I was thinking about the GOAT arguments recently and something made me think about how unfair they are.

We base judgements of players from pre-1980s on the basis of an image that has been carved out by mass media or popular culture. Think of Cruyff, think of George Best. They have been portrayed as technically superb geniuses that were often let down by their own addictions.

Our brains have been influenced into thinking about players of those era from a specific angle because no footages exist. Even if they exist, those footages are of them scoring goals. Not of their impact on the pitch. This applies especially for players like Duncan Edwards, Cruyff and Franz Beckenbauer. Footages of players like Alfredo di Stefano and Eusebio aren't even prominent.

This makes it easier for conformation biases to sway our minds because

1) we have distinct images of those players in our minds because we're surrounded by media 24x7. Those influences have made us think about those players in a certain way and those stereotypes may not be true.

2) Our conditioning has already blended our minds into thinking as to what 'the best player' means. It all comes down to the good old pragmatic/aesthetic debate in football.

As a result, players who have existed in the coloured era get a massive advantage over others. And perhaps, that is unfair and skews how we think about the game.