Open Question: I don't get it, do people REALLY think Villa > Raul?

10 February 2012, 7:54 pm

Or is it just like a wind up? Apparently Villa is better because A) More goals So, Villa's career total is 530 appearances 267 goals. Raul has made 820 appearances and scored 355. So, on the basis of it, it looks like Villa is the better striker, overall. At this point, the Barca ''fans'' might use my own logic against me and say that strikers are there JUST to score goals, Villa has a better ratio, therefore Villa > Raul. If that's the case, we will stop right here. However, I'd like to remind you that last season, Benzema scored more goals in less appearances (26 in 48) than David Villa (23 in 52). So Benzema > Villa > Raul, currently. If you want to follow that logic then fine, this question is done, if not read on. First, a few things about Villa's superior goal rate. First things first, David Villa spent about 5 years playing in the 4th tier then the Segunda division. During these early stages David Villa had a goal ratio of roughly a goal every 2 games. In the first 5 years of Raul's career, he was making appearances mostly off the bench, and occasionally as a midfielder, and very rarely the main striker. During this time, his goal-rate was also 1 in 3, but in La Liga, arguably the best division in the World at the time. Other likely reasons for Villa's better goal rate are Raul's position behind the main striker, Raul's injury problems that disrupted at least 2 or 3 of his seasons, and the complete lack of stability at Madrid. B) International success Well, Raul's team, during its time, simply wasnt good enough to compete for major honours. They didn't stand a chance against Brazil, Argentina, Germany ect. Villa's team is by some distance the best in the world. Whether they had Villa or Raul, Spain from 1996-2006 was never going to win anything. Lets face it, Xavi, Xabi and Iniesta are considerable upgrades on Ruben Baraja, David Albelda and Albert Luque. C) A few other things Remember that Villa lasted for about 15 unconvincing months at the very top of the game and looked finished even before his leg break. Meanwhile Raul made his home at the top of football for over 10 years. Every time Madrid signed a superstar and/or revamped its team, Raul reinvented himself and didn't just get in to that team, but led it. Madrid sign Owen, Ronaldo, Anelka, Robinho, Cassano ect over the years but still Raul was unmovable. Barcelona sign Alexis Sanchez and I'm amazed anyone still remembers who David Villa is. In addition, lets not forget that Raul is more than 'just' a footballer. He, in the words of Franz Beckenbauer, represents the spirit of Real Madrid. And David Villa? Just a footballer. An excellent football. But yes, a footballer. I think David Villa is an amazing player, but when he retires, he will be remembered as just a striker who was, for a few years, world class. Raul will go down as an all-time great in Madrid and beyond. Also, as others mentioned, Raul does have a superior medal count. As for Georgea who disparaged Raul in favour of Villa, by doing so, he has shown that he hasn't been watching Madrid for long and has been supporting them for even less time, and his knowledge and memories of Madrid are next to zero. He, for me, is wholly disowned as a true fan of Madrid. Tbh, I just wrote this out to procrastinate on my university revision. Strangely, it only took me like 5 mins to do this, but half a page of revision takes an hour. Wtf? So people really think Villa > Raul? Georgea - David Villa NEVER, EVER played for Villarreal. LMAO. I'm not even willing to read the rest after that spectacular blunder. It is clear that my text is FAR above your reading age and my knowledge is several stages more advanced than yours. So is my IQ, as I can state that the above is in no way a troll question. If I were you, I'd focus on school because you are clearly lagging behind your peers. If that's the nonesense I'm gopnna get from Georgea, then I dread to think what New Zlatan and Dubya will put here...... Read More »