People are still confused about the criteria of the Ballon d’Or whether it is for someone who had a good year and played some good matches or it is for someone who has gained more followers on his social media accounts and scored more goals without any contribution in the team game.
It is very sad that only two defenders and only one goalkeeper have won the award so far, Fabio Cannavaro won it in 2006.
The year in which he played 90 minutes of all the matches of the world cup without conceding any card for the nation, he won the world cup and was a standout player, so he was an obvious choice for the Ballon d’Or that year.
But still, he was the 2nd defender ever to get their hands on the less precious more controversial Ballon d’Or. Does that mean that football failed to produce good defenders? Or players like Maldini, Nesta, Terry, were not worthy of this award?
Reminds me of a quote from Sir Alex Fergusson, “Attack wins you matches and defense win you titles.” We have seen that and we have seen how important good defense is, we all saw it in Liverpool’s case and this season in
No matter how good your attack is if your defense is leaky; they’ll not only leak goals.
But they’ll also not support your attack as well and we all know that no matter how good the attack it.
They still can’t win the ball from their own half and score in the other, they need some support from the midfield and the defense.
But things are changing now, people have started to question all the decisions, maybe that is why Modric was preferred over Messi and Ronaldo, but they both also had a very rough World Cup and Modric was brilliant with Real Madrid too.
Maybe Ballon d’Or prefers strikers because of their commercial perspective, nobody buys a jersey of Alba or Pique.
Everyone prefers Messi and Ronaldo so maybe that is the reason why players with more fame are preferred over players with good performance.