I havent read what Waddle said but, is it 1,000 players world wide or just England and is it time based,10,20, 50,100 years? If it is world based and over 100 years then there is more than likely over a 1,000 players that are much better then Bendthem becks. Its all about the branding now, if Beckham was around when John Charles was playing then he would be just another player.
Read my post properly before replying next time Currently playing in the prem right now, there are lets say 20 players who are better than him (off the top of my head). You cannot achieve legendary status if there is 20 players at any one given time better than you in a single league. Go through the last 40 years of football in england alone and your looking at a fantastically huge number of players that are better than him. Pretty sure he said world based and over the last 40 years
This is a phrase you use repeatedly and it almost never has any real basis. Which part of my reply to you does not match up to what you wrote? (I have refrained from using here as your use makes it inappropriate usage here. ;-) ) You have totally missed my point. If you identify 20 players in this season's Prem, how many of those 20 would appear in your list of 20 from the prior year's Prem season? Certainly that does not result in 40 players from both seasons as players, say Bale, Lampard and Kompany, would appear in both lists. Making statements such as he would not be in the top 1,000 over the last 40 years just smacks of bitterness and unreasonable speculation.
The use of the word currently. And I honestly cannot recall using it before, even if I have I don't think I use it repeatedly. Yes I know, the 1000 players is, for me, saying he isn't a legendary player. He gets whatever club he is at shirt sales because of his overwhelming popularity outside of football more so than anything else not because of his supposed overwhelming ability. And ofcourse that doesn't mean there is another 20 from last season as well because some of the same players would make that list but there could be an extra 5 or so, I dunno without properly looking at it. So thats lets say 5 times 40 for the last 40 seasons and thats 220 (including the 20 this season) in england alone, then look worldwide because lets be honest the whole barcelona/real madrid/Bayern team is probably better the beckham as well. If he does make the 1000 its not by much imo. And again, 1000 is a random number. My main argument is he wasn't a GREAT player and that point in my previous post was saying that you cannot be considered a great player if at any one given time there are around 20 players better than him in a single league
Beckham was a lucky sod who played for teams who had money. He was a good player, but the hype surrounding him is boring and over the top IMO. He's as manufactured(maybe not at the beginning) as all those untalented, plastic groups that emerge from x factor and Britain's got no talent...
I don't believe you will get many disagreements with those points. However, I believe that the man's playing record, achievements and longevity, together with the accolades from many respected people in the game world-wide, would result in most people having a more positive assessment of his footballing career and abilities than that.
"He can't kick with his left foot, he can't head, he can't tackle, and he doesn't score many goals. Apart from that, he's alright" George Best on David Beckham Great footballer my arse, He may have been a pisshead, but Besty was spot on
Oh pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeez!!!!!!!!!! He doesn't score goals? Norman Hunter didn't either. So what? We can all agree that he was not the most skilled, but he achieved way more than Geroge Best who drank and then pissed away his skill. Who would you like future footballers to try to emulate out of Beckham and Best? Easy choice for me.
Me, i'd rather shag the birds Georgie ploughed, than that ****ing butt ugly stick insect Beckham is hanging out of, and I don't mean Rebecca Loos
why do I have to say it so many times. It doesn't matter about the math, I'm using random numbers off the top of my head of course its not gonna be right. He isn't in my book anyway going to be classed as a legend in the game. That 1000 number mark is a random number set by Waddle as a number to become a legend in the game. I'm not taking away that he was a good player but for me, it was generally people who didn't know a thing about football thought he was this fantastic player because of his abnormal amount of popularity Gotta agree with Best. And on the goalscoring thing, you would've expected him to score more goals from his position than he did if he was a legendary player
So do you feel it is your duty to have an as absurd opposite view? How many assists/goals did he create? Is it about what one should expect "from his position?"
Depends how one defines "fan?" It is my local club here so I look for their results, sometimes and cheer them when they win. I go to an odd game here or there, want them to win and cheer for them. But I don't buy any of their items or show any other manner of support. So, you decide...
Thats all I am objecting to in the waddle comment and you defending it - for me, a legend is special, you don't have 1000. By picking 1000, waddle was just saying "good player" not legend. If there are 1000 true legends, the term has no meaning. The other thing I don't like is Waddle, sniping at a fellow professional when he retires. Its poor. Fans may do it, fine, but a fellow player should say something nice or STFU.
