Are you seriously trying to say Bale is better than R9 or Zidane?
Gareth Bale | Golfer, ex-Footballer, Elbower of racists, ***********, Golf Ambassador, Bar Owner, Real Legend, Defibrillator
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
Scrolling through this page of the thread, you seem adamant on downplaying his achievements at Real.
Tell me, would you have considered him a massive success if he had hit mega numbers like Ronaldo, yet still won the same amount of trophies that he has for Real?
If we are comparing all there individual spells at Madrid then yes he was more of a success at Madrid then them 2.
He was more successful with regards to trophies but does that make him better than them? Anderson won 4 premier league titles at United, does that make him better than Bryan Robson? Get a grip man, R9 and Zidane were better than Bale.
In your opinion. Bale is certainly better than Zidane in mine and he also has better hair.
R9 is the winner then
What a terrible analogy bringing Anderson into a comparison. Bale didn’t just win trophies he scored a lot of goals and made a lot of assists especially to Cristiano. Maybe you should be more open minded to the discussion instead.
Anderson and Bryan Robson WTF.
Edit: Bale had a better career at Madrid then them 2. Didn’t say Bale is a better overall R9 and Zidane were better OVERALL.
His face looks like a maskR9 is the winner then
Can you say what you mean by modern era and how you quantify influence and impact. And this is a genuine question as I'm curious to hear your thoughts explained more.
As someone that liked Bale and agrees with his points about the media, I just can't see how scoring some key goals in finals could make him more influential or have more impact on the team than Rooney did for us. Let alone Scholes or Giggs's impact for us and our success across the 90s, 00s and early 2010s.
[/QUOTE]
It`s Arya Stark.
yeah
Poor comparison. Bale was a key player in his heyday for Madrid and one of the very best players on the planet (top 5). Hi contribution to Madrid's sucess over the last 10 years cannot be overlooked and you can certainly say he has a strong case to being better for Madrid than Zidane was. He certainly was better and more pivotal for them than R9 was.
The stats don't lie. Was he more popular? Not even close. Which is why we are having this conversation.
I'm a big fan of Bale but this is just contrarian
Think he has been a success on the pitch (Trophies, Goals and Assists which are all that really matter anyway) and a bit of a failure off of it (No connection with the fans and open hostility with the media for a good while now).
Then again I can't really blame him for being arsey with the Real Madrid fan base/media because to me they come across as the most spoiled/entitled fan base and media in top level European football.
Then again I can't really blame him for being arsey with the Real Madrid fan base/media because to me they come across as the most spoiled/entitled fan base and media in top level European football.
Why? Because Zidanne, Figo and Ronaldo are more popular? The only reason Bale's accomplishments aren't taken as seriously as they should be is because he was playing with a freak of nature who everyone expected Bale to keep up to, and nobody could keep up with CR7 other than Messi. But compare his accomplishments to these former Real Madrid stars and if you are being honest with yourself, then you have to admit that there really is no comparison.
Sure, it might not be fashionable to say that Gareth Bale was better for Real Madrid than Zidanne, Figo and Ronaldo were, but that doesn't mean it's not true. It's not like we are picking stats to suit an argument. All 4 of these players played roughly the same amount of games for Real Madrid and Bale has better stats. And we aren't just talking about beating up on small clubs. Look at his record in finals.
Zidane is a legend for the volley he scored. Sorry, but Bale's goal was better and he has 8 more goals/assists in finals that have helped Real Madrid be as successful as they are. Zidane has one other...
Based on what? Popularity? Sure. Anything else? Nope. Did they score and assist more? Nope. Did they come up big in key moments more? Nope. Did they play a pivotal role in helping Real Madrid win more silverware? Nope. And you are comparing Bale's role to Andersons? Give your head a massive shake...
Why? Because Zidanne, Figo and Ronaldo are more popular? The only reason Bale's accomplishments aren't taken as seriously as they should be is because he was playing with a freak of nature who everyone expected Bale to keep up to, and nobody could keep up with CR7 other than Messi. But compare his accomplishments to these former Real Madrid stars and if you are being honest with yourself, then you have to admit that there really is no comparison.
Sure, it might not be fashionable to say that Gareth Bale was better for Real Madrid than Zidanne, Figo and Ronaldo were, but that doesn't mean it's not true. It's not like we are picking stats to suit an argument. All 4 of these players played roughly the same amount of games for Real Madrid and Bale has better stats. And we aren't just talking about beating up on small clubs. Look at his record in finals.
Zidane is a legend for the volley he scored. Sorry, but Bale's goal was better and he has 8 more goals/assists in finals that have helped Real Madrid be as successful as they are. Zidane has one other...
He may not go down as a Madrid "Legend" because of the off the field stuff but it is hard to argue that any of those 3 (as players) were individually as "Important" to the clubs success as Bale.
I understand why people can argue that they believe that any of the 3 were "better" (aesthetically / emotionally) than Bale but do their individual contributions match Bale's?
I know football is a team sport etc but usually players become legendary players at a club due to their on field contributions.
Had Bale played ball (and less golf
) with the fans and learned Spanish etc he would likely be held in much higher regard.Robben was a level above Bale. Not even close. And I loved Bale but Robben was incredible.
Zidane vs Bale
Scoring a few important goals doesn't make a player better. Zidane was miles better than Bale for Real Madrid and its not even a contest. RM fans would laugh at this ridiculous claim which only the modern football fan who looks at G/A and a few highlights of finals endlessly because they can't figure out anything beyond that. What next Ole was better for us than Keane and Scholes? Bloody hell
Scoring a few important goals doesn't make a player better. Zidane was miles better than Bale for Real Madrid and its not even a contest. RM fans would laugh at this ridiculous claim which only the modern football fan who looks at G/A and a few highlights of finals endlessly because they can't figure out anything beyond that. What next Ole was better for us than Keane and Scholes? Bloody hell
I didn't claim Bale was a better footballer than any of those players.
"I understand why people can argue that they believe that any of the 3 were "better" (aesthetically / emotionally) than Bale but do their individual contributions match Bale's?"
That claim isn't there.
In fact I stated that I understand why people argue that the other ones were better players ( I feel that Ronaldo and Zidane were better and would argue in their favor for example).
Saying that he contributed more to their success on the field (More League and Champions league trophies?) isn't a ridiculous claim.
Trying to reduce my statement to a Ole vs Scholes/ Keane debate is ridiculous (They both won more trophies for united than Ole did for a start and were better overall players.)
As far as this goes;
"RM fans would laugh at this ridiculous claim which only the modern football fan who looks at G/A and a few highlights of finals endlessly because they can't figure out anything beyond that."
I admire your ability to be condescending while simultaneously having an inability to read and comprehend what people say, that's truly a talent.
What makes you think I'm a modern football fan who looks at goals and assists and a few highlights endlessly because I can't figure out anything beyond that?
Apart from the fact Im a "Newbie" around here you don't know anything about me
a quick look at your profile and I know you are younger than me for example.(Add that to the fact you have an enormous amount of posts on a football forum and you probably fit the profile of a modern day football fan more than I do)
I'd probably be insulted by your (baseless) jibes if the foundation for them wasn't your own ignorance/ arrogance.
Last edited:
Giggs was never the main character in a team - he was more of a support act for all his career albeit with moments where he took the game by storm ... compare that to Bale for Spurs, his performance vs Maicon being a key example.
What he did for Wales, Giggs would not be able to do - very difficult to carry a small team on your own back at any level of football let alone international. Giggs lacked the mentality to be able to pull this off and I don’t think he has the ability to be the star attacker and be the main goal threat etc. Bale is more powerful and has more of that main character energy.
As for Real, he was a support act but the moments he had in the biggest games - his numbers were also superior - scoring at almost 1 in 2 for 4 seasons before injury struck and the whole golfer phase kicked in. Giggs has scored only more than 10 goals twice in his entire career. His only advantage is longevity and superior agility but Bale is simply a better matchwinner.
Scholes similar - his England career doesn’t come anywhere near Bale for Wales. Can you imagine a prime Bale in some of the England sides Scholes got to play in and imagine Bale not having a greater impact considering their position (pound for pound).
Bale would have ended up being United’s star player whereas Scholes as much as he was an integral part of United as he matured, I again do not see Scholes dominating the side - it wasn’t really his character to be the star for a prolonged period. His moment against Barca in 2008 feels more of an exception than the norm... I can remember him being excellent against Real in those infamous galactico losses in 2003 but how many big game memories do we really have of Scholes compared to Xavi, Modric?
Rooney for me should on paper be ahead of Bale in terms of talent. If someone was to argue for him over Bale they would have a decent argument on their hands. He did have that main character energy but by playing second fiddle to Ronaldo and only ever starring at Euro 2004 (flopped every other tournament) in a far superior side whereas Bale Euro 2016 is as good if not better, followed by a solid Euro 2020 and we shall see if he gets them to a World Cup.
For real he was a support act to Ronaldo just like Rooney was but look at how he transcended that to score in big moments for Real where Ronaldo looked lost. Rooney had a greater propensity to getting pocketed. Having said that Rooney did lead a United team to 10/11 final, and in 09/10 was dominating Europe before injury at Bayern.
It’s more of a closer call. I can definitely imagine young Rooney having that impact on Spurs. I can also imagine him taking Wales to new heights. He could be talismanic.
The problem with Bale is his sharp decline. He was such an exhilarating player to watch.
Wow. When you see them lined up like that it's mad, provided those are all correct stats. He has been great for Real, and has played a great number of games when you consider he seems to be always injured.
Not even just his decline but the way he's practically given up on his club career. It's like he's decided that he'd rather make Madrid pay him every penny they promised than succeed elsewhere. He's great for Wales so I'm not sure he's declined; he's just stopped caring.
Zidane vs Bale
Yes...Zidane vs Bale. What makes Zidane a better Real Madrid player than Bale? Did he score more goals? No. Did he assist more? No. Did he bring more silverware? No. Did he score more important goals? No. So what makes Zidane a better Real Madrid player than Bale? You are basing your opinion on one thing and one thing only. Popularity. Sorry, but the facts prove you wrong
Zidane vs Bale
Both really good players. peak bale was truly world class. It’s really not that funny Zidane just had a cooler name and didn’t outstay his welcome (he was also a class act, no denying that).
Zidane could pass better, had a better first touch, could do things with the ball in close quarters that Bale could only dream of, and was more creative. You're boiling this down to stats and trophies and nothing else. Do you think that Ole was a better player than Alan Shearer? I mean, he won more. Bale was brilliant but his stats being better than Zidane prove nothing other than he played in a better team.
14 titles. Feck me that's a lot.Based on what? Popularity? Sure. Anything else? Nope. Did they score and assist more? Nope. Did they come up big in key moments more? Nope. Did they play a pivotal role in helping Real Madrid win more silverware? Nope. And you are comparing Bale's role to Andersons? Give your head a massive shake...
The only facts you lot can see is goals and trophies (more due to other better players than Bale who wouldn't even be in their top 4-5 players?) because that's the 5 year old mentality of fans these days. feck passing, playmaking, beating the press, controlling the game, actually being good in the guild up rather than a hindering, first touch, ability in tight spaces and so on.
We should let RM fans decide who was better from Madrid so we can laugh at you even more. Moronic to suggest Zidane being better for RM has to do with popularity.
Definitely has nothing to do with playing in a much better team. Absolutely nothing.
Park Ji Sung>>Bryan Robson
Funnily all the biggest titles came under... Zidane.
Whoever scored more goals and assists is the best. Christ, it’s like arguing with kids. Why even bother typing out arguments? Just copy and paste Wikipedia stats and save yourself the time and energy if that’s the only way to determine who was better.
Whilst I appreciate the detailed reply I couldn't disagree with you more on some points and struggle how anyone could find a way of calling Scholes or Giggs support acts, unless you basically say everyone is a support act where the team has multiple WC stars.
Given the positions it seems logical to take Scholes out of this debate as he matured into his best version of himself later on and really hit greatness further back. So as a AM he wasn't as good as Bale. But as a midfielder dictating play he was definitely up there with Xavi and Modric. And your point about replacing him in the England team with Bale was exactly what people said about Giggs when we didn't have anyone to play on the left. It wasn't a reflection on any of the midfielders at the time but a sign of how wedded the managers were to using 442 without a left winger. That point would have applied to any decent left winger as it would have finally given the team balance. Arguably if he hadn't retired we would have had a lot more success once we had become more sophisticated as an international team because you could have had Scholes sitting, Hargreaves harrassing and Gerrard playing his more attacking role.
As an aside, as much as I hate Gerrard, what he accomplished also put him in this debate given your talk of being a talisman. As do Beckham's achievements albeit over a shorter period of time. He was a tour de force for United and England for a couple of seasons and every bit as good as Bale. Unfortunately we have a way of forgetting when things end on bad terms. Beckham touring Europe on loan has had a similar impact to Rooney playing too long on our memories of how great they were.
As for Giggs, although he changed his style of play and was no longer the original great he was the United poster boy of the 90s and 00s, up there with Cantona and Beckham and definitely never a support act. Memories of him tearing hardcore Arsenal and Juventus defenses to shreds with mazy runs.
On Rooney I'm glad you agree he was good. The only thing is I disagree with the general narrative that he played second fiddle to Ronaldo. Maybe Ronaldos last season but generally their game complimented each other. It wasn't like how Real eventually adapted their team to completely be built around Ronaldo. We were flexible with interchanging attackers and the workload was more taken on by midfield and defenders.
The way he trolls Madrid (whether deliberate or not) is a thing of beauty. I’m starting to respect the pure shithousery of him being injured for months on end then miraculously turning up fit for Wales then deciding games.
In this aspect he is my idol. Usually a player has to decide whether to be a shithouse and ruin his career or be nice and climb their career with a lot of hardwork. In recent years Bale has somewhat found the equilibrium point of him generally not giving a feck after years of hardwork and he still got paid while golfing and doing whatever he wants. And nobody can say he ruined his career because he won so much including 4 CL titles. His stats arent bad either.
But he did Real Madrid dirty so I wouldnt mind. And the normies will look up to him as a successful player from the trophy count alone.
That's fine. And Madrid have a lot of successful players from this past generation of theirs. There's a difference between being a successful player and better for RM than Zinedine Zidane.
Yup.
I don't think Bale was much better than Zidane, R9 of Figo for Madrid.
Cristiano's Real was just a much better team than Galacticos's Real ever was, only in 2002-2003 season they were comparable to Cristiano's Real level.
They probably could have achieved more if not for Florentino Perez kicking Makelele, biggest mistake ever made by Florentino.
Bale had 4 good seasons out of 8 at Madrid = 50% rate
Zidane and Ronaldo 3 good season at Madrid out of 5 = 60% rate
And Figo being the most consistent Galáctico, he was good for Real most of his seasons, team was just disjointed as F after losing Makelele.
I think Bale is very underrated(as well as Benzema) for playing along GOAT Ronaldo, but i doubt his individual performances were better than Figo, Zidane, or R9, Cristiano's real was a much more balanced and organized than the Galácticos team, it's not even close
.
Cristiano's Real was just a much better team than Galacticos's Real ever was, only in 2002-2003 season they were comparable to Cristiano's Real level.
They probably could have achieved more if not for Florentino Perez kicking Makelele, biggest mistake ever made by Florentino.
Bale had 4 good seasons out of 8 at Madrid = 50% rate
Zidane and Ronaldo 3 good season at Madrid out of 5 = 60% rate
And Figo being the most consistent Galáctico, he was good for Real most of his seasons, team was just disjointed as F after losing Makelele.
I think Bale is very underrated(as well as Benzema) for playing along GOAT Ronaldo, but i doubt his individual performances were better than Figo, Zidane, or R9, Cristiano's real was a much more balanced and organized than the Galácticos team, it's not even close
.