Hallucinogen is still right. Ronaldo wasn't the same player after his injuries around 2000. I mean it was SO visible to the eye how his accelaration and the way he dribbled the ball changed. As a player he went from "Messi level" to "Henry level", if you like. From all time great to great. The international stage has only seen the real Ronaldo in 98. Ironically when something still unknown happened to him in that final and Brazil basically played with 10 men to lose to Zidane's France.
Iniesta - Is there another? | Announces retirement
- Thread starter SAred
- Start date
Hallucinogen is still right. Ronaldo wasn't the same player after his injuries around 2000. I mean it was SO visible to the eye how his accelaration and the way he dribbled the ball changed. As a player he went from "Messi level" to "Henry level", if you like. From all time great to great. The international stage has only seen the real Ronaldo in 98. Ironically when something still unknown happened to him in that final and Brazil basically played with 10 men to lose to Zidane's France.
Ronaldo was nowhere near the level he was before and that point remains.
Sure he was pretty good but that was not what I said.
But even then he was good enough that when Benzema mentioned Ronaldo as his hero and looked sheepishly towards Zidane who was sitting besides him, Zidane replied that don't worry he was my hero too.
A player who Zidane said could do things in training that were unbelievable and amazed him, the punchline was that he was talking about the fat Ronaldo.
This is why he is talked of with awe. Greatness is personal opinion. One man saying he is the greatest of all time is not a far stretch from you saying he's one of the greatest. When you talk of players in the upper echelons of football history, which Zidane is in, just how great a player is considered is subjective. For many people growing up after the era's of Maradonna/Pele/Cryuff etc, Zidane would have been legitimately viewed on as the best player they'd seen. He has a legitimate claim to being the best of his generation. Any awe Zidane is discussed with is certainly deserved.
Did you actually read the point made with my Ronaldo comment, or what it was replying to?
It was in reply to someone suggesting Zidane only took headlines because he didn't have a great teammate to take them from him, unlike Iniesta who has Messi to compete with in the headline stakes. That Zidane stood out in a team and in an era in which original Ronaldo played is a testament to his undoubted greatness.
Yeah I did, the Benzema part I strayed off topic but my point simply was that Ronaldo quite simply was not on the same level anymore, Zidane would not have stood out so much if Ronaldo din't have those injuries that I completely believe.
Deserved but one that I don't necessarily agree with, not that he is one of the legends of all time..that he definitely is but rather when someone goes over the top when talking about Zidane.
I guess it was also down to Maradona that the Argentinian defense let in only 2 goals from open play in 6 games to make it to the final.
I don't see how anyone suggesting he was better than Iniesta is is going over the top. Zidane is rightfully a legend. Don't get me wrong here, Iniesta is a cracking player, an absolute joy to watch, but he's in a level below Zidane. He has good company there though, because there are plenty of world class players in that level below Zidane.
I wasn't saying that its over the top that he is better than Iniesta, I was talking more generally and about some comments here.
I already said I rate him higher than Iniesta but it is not unfathomable that Iniesta can reach his level or surpass him, the difference imo is not that great.
Zidane is one of the 3 best players that I've seen enough full games of to make a judgement on.
Maradona being the best, then Messi and then Zidane. ZZ deserves every bit of praise he gets, he was a magical player. To play in a side with Ronaldo (ok after his injuries), Figo and Raul and to look 2 classes above all of them is astonishing both in technique and style.
Well, if you have Maradona running 40 yards with the ball you can defend deeper than other teams that don't have Maradona.
OK, if you rate the rest of the team then have at it. They certainly aren't Brazil 82, just a workman-like side with 2 great forwards, in my opinion.
Maradona being the best, then Messi and then Zidane. ZZ deserves every bit of praise he gets, he was a magical player. To play in a side with Ronaldo (ok after his injuries), Figo and Raul and to look 2 classes above all of them is astonishing both in technique and style.
Well, if you have Maradona running 40 yards with the ball you can defend deeper than other teams that don't have Maradona.
OK, if you rate the rest of the team then have at it. They certainly aren't Brazil 82, just a workman-like side with 2 great forwards, in my opinion.
I think very few here would have heard of Boban.
Well when he was in his pomp he looked a class above his legendary A.C. Milan team mates and better than Zidane back then who was plying his trade at Juventus, I wish his name was better known because if he had played for a prominent country I feel his name would have been right up there.
Not related to the discussion in any way but the sheer talent in the 90's greatly astounds me.
Well when he was in his pomp he looked a class above his legendary A.C. Milan team mates and better than Zidane back then who was plying his trade at Juventus, I wish his name was better known because if he had played for a prominent country I feel his name would have been right up there.
Not related to the discussion in any way but the sheer talent in the 90's greatly astounds me.
Boban was an immense player. And I agree, the 90's was a great era for football.
Has anyone ever watched the film Zidane? Even when he wasn't on the ball and was doing nothing in particular he had a presence and an aura about him. A truly great player and should rightfully be remembered as one if the greats.
The point I disagreed with was that Iniesta doesn't get the headlines because he plays in a team and an era that consists of Messi and C. Ronaldo whereas when Zidane was stealing headlines he didn't have the same competition. It is this assertion I don't agree with. Zidane played in an era where the likes of Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Figo, Beckham amongst others were there to steal headlines. It's been said already that Ronaldo was at his best in 98. Who stole the headlines that year? Zidane scored winning goals in a world cup final and champions league final.
Zidane didn't steal headlines because there was nobody around to steal them from him, he stole headlines because he was a truly world class player capable of producing massive performances on the biggest of stages.
Headlines? Iniesta's making headlines when he's not even playing. Whenever the Argentinian national team fails, Iniesta's name is mentioned: "Messi needs Iniesta to score." Can Zidane beat that? Thought so.
I never said Iniesta doesn't, hasn't or won't make headlines. I was arguing the point that Zidane only grabbed headlines because nobody was good enough to make them while he was playing.
feck sake, have you bothered to read the thread you're arguing in?
um actually the game against Ukraine was the first European championship game that France had won without either Zidane or Platini.. So for the fun of it the 'headline' would have been 'France can't win without Zidane'
You're taking things a bit too seriously here. We all know that no one was ever able to outshine Zidane when he graced the pitch. Thuram never heroically sent France to the finals in 1998 with 2 goals in a 2-1 victory that remain his only 2 goals in 142 caps for France, in a tournament in which Zidane decided to get sent off and suspended for 2 games. Zidane never got nullyfied against Greece in a EC quarter final. Crooked Ronaldo never scored a hattrick at Old Trafford. Ronaldinho never got applauded in the Bernabeu, humiliating Zidane's Real Madrid 3-0. The great Juventus side of Nedved, del Piero and Trezeguet never sent Zidane home with a 3-1 trashing in the Champions League semis. And the Bernabeu never booed Zidane because he only put his big game shows on when Mercury and Venus stood in a certain constellation in a 6 - 12 month rhytm, winning 1 La Liga title in 5 years. He decided a WC final and a CL final though. NO other footballer has done that before. Especially not Iniesta. #headlinemaker
This "headline" thing is hilarious, especially on a Manchester United forum. If headlines is anything to go by, Paul Scholes was a pub player.
Once again, ignoring the fact that the headline point wasn't mine, and that the only mention I made of it was that Zidane didn't only make headlines because of a lack of competition or that he had no world class teammates/rivals to compete with.
Not once did I say that Iniesta doesn't make headlines, nor did I say that Zidane was the only person to make headlines during his era. I didn't even say he made more headlines than other players, I merely pointed out that he was a great player who played in an era where there were other great players around, both as teammates and as rivals.
Try reading what you're arguing about, and who you're arguing with. You're arguing the point with a person who didn't make it.
Not once did I say that Iniesta doesn't make headlines, nor did I say that Zidane was the only person to make headlines during his era. I didn't even say he made more headlines than other players, I merely pointed out that he was a great player who played in an era where there were other great players around, both as teammates and as rivals.
Try reading what you're arguing about, and who you're arguing with. You're arguing the point with a person who didn't make it.
Zidane's era was full of world class players, no doubts. They didn't have a single Messi though, scoring 82 and assisting 30+ goals in a season, becoming Barcelona's all time top scorer at age 24, scoring a record 5 goals in a single CL knockout round, breaking a La Liga record by scoring 50 goals in 37 games, breaking the CL top goalscorer record for a season and breaking another 2 dozen of different records I can't quite remember now. All in a single season of course. I'm afraid Raul, Figo, crooked Ronaldo and the likes don't quite compete in that regard, as world class as they were. If Messi didn't exist, Iniesta would have won a Ballon d'Or by now. If Messi and C. Ronaldo didn't exist, Xavi would have won 2 Ballon d'Ors by now. That's life.
I've argued with none of this, but since it seems like you're completely ignoring what I've actually said, I'm out.
Eh, I didn't say you argued against it. I'm making a general point for those who did (I think Chief brought the whole "headline" thing up). Sorry for quoting you then. Quoting you doesn't mean I'm just talking to you.
Eh, I didn't say you argued against it. I'm making a general point for those who did (I think Chief brought the whole "headline" thing up). Sorry for quoting you then. Quoting you doesn't mean I'm just talking to you.
I actually agree with you that it's nigh on impossible for players playing currently to get the recognition they probably deserve when Messi and Ronaldo are around. A player like Iniesta probably should have won a Ballon D'or at some point, he's a superb player, but these awards are being dominated by two players who are out on their own presently (I'm not about to join the debate on who is better, it's tiresome).
My only point was simply that Zidane had competition for awards, headlines, recognition etc as well. He played in an era where there were some truly superb players. He played, succeeded, and gained recognition in the same era as Ronaldo, even before the injuries, and as far as I'm concerned original Ronaldo is also up there with the Pele, Maradonna, Cryuff, etc of this world. I think it's unfair to suggest that Zidane stood out through a lack of competition. I was making no comment on the competition Iniesta faces, just suggesting the competition Zidane faced was being somewhat underestimated.
He was in fact comfortably superior.
Definitely arguable. Maybe you could add an IMO at the end.
I don't think Valdano looked much better than Burruchaga, in fact I'd argue the opposite. Ruggeri certainly wasn't average. Other than it was full of intelligent, disciplined, tactically aware, dependable players. Giusti, Batista and Enrique were certainly unspectacular but they were all good players. Can you really judge the quality of the defenders on the basis of such a few games? They ended up with one of the best defensive records in the tournament, conceding just 3 goals upto the final. And all this appreciation for Maradona takes a lot of the credit away from Bilardo bringing back the 3-man defence which surely had an effect.
Brazil '82 it was not but that goes both ways - Brazil conceded twice as many goals in as many games (5) in that tournament, so their defence was clearly worse, and they had Serginho and Eder up front compared to Maradona and Valdano. At either end they were a more effective unit and had more gifted players than that Brazil team. It's only in the midfield that Brazil outclasses Maradona's side, and that's the source of the 'Argentina were average' myth. They had a functional midfield and that's the only part of the team that left a lasting impression, it seems.
fecking hell brwned, how old were you in 82 and 86?
I was -9 in '82. Roughly about the same age as Drainy I'd imagine.
Argentina were a workman-like team in 86, with Maradona carrying nearly all of the attacking threat. When I say average, I'm not talking average as in you'd see them on the bench at Fulham style average.. its probably the wrong way to describe them because it does take away some of their strengths which you noted (full of intelligent, disciplined, tactically aware, dependable players... workman-like) but there wasn't much imagination, flair or technical skill in that midfield at all, but they didn't need to have because Maradona was incredible.
With the Brazil 82 side if it wasn't one played that was ripping you to pieces it was another or another. Take one player out, yes the team would be weaker but you'd expect another player to step up and create. I'd speculate that Argentina 86 if Maradona missed the tournament with injury the team would have struggled to create chances because he carried so much of the threat of that team.
I'm 26, btw. So I was -4 during the 1982 World Cup, I'm just lucky to have worked with a guy who recorded and kept tapes of all televised games from the World Cups and European Championships since 1982. He loaned me his VHSs for some of the 1982 Brazil games, 1986 Argentina and 1990 (mostly Argentina but also some England to show me how overrated Gazza was in that tournament)
Boban and Prosinecki could fecking play.
The point of the matter is Iniesta forms part of a triumvirate which is largely responsible for the one of the greatest (arguably the greatest) club sides ever. Iniesta is a magician, I play in midfield and the things you see the lad do when it comes to finding space and spotting runs is just incredible. I haven't seen a player maybe since Ronaldinho (yes I'm including Zizou in this) who is so placid on the ball wherever you give it to him. Give it to him anywhere, he takes it down and starts to play. Perhaps the best time for any comparison is at the end of his career, by which time I think Iniesta will have left Zidane behind.
Pffft, who needs VHS' when you've got the internet.
I do obviously agree that it wasn't a great Argentina side, but I think there's a long way between great and average. Just because they weren't technically excellent or full of flair it doesn't mean they were an average side. If it did, that would mean England's greatest ever side were average! Look at it that way - England in '66 had Moore, Charlton and Greaves (+ Banks) and then there was a significant drop in terms of technique/quality. Is that really so different from Ruggeri, Maradona, Valdano (+ Burruchaga)? I wouldn't say so, even though Argentina's equivalent supporting 3 aren't as good. Would England have won the World Cup without their supreme technician in Charlton? Again, I wouldn't say so. It doesn't make them an average side though, for me. It just makes them an otherwise functional side.
That doesn't take away from Maradona's achievements though, it's still the closest thing to a one-man team that's been done before - even more so than the Napoli success, because Careca looked a class above any of those Argentina players - and it wasn't a great Argentina side. Just compare it to 4 years ago when they had Ardiles, Kempes and Passarella - very possibly all better players than any in the '86 team - and yet they finished with 0 points in the 2nd round of group stages, which in other words means they didn't even finish in the top 10 places in the tournament. '86 was a phenomenal achievement for Maradona. It was a great achievement for Bilardo and his well balanced squad too, though.
I do obviously agree that it wasn't a great Argentina side, but I think there's a long way between great and average. Just because they weren't technically excellent or full of flair it doesn't mean they were an average side. If it did, that would mean England's greatest ever side were average! Look at it that way - England in '66 had Moore, Charlton and Greaves (+ Banks) and then there was a significant drop in terms of technique/quality. Is that really so different from Ruggeri, Maradona, Valdano (+ Burruchaga)? I wouldn't say so, even though Argentina's equivalent supporting 3 aren't as good. Would England have won the World Cup without their supreme technician in Charlton? Again, I wouldn't say so. It doesn't make them an average side though, for me. It just makes them an otherwise functional side.
That doesn't take away from Maradona's achievements though, it's still the closest thing to a one-man team that's been done before - even more so than the Napoli success, because Careca looked a class above any of those Argentina players - and it wasn't a great Argentina side. Just compare it to 4 years ago when they had Ardiles, Kempes and Passarella - very possibly all better players than any in the '86 team - and yet they finished with 0 points in the 2nd round of group stages, which in other words means they didn't even finish in the top 10 places in the tournament. '86 was a phenomenal achievement for Maradona. It was a great achievement for Bilardo and his well balanced squad too, though.
You are one seriously dedicated mutha fecka Brwned
Disturbingly obsessed, more like.
wow. nice collection!
I see your point, but I think my point still stands that Maradona was pretty unique in the list of 'greatest of all time' players in that he achieved far more with more responsibility on his shoulders than others.
edit: also where the hell did you find them all?
I see your point, but I think my point still stands that Maradona was pretty unique in the list of 'greatest of all time' players in that he achieved far more with more responsibility on his shoulders than others.
edit: also where the hell did you find them all?
Brwned, please tell me you haven't watched all of those?
Nope, it was just easier to download all the games from the World Cup rather than picking and choosing specific ones, that's why there's more than one version (commentary) for so many of those games. I've watched that many games throughout the history of the World Cup though, for sure. Each to their own. Maybe I'll have watched so many games by the time I'm in my mid-20s that I'll get tired of football that much earlier than others, and it'll all even itself out...
Bloody hell
It isn't. Zidane served a suspension at world cup 1998. Upon his return it was actually Thuram that got his team to the final rather than Zidane magic. Zidane's main achievement at world cup 98 was to score 2 of the goals in the final.
Even if you did see all of that shit Brwned, can you form an opinion of the player by watching him in the tournament? We see so much of football today and scouts and managers don't really sign players based on one tournament, do they?
You can't seriously form an opinion of a player/side by watching the game downloads. The only thing you can say by watching them is how a game progressed and how a player impacted the game in that particular match.
Maybe it's me, but I'm going to take your opinion on the Argentina 86 squad and the Brazil 82 squad with a pinch of salt. And for that matter, Drainy's too.
You can't seriously form an opinion of a player/side by watching the game downloads. The only thing you can say by watching them is how a game progressed and how a player impacted the game in that particular match.
Maybe it's me, but I'm going to take your opinion on the Argentina 86 squad and the Brazil 82 squad with a pinch of salt. And for that matter, Drainy's too.