a great goal, yes, but it was a fluke. He'll never come close to replicating it. Fluke's are not class. van Basten's was class, because we all know it wasn't a fluke.
You don't think there's any reason to factor the quality of a performer into their art?
I don't think you should take into account the quality of the player based on a goal, no. Fluke or not, that's what he was trying to do. Saying its not as good a goal just because someone else could do it more is nonsensical. You judge a player as a player. You judge a goal as a goal.
Why is it nonsensical? There's a difference between hope and intent. Both van Basten and Kasami were trying to aim their strike at the goal. Both wanted to score and both decided they'd try from that distance and angle. But I'd argue that only van Basten thought to himself "I know where I'm going to put it, and I know I can put it there". I'm pretty sure Kasami simply hit and hoped. I think that distinction, the line between hope and expectation, is significant. I think it separates two very similar goals. Elevates one above the other. The same end product can be achieved by the acquisition of skill, or the application of immense footballing talent, as can be by the fluke of a lifetime from an average player. Doesn't make them equally praiseworthy.
The intent was the same. Just because one could score it more than the other is irrelevant to the quality of the strike. You don't get to be a first team player in a PL club without having skill. You insult the player by saying they hit and hope.
It doesn't make the players equally praiseworthy, but it does with the shots.
Of course you don't get into a Premier League side without having skill, but not all players have the same amount. Plus, there will be many occasions in every Premier League season, in every game, when players hit and hope. If it's an insult to suggest Premier League players sometimes do that, then every man out there must be a footballing genius. Which plainly isn't the case.
If the player responsible for the shot can reasonably be assumed to have a better chance of scoring such a goal, then yes it does. A perfect, but nonetheless fluke contact with the ball, just isn't as impressive as a deliberate contact.
I agree with halibut, judge the greatness of the goal by the greatness of the goal not by the player who scored it.
The Greatest Goal of All Time could be scored by an average player.
You are saying that overall skill is better than an individual producing a great shot. By that logic, any team winning against a team of higher talent even if playing better on the day means that that result shouldn't be counted.
No, that doesn't make sense because I am comparing dissimilar things the same way you are. When it comes to what is a good goal, it doesn't matter who the players are, it's what happens in that moment in that time. Whether its 'fluke' or not doesn't matter. It's what happens on that pitch at that time. A great goal is a great goal. Whether its a 40 yard strike or a 30-pass team goal. It doesn't matter who the players are. You judge a goal by the football, not the names.
I see United managed to win tonight without even scoring a goal
Man City vs Chelsea at the weekend could be a good match.
i agree with halibut on this matter.
any of these spectacular goals there is an element of 'hit and hope', even the Van Basten goal. it's not like, in that moment, he knew it would go in. he stuck his leg out, directed it, but ultimately hoped for the best. same goes for Kasemi.
as far as the mechanics of the goal go, the Kasemi goal is better than the Van Basten goal. the ball comes in from his team's own half, he has the additional piece of skill in controlling the ball off his chest, and then the strike to finish it off. spectacular. however it was in a fairly meaningless game whereas Van Basten produced his in a WC final, so there's that.
the only time there has been a player who did not hit and hope, was Rooney when he purposely used his shin to direct the ball into the net.
That is a very good question, lil e.
Georgey-Boy, Georgey-Boy—where for art thou, Georgey-Boy...?
Was he lost in the void during the transition to these boards?
Totally forgot about this discussion, but yes, in every spectacular goal there is an element of hit and hope, it just depends how much. I'm always gonna give the edge to a goal scored by a superior player because... well... it's more likely to be by design and to me that's more impressive. But I'm not saying that other goal is a bad goal, either, just not as good. But we're not gonna agree, so never mind.
Footballers are like psychics. You only remember the hits, not the misses
Maybe football is like Battleships. The winner remembers the hits, but the loser remembers the misses.
I have no idea what I'm getting at.
That much is certain
Damn, now I wanna watch Star Trek IV