Well, tbf, Ibrahimovic is a total bloody genius footballer, so he is going to be an exception. As it happens, I don't agree that bicycle kicks are an act of desperation. Acts of selfishness perhaps, because the player is unwilling to let the chance pass by. But also, bicycle kicks have that air of uncertainty, and that is something that is wanted in the goalmouth. Nobody wants someone to blaze the ball over the bar, so if the player is lousy at it, don't do it. But if you're Ibrahimovic, or Pelle, go for it.
For all those people saying that the young ladies goal wasn't against top opposition, 'only' in front of a few fans, not televised, not a World Cup goal.....I think you need to remember that this was for "best goal" not "best goal at a world cup" or "best goal at the highest level" The level is so irrelevant unless it is Messi scoring against Dundalk ladies, reserves; then the level matters. It was a goal scored by a player playing at their level and it was supreme. How on earth someone can claim it shouldn't win based on either the number of people watching or the method in which it was filmed is a little embarrassing. These things have nothing to do with how good a goal was. To pick up on Lff's point about them looking a the player first, he is right. This point actually makes her goal even better as she is not a top flight, top level, professional footballer. In terms of technique, execution and difficulty, hers was far, far better. RVP's header shouldn't even have been in there. It only was because he looked spectacular, rather than it being good technique (you could argue it wasn't) or difficult or well executed.
But that's the whole point, the level is entirely relevant because it expressly formed part of the judging criteria. It was meant to be considered when making the choice, rightly or wrongly.
You're completely missing the point. The level is entirely relevant as it is defined as part of the criteria for judgement. Ask anyone who has played a game of football - be it 90 minutes of a World Cup final or a half an hour kickabout with your work colleagues; the worse the opposition, the easier it is to score a goal. On the point of RVP's header, I also completely disagree. He makes it look effortless because he is such a talented player - that goal was impossible and we won't see anything like that for years.
Doesn't matter what the criteria, the decision is still made by human beings...some will give more emphasis to some criteria than others. It's like a judge telling a jury to ignore something they have heard because it is inadmissible for some obscure legal reason...yeah, right.
I am not missing the point, I am just disagreeing with you there is a difference. I have missed the point if the level of the game is part of the official criteria - but if it is please post a link for me to read the criteria (I've never seen it), as I would then ask why the Irish lady's goal was even considered. If it is then I am wrong. I have played a lot of football and you are right, the easier the opposition the easier it is to score ....... unless you are playing within your own level. So that argument goes unless that lady scored against a girls team and Messi scored against Northampton. All these goals were scored at a level the player in question plays at. So it is all relevant. One of the best players in the world scoring against one of the best players in the world is on a par with a player in league one scoring against a player of similar standard Now if you know that her goal was in a cup game against a team 4 leagues below .... On RVP, he threw himself forward and made the header - excellent - I don't believe he aimed that and the trajectory it travelled; he just made the header (well, I'll agree), but he just made the header. The goals TSS mentioned from Cahill was better, in my opinion.
Yeah, I definitely agree. My point is that the quality of the opposition and the standard of the competition ARE part of the official judging criteria anyway so they shouldn't ignore it.
I'l also add, that didn't a fella from a league in Northern Ireland win last year or the year before? If so, how can that be if the level of the game is relevant?
Where is this? I genuinely haven't seen it and as posted above, how the hell did the Irish fella win it the other year and why have her goal in it at all then?
Nope, his goal (despite being technically incredible) finished third behind Hamit Altintop's goal in Euro 2012 qualifying.
But my point is that if the level of the game is relevant, it shouldn't have been in there as an option. Is there a list of the criteria anywhere? Let me ask a different question: IF there was not a consideration of the level of football, which goal would you say was the best (I'd say hers was as "technically incredible" as the Irish chap)
Here's the list of criteria: http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-rank...s-award-honour-the-goal-the-year-1120531.html
Thanks SamKimish. I have read those now and point two should be clarified. Is it saying that a goal must be at one of those levels to qualify, or that these can be ranked in terms of importance? The fact that the two Irish goals have been considered, suggests to me that the "importance of the game" is about qualification of entry, as there is no way that an Irish ladies match can ever be considered ""as important" as a world cup game. the key point here maybe the last line which I believe refers to the importance within that game, i.e. is it the 6th goal in a 6-0 win, or is the winning goal in a 1-0 final victory If the level of the game is ranked within those levels listed, then each year, we'll pretty much know which goal will win unless they are all from the same level.
It was a great goal, but I suspect one factor involved in putting Roche's goal in the final three was it's importance to the women's game. Not a major factor, but a factor that was at least subconsciously considered.
Yeah, I definitely agree with you. Roche's goal was in a 6-1 demolition of the opposition - Rodriguez's sent Columbia on the way to a quarter final of a World Cup. The fact that they open up the award to a public vote with 99.9% of the public unaware of the criteria is where the whole concept fails IMHO. It should either only be voted for by critics (as with the other awards) or the criteria should be changed.