THREAD | A short thread regarding the World Cup and why people should stop believing that winning the World Cup is what makes the difference between getting ranked among the GOAT'S or not as an individual player. 
First of all, the World Cup consists of only 7 games. 3 Group-Stages games (very often against much weaker countries), and then only 4 games left.
If you are lucky, you might face some 'easy' countries in the first 2 knock-out rounds, and then 2 tough countries in the last 2.
If you are lucky, you might face some 'easy' countries in the first 2 knock-out rounds, and then 2 tough countries in the last 2.
So think about that. Knowing that you get out of the Group-Stages, you need to win 4 games and that's what could make the difference between being ranked among the GOAT'S, or not.
4 games. How does that make any sense?
4 games. How does that make any sense?
Being consistent throughout an entire season for your entire career, is 50x harder to accomplish than winning a World Cup. Yet still, there are so many people who rate winning a World Cup (which you do as a team) above doing something that almost no individual player can do.
Being consistent for 10 years or even longer on the highest level of football, breaking record after record while performing week in week out, is something that almost no player can accomplish and should get rated FAR above winning a World Cup.
Winning the World Cup is something that will make your country go down in history, but when it comes to rating an individual player among the GOAT's or not, we should not look at a 7 game-tournament that you can only play once every 4 years.
So let's stop this myth about having to win a World Cup in order to get ranked among the GOAT's, because it's complete bullsh*t. It's something that got created by the world of football, but any realistic/logical point of view will tell you otherwise.
End of thread.
End of thread.
