You’re all narrative merchants who want to attribute essentially random events to something more solid, as you think the sport you love is somehow devalued if you admit it wasn’t all destiny and that if the ball had bounced 10cm in the other direction one time, a team in blue would be lifting a trophy instead of a team in red.
So even when team A batters team B, hits the post eight times and then concedes a last minute deflected winner, they weren’t unlucky, but Team B had a better mentality, or Team A’s manager always bottles things in Europe so this was inevitable, or it was actually the genius of dropping player X into a false 9 rather than playing a traditional striker that made the difference.
The fact the best team doesn’t always win is what makes football interesting. Winning any big cup competition requires being both really good and really lucky. People should embrace that.
That’s why the current criteria for Ballon d’Or make zero sense. If Kolo Muani had scored in the WC final, that automatically made Mbappe the Ballon d’Or winner and Messi 2nd or 3rd, same if Montiel had missed his penalty.
The same of course applies to any situation.
That’s why you can’t compare players on one game, even based on one tournament. Players should be compared on whatever they did throughout the 50+ games of a season, Ballon d’Or is not a player of the match award for 2-3 games.