you wrote to me "Don't pretend you have not read that too."
if this is not a preconception towards me what do you call it? Ability to know what one cannot know ?? magic, foresight: D
Ok, I take it back. Did not want to offend you.
history is itself a narration of history, often supported by evidence often only witnessed orally. in football there are examples of strong changing rooms, but they are exceptions to how football works (coach who commands the players)
This is a relativistic thesis about history which holds partly only true when it comes the whole of human history.
But when we talk about football, sorry but things are getting less chaotic.
Strong changing rooms is a fact in football history, and there are sociological theories that try to explain why it happens.
And I don't buy that it's an exception. Maybe it's not the majority, but it's empirically observed even outside the top level.
simple: it is easy to use as you do only the statements that support your thesis, I have brought you contrary statements, For you all exceptions. What logic demonstrates here is that the narrative about Messi is by no means as univocal and clear as you say. His role as a tyrant is only one among many (forced) interpretations and not a fact. On the other hand, what you wrote here proves it against your will, and now I'm gonna show you in what sense
I did not say it's univocal. I said there is strong evidence about it, and the most likely scenario based on the totality of evidence we have.
And I never said 'Messi is a tyrant' nor 'Messi is the evil of the team'
These are exaggerative caricature statements that essentially undermine the more nuanced statements that Messi critics make here about his power.
(Ok, there are some users who express themselves in that language, and serious posters can slip some times when they are emotionally unstable -which can happen to everyone btw - , but in their longer posts of analysis they avoid that kind of language and argue seriously. I am sure you can acknowledge that).
that of objective reality is a much more problematic concept; trust me I teach philosophy, I would not go into such a complex and debated topic. however here we get to the heart of your argument that goes against itself.
If we are still in the midst of something and cannot understand it, and the proof of its truthfulness is left to the future, your own truth collapses on itself and it is also groundless, because is a truth that cannot be grasped while things are happening
your thesis, that Messi is the evil of the team, is respectable if it is enough on a tactical level (I absolutely don't agree with it, but both are respectable theories).
But the rest are really just little thought theories and self-contradictory in their essence
Now I don't like this self-referential information, because it attributes authority that should not play any role this forum (If I tell you also what I teach, you will take it back).
Just stick to the fact that I am putting the effort to follow all your points and answer them.
About your point, we are talking about empirical facts here, not a full blown theory that tries to uncover any laws of how reality works.
If a Messi coach says he is hard to manage, this is not a theory nor any concept that is theory-laden, it can be broken down to plain facts and recorded action: when he says Messi does not speak a lot, just looks, he expresses his complains in a specific way etc etc. There is nothing subjective here.
Player power is a concept that is grounded on plain facts about the behavior and attitude of a player, which is essentially an accumulation of anecdotal and testimonial evidence that includes events, dialogues, habits etc
You have misunderstood what the whole discussion is about. The debate whether Messi has power is about accumulation and presentation of empirical evidence that shows that or the contrary. We cannot even talk about theory at this level (it's an overstatement, apart from the casual use of the word), we are talking about common life events.
