Weghorst would love him, the early crosses to him would be devastating.
How good was David Beckham?
- Thread starter Lord SInister
- Start date
He was a world class player and my player of the year in our treble season when there were so many players who had a great season too.
.
.
True. Beckham was supposedly the fittest at the club, smashing the bleep tests in preseason
Better than most realised. Appreciated more now after he's finished playing. The guy scored important goals .
It's like all that abject failure at international level never happened. He's going to win the World Cup for England all over again. It's like the fantasy never stops, even though the reality was something very different.
He wasn't as good on the right as Mohamed Salah for a start.
One of the things with Beckham, especially for England, is it made them one dimensional down the right as a team. If a deep cross wasn't put in, the ball simply went backwards or sideways. There was limited chance of Beckham taking on, dribbling past, or running past someone. This resulted in the ball keep running into dead ends, stopping momentum and going backwards. Also, during this period, England were terrible at keeping hold of the ball and Beckham was very much a part of that problem along with several others.
Last edited:
If this thread is still about David Beckham, the answer is that he was outstanding.
When the next England NT thread pops us, we can all have a laugh (or cry) at the failure of the Golden Generation teams to lift any trophies.
Beckham and Giggs are the reason why i hate inverted wingers. Creativity they had on the flanks was insane.
They play totally different positions ffs. Becks was a right winger who played the flanks and crossed from the byline in a 4-4-2 formation. Salah is basically a right sided striker in a 4-3-3 formation.
You can file your opinion alongside the likes of Darren fecking Bent and Agbonlahor.
They are/were both largely right wingers.
Last edited:
Beckham played far deeper and was more of a wide midfielder than a winger. His job was primarily to assist getting the right passes/crosses to the forwards & support in the defensive side of the game, which he was top notch at doing. Comparing Salah to Beckham is apples to oranges.
No they weren't/aren't. Salah plays as an inverted wide striker, Beckham was a right sided midfielder. By your logic, you could compare De Bruyne and Roy Keane on output as they were largely central midfielders.
Not really,
Beckham doesn't play on the wing in 2023. If he was playing now, he'd probably be on the right of a midfield 3 and would be one of the best in the world.
It's more like comparing apples to days of the week...
He wouldn't be a right winger anymore. He'd potentially even be a RB similar to Trent (But better defensively).
He had a great engine which gets overlooked. He could run all day (but not the quickest).
He had a great engine which gets overlooked. He could run all day (but not the quickest).
Their ability to always find a man in the box, no matter how crowded it was, was unreal. You just don't see that ability anymore, everyone wants to cut inside and shoot instead.
Why would you play one of your most effective game winners in defence?
Indeed. It begs the honest question - have some these posters "actually" seen Beckham play or are they basing their opinion out of wikipedia career statistics section?
I don't think they have. They'll be basing his ability on stuff like FIFA when they have a 'legend' in the game and they give them an average score so they don't completely wreck the balance of the game.
Those who saw him play week in week out know how good he was. His fashionista modelling image obscured just how great he was. The best crosser I've ever seen, an elite passer of the ball and an extremely hard worker. He wasn't fast or particularly skilful but within the context of a properly set-up team that wasn't an issue. World class.
He'd have been a centre mid in today's game, 100%. Isn't that where he played for Milan and PSG anyway?
Half the time Beckham was the only one who pulled his weight in that England team.
He was undoubtedly a world class player, or else Real Madrid wouldn't have brought him into their Galacticos team. He stood up as an equal amongst the likes of Ronaldo, Zidane and Figo. He might have been a little one dimensional but it's a bit like saying Messi was a one trick pony with his left foot.
Yep he did, they called it the "quarter back" position at the time because they didn't have a name for it yet, he'd have been in the KDB mould of player today.
Agreed he'd be a CM today.
Midfield 3 of Keane, Scholes & Beckham.
Giggs would likely be a RW.
Midfield 3 of Keane, Scholes & Beckham.
Giggs would likely be a RW.
If anyone was going to be KDB then Scholes was better at that and had better attributes in central areas. Beckham was never that good in the centre, and lacked certain attributes. KDB happens to have a good cross on him and so does Beckham but there's more to playing attacking midfield than that. Even at his peak, the idea of playing Beckham number 10, would have been seen as ridiculous. And he was tried in the defensive midfield, quarter-back role as well and he just didn't work well there.
Because he'd have space. It would accentuate his best attributes and hide his not so good ones. Like Alexander-Arnold.
I feel he is underated.
You hear bunch of people saying all Beckham could do was freekicks. Thats just bad knowledge.
That curved cross to R9 is probably the best cross i ever seen.
You hear bunch of people saying all Beckham could do was freekicks. Thats just bad knowledge.
That curved cross to R9 is probably the best cross i ever seen.
Scholes and KdB couldn't have been more different if they tried.
. Yeah he was never a centre mid. He just didn't have the tools. His best assets were long passes, crosses and strong work ethic/work rate/engine. He was a fantastic player though. Overrated during his career and now criminally underrated.
One of the, if not the, best crosser, free kick taker and shooting from long range I've seen at the club. All with a fantastic work ethic.
He really was so underrated by so many.
Legend.
He really was so underrated by so many.
Legend.
Agree with all of those things. Scholes playing the Eriksen role and Beckham some sort of JWP/KDB hybrid.
Yeah he struggled in the MO stages of the world cup, but his teammates weren't better. Your point stands though. He wsnt a world beater when they needed him to be one.
Again, not entirely sure it's a huge criticism. Beckham wasn't as good as any of the aforementioned, but there's a large chasm between being a world class player and a scrub. It doesn't mean he wasnt a good or even great player. He just wasn't at that elite level.
Why?
Their skillset is so different.
KdB is exceptional final third player, creating chances with through ball and crosses, Scholes was exceptional middle third player, he was more of a facilitator to the chance creating players.
KdB is a powerful runner with the ball, Scholes was never that. He was more intricate with his dribbling with quick feet, couple of steps and released the ball.
Scholes is one of the best ever at looking after the possession, KdB always tops the possession lost chart.
Scholes is a high volume, high pass completion player, KdB is a mid level volume and low pass completion player.
KdB has insane work rate, Scholes was comparatively low work rate player compared to his midfield teammates.
Only similarity between them is their hair color and overall player ability.
KdB's playing style and qualities are much more closer to Beckham.
And the most ignorant post of the day goes to....
Seriously, they are TOTALLY different players.
I think he'd play more in a Fernandes type role if he was about now. He was too direct to be a reliable CM imo but had more than enough ability to create in the same way Fernandes does. Plus he'd bang in 10+ goals from outside the box/freekicks a season, on top of goals from tap ins, runs into the box etc. and probably 10+ assists. Prime Beckham would be up there with the best players in the league just like he was at the time.
Think he went a bit shite after he came back from injury in 2003 and turned into Mr Hollywood ball, but prior to that he was a great player. Also one of those where even when the team was struggling you'd half expect him to do something ridiculous out of nothing and end up winning us the game anyway. I mean Giggs/Scholes were better for me, but I'm not sure they really had that in the same way Beckham did.
Think he went a bit shite after he came back from injury in 2003 and turned into Mr Hollywood ball, but prior to that he was a great player. Also one of those where even when the team was struggling you'd half expect him to do something ridiculous out of nothing and end up winning us the game anyway. I mean Giggs/Scholes were better for me, but I'm not sure they really had that in the same way Beckham did.
Think he'd pretty much be our best player in this team.
(Unfortunately) That's what I see when I see De Bruyne play, comparable playing styles BUT De Bruyne has a licence to go wherever he wants and (apart from pressing which is different) he doesn't have the same defensive responsibilities that Beckham had playing purely on the right side of midfield (when he played for us), 100% Beckham would play centre midfield -most likely to the right side with a defensive midfielder behind- if he played today.
Best crosser we have ever had in the team.
on the optic of internationals, his performance against greece, where he scored the free kick to qualify, is one of the finest international performances from anyone in any national team.
He dragged that team to the world cup, by the 80th minute the rest of the team had more or less given up.
on the optic of internationals, his performance against greece, where he scored the free kick to qualify, is one of the finest international performances from anyone in any national team.
He dragged that team to the world cup, by the 80th minute the rest of the team had more or less given up.
Scholes in his younger days was an exceptional final third player, he was a similar goal threat to De Bruyne and in understanding central midfield play. Yes you're right that De Bruyne had a lot more assists than Scholes. But Scholes and De Bruyne are better in tight spaces than Beckham ever was. Scholes was the best ever at looking after the ball when he moved to a primarily holding role from 2006 onwards, but it's not like he did it to that level for his whole career.