statistics may or may not lie but their naive use invariably makes
any subsequent conclusions invalid
surely you have to factor in a) goals per game and b) quality of
the opposition
a) for instance (from memory) Pele was scoring at about 1:1 in
internationals, as did Jimmy greaves
so your player might have remained injury free, had limited
competition for the role, not pissed off his international coaches,
and (most importantly) played in an era with greater numbers of
internationals per year etc, etc - so whilst he has accumulated
most goals in total he isn't scoring as frequently as other -
better - players
b) the matches he played in were unlikely to have been consistently
at the same level as those played by other nations
the best players are tested at the highest levels - not all
international matches are of equal standard
First of all he isn't "my player", and i wouldn't put him in Pele's
class, but by the amount of goals scored he is the most
prolific.
Look at Wynton Rufer, he played for a reletivly useless team like
New Zealand at the higehst level available to him, i.e. One world
cup and Autralia, Fiji and other island nations with the odd
exhibition against a higher level opponent, Yet no one argues he is
NZ best EVER 'Player', EVEN THOUGH Vaughan Coveny is NZ greatest
ever GOAL SCORER, can you see the point im trying to make? Greatest
GOAL SCORER does not mean GREATEST PLAYER.
Pele is the greatest PLAYER ever, Ali Daei is the greatest GOAL
SCORER ever. It's simple, you cant go into availability of matches
and ease of playing against other countries as it is all arguable,
its all 'what ifs', but the statistics show he has the record for
most goals at international level, as a striker you cannot argue he
was the greatest, if someone else was better why have they
not got more goals? If they are playing against higher level
opponents consistently they themselves should be of a high level
and it should be no different than Iran vs. Saudi Arabia where both
teams are fairly equal.