Settle a debate: Are influential and significant interchangable words in this context

Downlinz

The top 10 most influential players in Man Uniteds history
The top 10 most significant players in Man Uniteds history
The top 10 best players in Man Uniteds history

Do these mean the same thing and are ranking on the same criterion?


I know what influence means when it applies to a person but can you use it in the context as interchangable with significance as it applies to a combined entity like a team. I mean having a positive influence to a team would be the same thing as having a significant impact or being "good". Is basically what I'm asking.

later12

They are not interchangeable, they each mean different things: most particularly the difference between influential and best players.

Significant itself is different because it may refer to influential & best combined, for example.

Saila

its very cromulent so yes.

Latchy

the sum of all their parts maybe greater than the whole .

Jimoslimos

Certainly influential and significant would have two different meanings depending on the context.

The first Catholic footballer signed by Glasgow Rangers may be an example of significant, but it doesn't neccessarily mean influential.

Jimoslimos

later10 wrote: »

Significant itself is different because it may refer to influential & best combined, for example.

I'd understand it the other way,

Influential may be significant and best combined

Defiler Of The Coffin

Downlinz wrote: »

The top 10 most significant players in Man Uniteds history
The top 10 most influential players in Man Uniteds history
The top 10 best players in Man Uniteds history

It seems they are interchangeable!

Only joking OP, go with what later10 said.

Downlinz

Sorry I meant to compare a ranking of "positive influence" and ask if that was interchangeable to best.

I'm asking in relation to a soccer forum asking for the most influential players for Man United. And someone quibbled it was incorrect usage of the word that influence was to do with impacting on trends. For example saying that Ronaldo was influential because he popularised stepovers at the club which Nani started doing.

My understanding is they're confusing influential to have a personal meaning rather than how it is directed to the entity of the club, in which case the influence is their impact on the club, how it shaped the club, the legacy they left at the club etc etc.

Pedantic I know, but would like to know which one of us is correct.

CatFromHue

This looks like a hipster type question......GET HIM!

Downlinz

CatFromHue wrote: »

This looks like a hipster type question......GET HIM!

Saila

to the grammer nazi mobile forum!! <333333333333333333333333 - _ ()='()

later12

Downlinz wrote: »

someone quibbled it was incorrect usage of the word that influence was to do with impacting on trends. For example saying that Ronaldo was influential because he popularised stepovers at the club which Nani started doing.

I would largely agree with this.

Influential doesn't necessarily mean best, especially if an individual can leverage his talent using other aspects of his personality. Lots of famous musicians, for example, can be described as influential without actually being the best from a musical standpoint.

Feeona

Saila wrote: »

to the grammer nazi mobile forum!! <333333333333333333333333 - _ ()='()

FFS it's <33333333333333333333333333 - _ ()='(), not <333333333333333333333333 - _ ()='()

Rhyme

Each of those words are also quite subjective.

/stirs pot

Saila

if there are 19 bees in a jar and one of them farts, how do they decide who has to leave?

only 3 have the sense of smell, the other 12 of the sense of sound.

Downlinz

Let me phrase it another way.

If I ranked 10 Man Utd players and proceeded to rank the players I believe who have had the biggest impact at the club (both positive and negative), purely looking at impact at the club and not impact they had on other players would I be correct under the heading of "most influential"?

To give a practical example for those who follow the sport. In Euro 2008 Senna may have been considered the most influential player to his teammates as in performing the holding role he gave license for the rest of the midfield to attack more. Would you say he was Spain's most influential player because he had the greatest significance on the job his teammates did or would you say Xavi was because he created a lot of the goals and controlled most games?

Or if I were to play for Man Utd next weekend and was utter dog****e would I be regarded as their most influential player because I'm forcing the other 10 teammates to compensate for my badness. Even if we won the game anyway and I had no significance in the game while others did. Or is that just an incorrect usage of the word?

Feeona

Is the sound of a bee farting significant? Are the sounds of a bee farting and a tree falling interchangeable?

later12

Downlinz wrote: »

Let me phrase it another way.

If I ranked 10 Man Utd players and proceeded to rank the players I believe who have had the biggest impact at the club (both positive and negative), purely looking at impact at the club and not impact they had on other players would I be correct under the heading of "most influential"?

They would be 'the most influential', but they may not be the best players, nor even the most significant players.

A captain, for example, can be more influential on his team than other members of the squad who, it may be argued, are better and players or more significant footballers.

Spread

A player could have one, two or three of those traits. But having one does not necessarily mean he has one of, or the other two.

All Angels are Men but not all Men are Angels

Liam Byrne

Spread wrote: »

A player could have one, two or three of those traits. But having one does not necessarily mean he has one of, or the other two.

All Angels are Men but not all Men are Angels

Charlie begs to differ.

Spread

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Charlie begs to differ.

Please elucidate Liam. Am a little on the slow side tonight