Right, so these match winners i've been banging on about...

[Craig_H]

On a general basis I would argue that you don't have to score to be a match winner as such. A winger could come on for example and produce a dazzling display -setting up a goal or two. I would argue that he was the match winner, not necessarily the player who sticks the ball away.
But to be honest I think this argument could be as futile as a discussion on who is and isn't World Class - as it is all fairly subjective.

I take your point, but i go back to the fact that no matter WHAT the winger may do, the chance could be missed - therefore no goal and no win. In those circumstances, he cant be the matchwinner.

The person who sticks the ball in the net is the matchwinner, for me.

[Craig_H]

But if someone creates some sublime peices of skill and craft every week and puts the ball on a plate for others to score ... who is the match-winner?

I.e. the match winner doesnt have to be the person who scores.

Well i think he does - because, as i said, no matter what sublime piece of skill is created, for the match to be WON, the ball has to be put into the net.

It's the same as the goalkeeper - he can do all he likes, but if someone doesnt score, he cant be the match winner.

[dww]

Well to win a match, you obviously need to score. Nobody is GUARANTEED to score, but those type of players do it on a regular basis, and therefore meet the criteria, IMO.

On a general basis I would argue that you don't have to score to be a match winner as such. A winger could come on for example and produce a dazzling display -setting up a goal or two. I would argue that he was the match winner, not necessarily the player who sticks the ball away.
But to be honest I think this argument could be as futile as a discussion on who is and isn't World Class - as it is all fairly subjective.

I like Reeces defenition more TBH but I think that nearly all players who are capable of turning a match in this way need to have a goal threat as part of their armoury. Possibly the only player in any top level football who would arguably be an exception to that would be Riquelme.

[Guest]

Well to win a match, you obviously need to score. Nobody is GUARANTEED to score, but those type of players do it on a regular basis, and therefore meet the criteria, IMO.

Better to let people just ASSUME you're clueless, than to post and remove all doubt.

What about if we're winning 1-0 and Pepe goes on having world class saves which ultimately keeps the result ! Doesn't it count as a match winning contribution ?

So by your own logic, the match winner can only be the goal scorer ?

I don't know why I keep on coming at you.

[Craig_H]

What about if we're winning 1-0 and Pepe goes on having world class saves which ultimately keeps the result ! Doesn't it count as a match winning contribution ?

So by your own logic, the match winner can only be the goal scorer ?

No it doesnt, because Reina's save has nothing to do with the goal that you scored, to win you the game.

It's the same reason as to why strikers are generally more expensive than any other players - because strikers score more than anyone else and goals are the most precious things in football. They win you games.

I don't know why I keep on coming at you.

Nice turn of phrase, you big bender

I dont know why you do either, but despite disagreeing with virtually every nonsensical point you make, i like you. You're not abusive or rude and you provide me with a decent amount of comic relief. I thank you for that.

[dww]

What about if we're winning 1-0 and Pepe goes on having world class saves which ultimately keeps the result ! Doesn't it count as a match winning contribution ?

So by your own logic, the match winner can only be the goal scorer ?

I don't know why I keep on coming at you.

I can see where you are coming from but I think that with the obvious exception of penalty shoot outs it is better to think of goal keepers as saving matches/points (unless they do actually score in a Jimmy Glass or Paul Robinson moment).

[Craig_H]

I can see where you are coming from but I think that with the obvious exception of penalty shoot outs it is better to think of goal keepers as saving matches/points (unless they do actually score in a Jimmy Glass or Paul Robinson moment).

Precisely.

Reina can SAVE us points, but he's still relying on someone else to have scored the goal.

[Guest]

No it doesnt, because Reina's save has nothing to do with the goal that you scored, to win you the game.

It's the same reason as to why strikers are generally more expensive than any other players - because strikers score more than anyone else and goals are the most precious things in football. They win you games.

It's all a subjective thing and this discussion is going nowhere. For me someone who makes us click and contributes in us winning deserves to be called a match winner. He doesn't have to score goals.

[Craig_H]

It's all a subjective thing and this discussion is going nowhere. For me someone who makes us click and contributes in us winning deserves to be called a match winner. He doesn't have to score goals.

Every player who sets foot onto the field contributes to our game, win, lose or draw.

By your logic then, every player who plays for us is indeed a match winner...loser...and drawer...


As i said, pure comic relief. The only problem for you is that you're being serious...ooops!

[nbryan1764]

If a non-scoring "matchwinner" does all he can, but no one can find a goal, is the match won?

if the matchwinner scores a hattrick but a **** goalie lets 4 in is the match won?

[Guest]

Precisely.

Reina can SAVE us points, but he's still relying on someone else to have scored the goal.

So if we're getting battered and Pepe makes 15 world class saves, he still can't be considered a match winner ????

It's a team thing, and you look at the game as if you're looking at individuals.

[Craig_H]

if the matchwinner scores a hattrick but a **** goalie lets 4 in is the match won?

Indeed not, but the criteria was referring to players who produce a goal for us, that wins us a match.

Obviously if you DONT win the match, there can BE no matchwinner.

Thought that kinda went without saying, myself...

[Guest]

Every player who sets foot onto the field contributes to our game, win, lose or draw.

By your logic then, every player who plays for us is indeed a match winner...loser...and drawer...


As i said, pure comic relief. The only problem for you is that you're being serious...ooops!

Well **** off DJS, you're pissing me off with your comments. Why this remark ? You're like a big kid.

[desertscouser]

We're just going to keep going round and round in circles here.

When we play United, Chelsea or Arsenal, I reckon they would single out Gerrard and Torres as our danger men, our match winners, players who can turn a game with a moment of brilliance. Another example of a match winner would be someone like Garcia...how many important goals did he score to win us big matches?

[Craig_H]

So if we're getting battered and Pepe makes 15 world class saves, he still can't be considered a match winner ????

Well no, because he wouldnt have scored the goal that won the match.

It's simple stuff fredo...

It's a team thing, and you look at the game as if you're looking at individuals.

It is a team game yes. But there are also individuals who consistently pop up with a bit of magic that wins you the game.

There's a reason why it's the likes of Gerrard that pop up with some magic when we really need it, and on a regular basis... and are rated as the world's best players...as opposed to someone like Steve Finnan or Momo Sissoko.