How do you think he compares with the likes of Stam, Ferdinand or Vidic? Or even Bruce, Pallister and Johnsen?
Well, the first thing I will say is I was 10 when Stam played in the 1999 Champions League final for us, so can't really claim to be able to offer a real opinion on him as a player. I know he was labelled a massive flop by the press after we got destroyed 0-3 by Arsenal on his debut, but he eventually shook that tag off to be regarded as a good player. That being said, we were a much, much better side then, so again, hard to say.
Ferdinand and Vidic was my era. This was when I was most engaged with football, going every week etc....I would say both players were better than Maguire. Ferdinand in particularly was an absolute Rolls-Royce. I loved Vidic, but I felt Rio would be as good in any team with any partner, whereas I think it suited Vidic to have Rio beside him.
I do wonder how Vidic would have gotten on in this United side, especially with our ill-advised/poorly executed efforts to play 'progressive' football. Vidic wasn't quick, and like Maguire relied on hitting opponents hard and earlier to avoid being exposed. We saw what happened when a quick, nippy player got about Vidic on a couple of occasions vs Torres. I was at that 1-4 defeat at OT and believe me, Vidic's performance that day was worse than anything I have ever seen by Maguire.
So, yeah, before the idiot-brigade get my point confused, I am not claiming Maguire is better than Vidic, I am just saying I think Ferdinand was probably the best CB I have ever seen, and Vidic had the benefit of playing next to him AND in a very successful side. So it's not strictly a like-for-like comparison.
Bruce and Pallister not worth comparing. Football was basically a different sport then. CBs sat 30 yards from their own goal and headed/kicked/tackled anything that moved in-front of them. Both great players of a time I am sure, but I think comparisons are pointless.
I think it's always important not to make comparisons in a vacuum, and to understand the context in which a players' form/ability is being evaluated. I could say, for example, that Bruce was never capped by England, and Pallister was never a regular, whereas Maguire is selected every game. It wouldn't be a perfect comparison because we can debate the relative strength or weaknesses of England's CB options, but you could (I stress *could*) question how good Bruce could REALLY be to be NEVER capped by England. Again, before my time, and who cares, he won titles at United and was a key player - but again, I stress, in a much better side.
I think it's much more relevant to compare current players. For example, a poster said earlier Maguire was "Championship standard", which you would think there is objective evidence against. Since there are about 30 English CBs playing regularly in the PL and Maguire is selected above all of these for England, you would think probably fair to say, subjectively, that that is a stupid comment. Likewise, some people say Maguire isn't top 4 standard. Again, why not compare with other players who do play for top four clubs regularly (or clubs in that region of the table). Maguire is selected above Stones, Dier, Coady and Ben White for England. Again, someone else's opinion (a qualified football manager) is that Maguire is better than these players.