What is World Class?

robertmac43

Forever 43!
Mar 31, 2015
23,095
15,176
I find the term "World Class" gets thrown around a lot in the world of soccer/football, to the point where I don't know the meaning anymore. There are the obvious cases like Ronaldo, Messi, and Neymar. But after that there are so many names thrown around and I do not know if they deserve to be in the conversation. For instance Ozil is considered by many to be world class, but I simply do not see it. Do we use this term too frequently? Who are some guys outside of the three I named above who are clearly world class?
 

Ceremony

blahem
Jun 8, 2012
113,012
15,080
A tragic and increasingly redundant term thrown around with the same meaninglessness words like 'sublime' have long since surpassed due to the broadcasting industry's ever increasing need to chase profit at the expense of product, primarily by making whichever rube they've managed to eke some money out of to believe the gif they've just seen is something no-one else has done, could ever do or could ever conceive of. Bonus points if it's used to try and compare leagues, as if such a feat is possible or worthwhile.

Incidentally, it can be applied to Barry Ferguson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GB and Stray Wasp
Jan 3, 2012
27,085
983
Messi/Ronaldo above world class by far. Generational.

I'd say like, Reus is world class. Real reus though, if he was ever healthy
 

Live in the Now

Registered User
Dec 17, 2005
53,030
7,489
LA
When you see someone who would fit in at any club, you'll know. World class players can walk through average like they aren't even there. Everyone involved in the City goals today being a great example.
 

Gecklund

Registered User
Jul 17, 2012
25,141
11,717
California
I think a few guys outside of the ones you mentioned that are world class are De Gea, Neuer, Modric, De Bruyne, Chiellini, Buffon, Ramos, Marcelo, Lewa
 
  • Like
Reactions: robertmac43

YNWA14

Onbreekbaar
Dec 29, 2010
34,543
2,560
Language doesn't have universal significance. We all mean different things when we say it.
Basically...it's extremely subjective. People value different things and a lot of people believe that different things make teams or players effective. What makes a team tick? It reminds me of discussions of players in Hockey where there's camps that firmly sit in the 'offence over everything' and others that laud 2-way play and would prefer a '200ft' player that gets 50 points over an 80+ point player, etc.

For me I prefer players that participate in mutliple phases of play at a very high level (though I certainly respect purely offensive or defensive players). Intelligence and off the ball contributions are extremely undervalued IMO, at least in the media.

But anyway, yeah, it's different for everyone. Only you can really define it for yourself. For some it's only a handful of players in the world, and others it could be 100+ (top 10 at every position or so).
 

Stray Wasp

Registered User
May 5, 2009
4,561
1,503
South east London
My increasing problem with terms like 'world class' is the lazy hierarchical mindset into which it drives a portion of fans.

If someone is 'world class' they are apparently not permitted a disappointing game, let alone a disappointing season, without certain people trying to write them off as frauds. Meanwhile, if a player isn't pigeonholed as 'world class', there's a refusal in some circles to accept the notion that it's possible for someone who isn't consistently elite over their career to have a game, or a month, or a half-season, or maybe even a whole season, when they can raise their performance to an elite level.

Yet don't we all accept that human careers have a tendency to contain peaks and troughs? Isn't the fact that Geoff Hurst- an excellent player, never accorded a place in any pantheon I've seen- is the only scorer of a final hat trick in the history of the World Cup a stark enough warning to us that the chaos of human affairs rebels against our inclination to neat lists and tidy labels?

Perhaps the feudal structure of modern football means we should expect the highest-regarded managers to win every season of their careers. On the other hand, managers are purveyors of ideas, and ideas go stale, and there's the tricky matter of communicating those ideas, and maintaining dressing-room chemistry, in a world where players are practically a law unto themselves. Pick whichever great suits you: Herbert Chapman, Helenio Herrera, Rinus Michels, Ernst Happel, Bob Paisley, Arrigo Sacchi and the rest- every single one of those careers contains blots. Some contain long, poignant declines. And none of them had to operate in this era of echo-chamber alternative realities.

The whole point about one manager replacing another is that the bloke before wasn't getting something right. And the issues can run far deeper than mere results. Consider that in the more patient 80s, with no financially-supercharged rivals in sight, and a more easily managed media, Alex Ferguson needed six full seasons to win the league for Manchester United, the while restructuring the club to serve his classical vision of how a club should be run. He set about reforming MUFC's scouting in North-West England more or less from day one, but the fruits weren't visible until around 1993 for the obvious reason that players signed for clubs aged fourteen, and even the greatest manager can't accelerate time.

Yet long before Ferguson retired, the overwhelming majority of English clubs had chosen to ignore the healthy structures he had created at Old Trafford. Everyone was seeking a 'genius' manager who'd win by splurging a big bag of money, and if the club was built on quicksand, no matter.

Edo's post does nudge us towards an intriguing question (yes, I needed smelling salts just to type that phrase)- if management is about imposing organisation, how far can we judge anyone operating in the present environment of post-realist economics and pathological individualism, usually married to a fiercely impatient entitlement, gnat-like attention spans and- in the case of English football if nowhere else- a mainstream media that all too often is so desperate simply to be noticed that it nurtures any emphatic opinion it falls upon, logic and consistency be damned?

Another factor worth considering- the game's rulemakers have purposely reshaped it to make a defender's life harder. Which in turn has made sheer speed more important, which has removed a deal of the game's tactical refinement. So maybe commitment to 'the show' will remove much of the nuances of coaching. Or at the very least demand a fundamental rethink of how coaching operates until someone finds a means of going against the grain that consistently works.

Mind, by fuelling the cult of the manager to serve their own ends, such as Mourinho are to a degree reaping what they've sown.

One thing's for certain- if there's no such thing as a 'world class' manager, we certainly don't believe all managers possess equal abilities. If not, let's see some of you put your money where your mouth is, and start campaigning for the club you support to appoint Allardyce, or Pulis, or McClaren, or Pardew, or Carver.

I doubt that we could ever agree on a useful definition of, 'world class', or 'genius'. But it's a step in the right direction if we can accept that these words aren't synonyms for 'infallible' or 'deity'.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->