Potential brilliance. Isn't that what we all pay to see?

I disagree that logically both yield the same output over time as that is a massive oversimplification of what is defined as output. A player's performance is very much dependent on the team's performance as well as other factors. Which is why seldom do you see a player on the losing team being awarded MOTM (Oscar against England is a recent example).

To answer the question it would depend from team to team. Some teams need to have a player who they rely on being consistently good, whilst others need that player who every now and then can produce magical performances and single handedly win matches.

If it were to be a Chelsea player and assuming that the player is sensationally brilliant as often as he is average I think I'd choose the second option. Having a player putting in 10/10 performances for half of all games means you are pretty much guaranteed to win those games. We have enough players who you can bet will play at a decent level consistently. It will somewhat negate the inconsistency of one player.

I think the more interesting question is what position you'd want consistency/potential brilliance. For example for a GK if you choose potential brilliance you are guaranteed clean sheets for half of all games, whilst for a striker you are guaranteed 2-3 goals for half of all games.

JNR

Yes it's oversimplyfication, but only because the game of football and player performance is impossible to quantify. As far as maths can take us, the output is the same.

So which would you prefer?

I've already said.

Well, back in the day, it tended to be consistency equals league, potential brilliance equals cup. It's why the double was quite a rarity, you tended not to get teams that were great at both.

Consistency

Consistency = United = Healthy trophy cabinet!

Potential brilliance (Arsenal fans on their club) = Nothing to show for 8 years!

How about consistent brilliance? for e.g Barca of this generation and United.

Consistency every time.

Nothing more frustrating that a player who is sometimes brilliant and other times average.

Nothing more frustrating that a player who is sometimes brilliant and other times average.
=============

What a bout a player who is consistently average?

Ok how about this then.

A player who is consistently very good, with the potential to be a world beater in 3 or 4 years, VS a player who is consistently good/average, but on his day is a world beater right now.

Maradona_Pele_Best that is pretty much what I thought you originally meant. I hadn't realised it was for teams.

Consistency every time.

Nothing more frustrating that a player who is sometimes brilliant and other times average.

-----------

JNR

Originally the question was non-specific proposely, I was hoping to get responces for both. Felt it would be better to separate the questions later in the thread.

purposely**

A player who is consistently very good, with the potential to be a world beater in 3 or 4 years, VS a player who is consistently good/average, but on his day is a world beater right now.

--------------------------------------------------------

The first one for me. That way you get consistently get very good performances with the likelihood that you will have a world class player on your hands in 3 or 4 years time.

A player who is consistently very good, with the potential to be a world beater in 3 or 4 years, VS a player who is consistently good/average, but on his day is a world beater right now.

====================

I guess that describes Hazard vs Bale: with Hazrd the former and Bale the latter.

No not really Red. Could be used to describe any number of players in the PL. Modern football at the top level doesn't have too many players under 25 who don't slot in to one of those 2 categories.