But you're missing the fact that, statistically, VVD was without peer that season. He led in virtually every defensive stat; no players dribbled past him that season and he had the best aerial and ground duel percentage in the league. Liverpool's points per game with him in the side was 2.32 compared to 1.98 without him. I know the influence the media can have but this was an all-time great season from a CB hence winning multiple awards in Europe.
Where are you getting those stats from? I'd like to see just how tested that Liverpool defence was and make a fair comparison(percentages can be deceiving) to players who are asked to do a lot more. Either way, is 0.34 such a huge drop off in points? Nobody was debating he isn't their best defender, I'd actually put him as the best defender in the league too. So with that in mind, I'm actually surprised it's not a bigger drop-off. I'd imagine City's ppg drop-off without Laporte or Kompany, would be as big, if not bigger than that. "All-time great" was bit over the top(had to check I wasn't on RAWK for a second), because Liverpool's season was very much a collective, they suffocate teams with their press and their workhorse midfield. As good as he was, the system and the players around him were a large part of why Liverpool's defence was so good. Of course they are better with him in it, but that's not the discussion. Nor do I think the players who vote for it, will be looking at the in-depth stats, no where near that much thought goes into it IMO.
Moreover, your own criteria is faulty. The voting isn't done when the best team has been established; it's done weeks before. In the 18-19 season, it could have went either way between us and Liverpool.
That's a fair point, you would at least know what competitions a club is still in and their chances of winning though, and the impact certain players had on the season.
The award for the best team is the title,
That's nothing to do with the argument I made.
you should not get extra credit because you played in a better team.
Why is a team considered 'better' in the first place? Because it has better players more often than not and if one player stood out enough in that team, yes he definitely should be strongly considered for the best player in the league that season.
The best individual can play in any side in the league, there is no go-to protocol. There is a natural bias to the best team yes but it's not a general rule.
I didn't say that will always be the case that leagues standout player was in the winning team either, so you're arguing with a point I never made. It definitely shouldn't exclude you because you played in the best team though. This is an individual award but this is a team sport and always will be. It should matter how much their contributions counted for. Bernardo was that player for me, he was immense in the big games, especially how he ran the show against Liverpool which was a pivotal moment in the season.
This season it had to be KDB and, thankfully, it was. The FWA award is a joke and not prestigious, the fact they gave it to Henderson doesn't mean all that much to me.
Well I was talking about both and I still think it matters. Players having bias because they don't put too much thought into and let the media influence them is one thing but the writers are the ones supposedly taking a more considered approach.
You seem very pro Liverpool which is your call(each to their own, I can't stand them) but the suggestion that there was no other choice than VVD last season is just too much. I still don't agree with you, the "nobody has dribbled past VVD" hype was a bit of a gimmick in my opinion and not something that would sway me. Seems like a good place to leave it though, at least I can see what decided it for you.
