Franco Baresi

Snow said:
Modric plays for Real Madrid. Rakitic for Barcelona. Mandzukic was in Bayern and now plays for Atlético. Subatic was in the Dortmund champion side. Vidic played for Man. United. Ivanovic and Matic play for Chelsea. Olic played for Bayern. City has Kolarov and Dzeko and Jovetic. United bought a 17 year old Serbia last summer.

That's a lot of top teams with former Yugoslavian players in their team. Modric was arguably the best midfielder in the EPL when not in a top team and now he's arguably the best midfielder in the currently (also arguably) best league in the world. I don't think it has or will change that players from these countries (formerly country) are good enough to play for the best sides in the world.
Click to expand...

You can ask the neutral supporter a team made up of Modric, Rakitic, Mandzukic, Matic, Dzeko and Jovetic and a team made up of Savicevic, Mitjakovic, Suker, Boban, Mihajlovic and Boksic. They seem to become stronger at the back though but there's nowhere near in terms of midfield and attack. Boban and Savicevic were world class players, the latter at par with Roberto Baggio.
 
antohan said:
Indeed. It's not necessarily a case of there being less talent in Yugoslavia today, but you simply couldn't get a Red Star to emerge because:

1) The CL would gobble them up, exciting as they were they would probably be a fairy tale which ends abruptly in the quarters at best.

2) The team would never get to form and play with each other long enough because they would all get signed by big teams before turning 18 and dumped in the reserves as part of an investment portfolio (if one comes through, great!).

Which is what is at the root of the talent problem: too much talent goes to waste because they spend years in reserves or being shipped on loan as a result of the business side of football. There's absolutely no question that Red Star generation had the benefit of actually being trusted to play, forming the team, competing... instead of all wasting their development away in some foreign academy, having to deal with living in another country, and all the difficulties associated with that.

You've always had the Ravel's who just feck up, but now you are adding more to the mix: live abroad, and lots of money. Before that was the objective if you made it, now they get it before doing anything of note. Of course the emergence of real talents is affected.
Click to expand...

Seriously Antohan do you see any talent at par to Savicevic and Boban in that part of world?
 
devilish said:
Between 2005 and 2014 it went to 5 players with the same 2 players swapping the title for the past 5 years.
Click to expand...
That's just another silly comparison though. That has more to do with the change of format. If we go by the journalists vote, like it was before FIFA turned the Ballon d'Or into a joke, Sneijder and Ribery would have been Ballon d'Or winners. Also, Platini and van Basten won it 3 times each during the peak of Serie A, so you had dominant individuals back then as well. It makes zero sense to judge the quality of the whole generation today through the Ballon d'Or winners anyway.
 
Balu said:
That's just another silly comparison though. That has more to do with the change of format. If we go by the journalists vote, like it was before FIFA turned the Ballon d'Or into a joke, Sneijder and Ribery would have been Ballon d'Or winners. Also, Platini and van Basten won it 3 times each during the peak of Serie A, so you had dominant individuals back then as well. It makes zero sense to judge the quality of the whole generation today through the Ballon d'Or winners anyway.
Click to expand...

The difference is that back then there was a discrimination in favor of forwards. For example who was the most deserving player to win the ballon d'or, Baresi or Van Basten? Scirea or Platini? That would put fans of the same club in contrast with one another in a debate that would last hours. These days you don't have such debate. Ronaldo and Messi are better than all players out there and there's no one in other roles who is as good in what he does as Ronaldo/Messi are in theirs.
 
devilish said:
The difference is that back then there was a discrimination in favor of forwards. For example who was the most deserving player to win the ballon d'or, Baresi or Van Basten? Scirea or Platini? That would put fans of the same club in contrast with one another in a debate that would last hours. These days you don't have such debate. Ronaldo and Messi are better than all players out there and there's no one in other roles who is as good in what he does as Ronaldo/Messi are in theirs.
Click to expand...
So we agree that the Ballon d'Or thing is totally meaningless?
 
Balu said:
So we agree that the Ballon d'Or thing is totally meaningless?
Click to expand...

Yes and No. In the past yes it was. Today no because no one is even near to Ronaldo/Messi.
 
Most italians i know that watched Baresi and Scirea say it was literally a toss up between them who was better.

Both were before my time which was unfortunate but I had the pleasure of growing up with the Italian defenders of Nesta, Maldini and Cannavaro.

The closest to those defenders in the modern game for me is Barzagli. He is rock solid in defence and hardly makes a mistake.
 
devilish said:
You only have to take a look at the ballon d'or. Between 1990 and 2000 it was given to 10 different players (2 Germans, 2 Brazilians, 2 French, a Dutch, an Italian, a Bulgarian and Liberian). Between 2005 and 2014 it went to 5 players with the same 2 players swapping the title for the past 5 years.
Click to expand...

For me again it's part of how much more professional the sport is nowadays, the medical guidance, training methods etc. Players like Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo are almost always in optimal shape, no injuries etc. They peak earlier and longer, and perform very consistently. And they were at big clubs from a young age, which is also part of modern football. There's no doubt to me that if players like Maradona, Van Basten, and the Brazillian Ronaldo would have also had those benefits back then they would have also dominated more and for longer periods. Although ofcourse not all injuries can be prevented.

But you actually see this with many of the Ballon D'or winners in the period you mentioned. Few had long succesful careers at top clubs to the extend that Messi and Ronaldo do now.
 
Last edited:
I
Bloedrood said:
For me again it's part of how much more professional the sport is nowadays, the medical guidance, training methods etc. Players like Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo are almost always in optimal shape, no injuries etc. They peak earlier and longer, and perform very consistently. And they were at big clubs from a young age, which is also part of modern football. There's no doubt to me that if players like Maradona, Van Basten, and the Brazillian Ronaldo would have also had those benefits back then they would have also dominated more and for longer periods. Although ofcourse not all injuries can be prevented.
Click to expand...
Its also to do with teams isn't it? The likes of Maradona didn't have the benefit in playing in these "super teams" that are just built to dominate their league with ease, and do it year in year out. Madrid and barcas attacks and their absolute control over teams in la liga over the last, say, 8/9 years, is a factor IMO.
 
That's why as viewers have to sift through just simple statistics and look beyond when judging.
 
devilish said:
Seriously Antohan do you see any talent at par to Savicevic and Boban in that part of world?
Click to expand...

Not on par, although Modric isn't far off. Savicevic on a good day blows him out of the water, but Modric is probably more consistent (higher bottom) which helps make up for it.

But then, that sort of talent isn't a good yardstick. You could make a case with many countries were the current top talent is better than they ever had. During Portugal's golden generation you could still have said none of them were as good as Eusebio...

I don't think there's less talent, I think there's less diversity. All the top talent gets pooled together in the hands of a handful of academies, which then have their own "ethos". How many South Americans who are genuinely good get to stay there until they are 20? They don't, they go into the processing machine like they are sausages.

I don't think @Snow is correct (or wrong) in citing Iceland as an example of improvements in talent, I think it's a completely different issue at hand in terms of the extent to which football has been standardised and turned more into disciplined tactical contests where talent alone isn't enough. Real genius can make the difference, of course, but it is secondary to all the other more workmanlike/accessible if you apply yourself/earthly factors.
 
Vialli_92 said:
Most italians i know that watched Baresi and Scirea say it was literally a toss up between them who was better.

Both were before my time which was unfortunate but I had the pleasure of growing up with the Italian defenders of Nesta, Maldini and Cannavaro.

The closest to those defenders in the modern game for me is Barzagli. He is rock solid in defence and hardly makes a mistake.
Click to expand...

I would argue it goes down to the setup. In some setups Scirea would have been preferred. Going blind into building a team, not knowing what else I can get hold of, I would pick Baresi every day.
 
Baresi was a smooth operator. What a display in the 94 finals, and that too clearly not at his peak of his powers. Didn't he suffer a hamstring injury in the group stages? What a man and what a defender. Romario was in his back pockets all day.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
I

Its also to do with teams isn't it? The likes of Maradona didn't have the benefit in playing in these "super teams" that are just built to dominate their league with ease, and do it year in year out. Madrid and barcas attacks and their absolute control over teams in la liga over the last, say, 8/9 years, is a factor IMO.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree, that's kind of what I meant with players being at a top club from a young age nowadays. Top talent gets picked up much earlier than in the past, so they can show it on a bigger stage from a younger age. Although Real Madrid won the league 5 times straight in the 80's, Barcelona won the league 6 times in the 90's. It's not the first time they dominate to be honest. But I get your point.
 
He was amazing in the 94 WC final, but the best individual defensive performance in that tournament belongs to a different player.
 
fishfingers15 said:
Baresi was a smooth operator. What a display in the 94 finals, and that too clearly not at his peak of his powers. Didn't he suffer a hamstring injury in the group stages? What a man and what a defender. Romario was in his back pockets all day.
Click to expand...
He only played 3 games and was rushed back for the final, but he was clearly ready for it
 
antohan said:
Not on par, although Modric isn't far off. Savicevic on a good day blows him out of the water, but Modric is probably more consistent (higher bottom) which helps make up for it.

But then, that sort of talent isn't a good yardstick. You could make a case with many countries were the current top talent is better than they ever had. During Portugal's golden generation you could still have said none of them were as good as Eusebio...

I don't think there's less talent, I think there's less diversity. All the top talent gets pooled together in the hands of a handful of academies, which then have their own "ethos". How many South Americans who are genuinely good get to stay there until they are 20? They don't, they go into the processing machine like they are sausages.

I don't think @Snow is correct (or wrong) in citing Iceland as an example of improvements in talent, I think it's a completely different issue at hand in terms of the extent to which football has been standardised and turned more into disciplined tactical contests where talent alone isn't enough. Real genius can make the difference, of course, but it is secondary to all the other more workmanlike/accessible if you apply yourself/earthly factors.
Click to expand...

I think thats why brazilian flair is dying, only neymar really has true flair in that side and he played in brazil for a good years and hasnt yet had time to be attuned to the european style of coaching completely.
 
Randall Flagg said:
He only played 3 games and was rushed back for the final, but he was clearly ready for it
Click to expand...

He had a hamstring injury in the group stages and made a record time come back for the finals. There were multiple calls for him to be sent back home but he eventually made it just for the finals, he was no way ready for it.
 
fishfingers15 said:
Baresi was a smooth operator. What a display in the 94 finals, and that too clearly not at his peak of his powers. Didn't he suffer a hamstring injury in the group stages? What a man and what a defender. Romario was in his back pockets all day.
Click to expand...

Yups, he was out, it was criminal that after all those years of Milan domination that fabled backline would have to lose him for the World Cup. It was one of the big ongoing soap operas of that World Cup, the ones that keep you searching for news: 1) Maradona's ephedrine positive, 2) Could Baresi recover before the tourno ended? The former ruled out a contender for the title, the latter was considered decisive to whether others had any hope.

Fecking penalties.

edit: no way he was ready, it made no sense that he would be ready and everyone half-expected him to break down at some point during the game and decide the tie. Nope.
 
fishfingers15 said:
He had a hamstring injury in the group stages and made a record time come back for the finals. There were multiple calls for him to be sent back home but he eventually made it just for the finals, he was no way ready for it.
Click to expand...
Sorry I meant for the game he came back for he was ready. I doubt it helped his injury in the long term at all
 
antohan said:
Yups, he was out, it was criminal that after all those years of Milan domination that fabled backline would have to lose him for the World Cup. It was one of the big ongoing soap operas of that World Cup, the ones that keep you searching for news: 1) Maradona's ephedrine positive, 2) Could Baresi recover before the tourno ended? The former ruled out a contender for the title, the latter was considered decisive to whether others had any hope.

Fecking penalties.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Italians also had Costacurta missing for the finals. I only remember Costacurta coz I thought he was an ice cream.
 
Randall Flagg said:
Sorry I meant for the game he came back for he was ready. I doubt it helped his injury in the long term at all
Click to expand...

He was super awesome for Milan the following year although he retired soon after for Italy. But he was already pushing 34 at that time. Following Milan was the thing to do then, they had Maldini, Costacurta, Baresi and Tassotti in defence and a string of attacking talent.
 
fishfingers15 said:
He was super awesome for Milan the following year although he retired soon after for Italy. But he was already pushing 34 at that time. Following Milan was the thing to do then, they had Maldini, Costacurta, Baresi and Tassotti in defence and a string of attacking talent.
Click to expand...

As a kid I saw him play in Amsterdam in 1994, CL group stages, against Ajax.
 
devilish said:
Seriously Antohan do you see any talent at par to Savicevic and Boban in that part of world?
Click to expand...

I've got a strong bias towards the Savicevic/Boban generation, but Modric is better than Boban imo. Savicevic was more lavishly gifted and trumps him on peak, but Modric has been much more consistent and is arguably on course to have the better career. I do agree with the overall point that the early-90s generation of talent in the former Yugoslavia was just crazy.

Both you and @Snow are taking quite extreme positions in this thread imo. I really don't think the overall quality of football has altered that much since the mid-1980s. The lack of quality in defenders is a very recent development and is probably just cyclical, and there's still a huge amount of quality in terms of attackers.
 
devilish said:
The difference is that back then there was a discrimination in favor of forwards. For example who was the most deserving player to win the ballon d'or, Baresi or Van Basten? Scirea or Platini? That would put fans of the same club in contrast with one another in a debate that would last hours. These days you don't have such debate. Ronaldo and Messi are better than all players out there and there's no one in other roles who is as good in what he does as Ronaldo/Messi are in theirs.
Click to expand...

Thats another highly contestable point given that arguably the most dominant central midfielder of all-time in Xavi is only just starting to decline. You've also got Philip Lahm who stacks up favourably against most full backs in history. There's been a definite decline at centre back and in box to box midfielders, but even that has been over the past 5, 10 or 15 years rather than since the mid-80s. Some of that is due to tactical and refereeing changes too.
 
Pat_Mustard said:
Thats another highly contestable point given that arguably the most dominant central midfielder of all-time in Xavi is only just starting to decline. You've also got Philip Lahm who stacks up favourably against most full backs in history. There's been a definite decline at centre back and in box to box midfielders, but even that has been over the past 5, 10 or 15 years rather than since the mid-80s. Some of that is due to tactical and refereeing changes too.
Click to expand...
Xavi and Lahm are freaks who stand out. It is very difficult to name a couple more players in their position who would compare favourably to their counterparts of the past, especially for Lahm. Also note that it is the same tactical changes that you blame for the decline of centre backs and box to box midfielders that enable the talents of a full back like Lahm to shine through. Current tactical setups produce very narrow midfields and also encourages wide forwards to come inside and run the channels between full back and centre back. As a result, full backs get the license to cover the entire touchline on their own, and therefore get much more limelight than they used to. For instance, it would be completely futile to compare Lahm with someone like Maldini whose primary role as a full back was to defend.
 
Red Dreams said:
Defined ball playing CB...

Rio was the closest I have seen.
Click to expand...

This won't be popular but I've always thought that Rio's quality on the ball was significantly overrated. He had a great first touch and ability to turn into space, but he was never a particularly progressive passer imo, not compared to the likes of Baresi anyway. This is a fairly random match compilation:



but I don't recall Rio ever being that progressive on the ball. Conversely, he was just an unbelievably good defender, and I'd have both him and Vidic ahead of Costacurta, who was slightly clumsy and error-prone in terms of elite defenders imo, whilst still being brilliant.

I was very young when I watched him play live but Baresi is still the best I've ever seen. @Decotron made a good call with McGrath though. Not as good as Baresi (noone was) but Baresi, McGrath and Kohler were the 3 that just struck me as super-human back then.
 
AtlMuppet said:
Xavi and Lahm are freaks who stand out. It is very difficult to name a couple more players in their position who would compare favourably to their counterparts of the past, especially for Lahm. Also note that it is the same tactical changes that you blame for the decline of centre backs and box to box midfielders that enable the talents of a full back like Lahm to shine through. Current tactical setups produce very narrow midfields and also encourages wide forwards to come inside and run the channels between full back and centre back. As a result, full backs get the license to cover the entire touchline on their own, and therefore get much more limelight than they used to. For instance, it would be completely futile to compare Lahm with someone like Maldini whose primary role as a full back was to defend.
Click to expand...


That works both ways, especially given that my reference point was Devilish re: the the late 1980s/early 1990s vs the modern era. If we take the right back position as an example, that incredible generation of Zanetti/Cafu/Thuram was sandwiched between the two eras. There's blatantly been no linear decline in quality there. Even in terms of box to box/well rounded midfielders, we had the incredible Rijkaard and Matthaus in the late 80s/90s, but we still had a brilliant generation incluing Keane, Davids and Vieira around the millenium. We lack any No. 9s to compare to Van Basten, but we've got Messi and Ronaldo.

I don't see any valid argument or reason why the quality of footballer would have declined that much since the 1980s. There's a clear argument as regards defenders, but as for the rest, I just don't see it.
 
The late 90's to early 00's was certainly the strongest era in recent times, don't know why the argument would be about the 80's. Currently there's just a lack of world class footballers, however I'm a firm believer that the next generation given the youth being developed will lead to better all round quality going around.
 
Scirea was better. Anyway, it's criminal to compare those. Baresi is absolute legend of the game. great leader on and off the field and one of the best defenders ever.
As an Italian supported has been treated to some of the greatest defenders the game has produced. Scirea, Baresi, Maldini, Nesta, Cannavaro, Costacurta, Bergomi, Gentile.
He may be overshadowed by his son, but Cesare Maldini was also a great defender in his time.
 
Pat_Mustard said:
That works both ways, especially given that my reference point was Devilish re: the the late 1980s/early 1990s vs the modern era. If we take the right back position as an example, that incredible generation of Zanetti/Cafu/Thuram was sandwiched between the two eras. There's blatantly been no linear decline in quality there. Even in terms of box to box/well rounded midfielders, we had the incredible Rijkaard and Matthaus in the late 80s/90s, but we still had a brilliant generation incluing Keane, Davids and Vieira around the millenium. We lack any No. 9s to compare to Van Basten, but we've got Messi and Ronaldo.

I don't see any valid argument or reason why the quality of footballer would have declined that much since the 1980s. There's a clear argument as regards defenders, but as for the rest, I just don't see it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, and I'm not disputing the broader point here. However, I would rank Matthaus and Rijkaard above Keane, Davids and especially Vieira.
 
Pat_Mustard said:
I really don't think the overall quality of football has altered that much since the mid-1980s.
Click to expand...

Tbh, I struggle to think of really great sides post 2000's. Barca circa 2006 was the best.Real Madrid of early 2000's are in contention, but after that it comes down to Milan (Pirlo-Kaka era) & Man Utd (treble side) come the closest. I would just rate the Barca as Great, Real as very good and others as good. The 80s-90s had Juventus (both the early 80s and mid 90s teams), Milan, Barcelona, Ajax and Liverpool etc are right there at the top.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Tbh, I struggle to think of really great sides post 2000's. Barca circa 2006 was the best.Real Madrid of early 2000's are in contention, but after that it comes down to Milan (Pirlo-Kaka era) & Man Utd (treble side) come the closest. I would just rate the Barca as Great, Real as very good and others as good. The 80s-90s had Juventus (both the early 80s and mid 90s teams), Milan, Barcelona, Ajax and Liverpool etc are right there at the top.
Click to expand...

Are you including right into the modern era mate? Honestly the Guardiola-era Barca is one of the very greatest teams ever imo, and Utd 2008 is right up there or better than mid-90s Juve or 1995 Ajax. With the Utd 2008 team, I think we lose track of quite how good our defence was. It compares with just about any unit ever imo.
 
AtlMuppet said:
Fair enough, and I'm not disputing the broader point here. However, I would rank Matthaus and Rijkaard above Keane, Davids and especially Vieira.
Click to expand...

Edgar Allan Pillow said:
They ARE better!
Click to expand...

I just cant bring myself to admit that Keane was inferior to anyone ever in his role, just purely out of personal bias and my feeling that he could make any midfield battle imaginable competitive. I totally agree that Matthaus/Rijkaard trumps even the circa-2000 vintage though.

Looking back through the thread, I seem to be the only one really defining things as current day vs late 80s/early 90s, so maybe I'm misrepreenting Devilish and Snow, but we need some sort of reference point and I dont think 2015 stacks up that badly vs say, 1990, and there hasn't been a linear decline imo.

I think we'd probably agree overall @AtlMuppet , when I say the overall standard has been fairly consistent, but defending has went to shit in the past few years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.