Burruchaga only played for mediocre French clubs sides. He wasn't all that.
Iniesta - Is there another? | Announces retirement
- Thread starter SAred
- Start date
Are we comparing their performances only in WC?
Even considering Zidane's suspension, and Thuram's goal (seriously overlooking other contributors like Blanc who had a splendid tournament), all the questions about the French pre tournament was about where the goals going to come from? If I'm not wrong, they had Thierry Henry and Djorkaeff as strikers and they contributed diddly squat.
Zidane's contribution was more than the 2 goals in the final, but then again, I remember Villa carrying Spain before he got injured. What did Iniesta do? It's a genuine question by the way.
If there's a player to obsess over, the Don is a good choice
Yes. Comparing Zidane at world 1998 to Iniesta at world cup 2010 to be precise.
1. Henry scored 3 times whilst only still a youngster. I wouldn't call it diddly squat to be fair.
2. Most of the French strikers in the tournament didn't score more than once but it didn't matter . France's strength was never upfront. Their true strength was in the imperiousness of the Blanc led defence and the Deschamp's marshaled midfield. Of which Zidane was the member with the most flair. (Rather than its general like was the case from the year 2000 onwards)
3. I only mentioned Thruam's semi final contribution to simply highlight that Zidane didn't make a stellar return to action even after his suspension. Rather than because I was overlooking some folks like Blanc.
It was. But it wasn't the type of contribution that carries a team to a world cup win as some think.
Fair question. 3 man of the match awards which included a wining goal in the final. He also wasn't sent off.
What else do you think people are forming their opinion on? Do you think Spoony watched Burruchaga play in France? Or Ruggeri in Argentina? Anyone who talks about that Argentina or Brazil squad talk about it from the 5/6/7 games in that tournament, and however many games they played in the tournaments either side of it. That said, you should take my opinion with a pinch of salt. Just as you should with anyone who didn't live in Argentina at that time. Or Brazil, or wherever.
He won the Intercontinental Cup against Liverpool and the Copa Libertadores with Independiente. It's not like Zico was a huge success in Europe either. You yourself said Burruchaga was good anyway!
I'm glad theres only six results on Spoony and "Burruchaga".......-_-
True, but I only got to see him play at the WC...seems strange that he spent the peak of his career at Nantes, considering he was probably Argentina's second best player in 86. As for Zico, his peak was at Flamengo...and wasn't he exactly a spring chicken when he moved to Udinese. But going back to Burrachaga...just how good was he? Was he considerably more than a goodish player?
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.
Brwned, you really are something else and I mean it in a very good way
I dunno, maybe Deco-level at his peak? Between 83-86 he won the Argentinian league, the Copa Libertadores (finishing top scorer), and the Intercontinental Cup with Independiente and then took Nantes to back-to-back 2nd place finishes (they've only finished in the top two once since then, in 25 years). Won foreign player of the year in '85-86 too. After that World Cup he had a load of trouble with injuries though, making just 16 league appearances over the next two seasons and overall he played more for Independiente in his three seasons there than he did in 7 seasons at Nantes. Hard to say how much more he would've achieved if it weren't for the injuries because you could see the effect they had on his game by the time Italia '90 came around. He was 28 then so should've been right in his prime but he lacked that same dynamism and burst of pace to take him past players.
I suppose the point is the Juventus and Madrid teams were not as dominant as Iniesta's Barcelona. They'd muster 60-70 points a season in competitive leagues stronger than the current La Liga where Barcelona cruise to 90+ every year. I've always challenged some of the myths surrounding Zidane and for me was only the third best player of his generation. Yet his consistency and end product would surely have improved in a team where he could benefit from 75% possession every week.
Averaged 5 shots per game so far for Spain. As many as Van Persie and they're only second to Ronaldo
So must be due a goal... Maybe tonight?
So must be due a goal... Maybe tonight?
His strike rate in La Liga last year was 1 goal every 25 shots so maybe not.
Hmm. Maybe you're right but from what I've seen he's trying very hard to get a goal in the previous matches.
If he could add goals to his game then I think the comparison to Zidane would become a whole lot more interesting. Should be scoring 15+ goals a season, he does everything but score really.
There was a point in the game where he was surrounded by like 5 players and got out of the situation without losing the ball.
Need ... to ... find ... gif ... ... QUICKLY
Need ... to ... find ... gif ... ... QUICKLY
Interesting, Ronaldo and? Rivaldo?
There was a point in the game where he was surrounded by like 5 players and got out of the situation without losing the ball.
Need ... to ... find ... gif ... ... QUICKLY
They see him..they tryna be him. They can't touch him.
Andres. 
Not much he can do about the scoring part tbh.
Iniesta: "I had problems scoring and I asked Pep for advice. He said: What do you want me to say, I only scored 4 goals in my career."
Iniesta: "I had problems scoring and I asked Pep for advice. He said: What do you want me to say, I only scored 4 goals in my career."
Aye that's right.
If a player can be this good without goals..
I agree about the scoring thing, though. As good a player as he is, goals would take him to another level. I've always loved his game, though. I don't like the teams he plays for, but I think he's the best player to watch right now in the game. Shame about the teams he plays for because I find them boring which makes me watch him less. Sigh.
Notice the Zidane-like hair(line) too.
Considering what he has achieved and how crucial he has been to the success of his teams, are there any midfielders in the history of the game that can be considered better than him at the same age?
IMO he has it in him to become THE best midfielder of all time, with him possibly having another 5-10 years at the very top. If he could add 10 goals to his tally in a season he could very well be the second best player in the world IMO.
IMO he has it in him to become THE best midfielder of all time, with him possibly having another 5-10 years at the very top. If he could add 10 goals to his tally in a season he could very well be the second best player in the world IMO.
EDIT, Perhaps not, seeing as there is a certain player called Maradona who was pretty much an attacking midfielder
no doubt rebel ins.
Just sublime again tonight. I had Pirlo as my player of the tournament, but after that I really have to reconsider.
magical player
Nope. There is no other. He's gliding over the pitch. Messi, Xavi, Iniesta. It's like having Maradona, Platini and Zidane in the same team. What a generation of players. Thank you, La Masia.
He is magic.
I wish he'd fall in love with us, and want to play for us
Much prefer him to Xavi. Great player.
Awesomeness
Same here. So multi dimensional.
Indeed.
His close control at speed is brilliant. But is he actually fast at sprinting?
Because I can't tell. He's so fast at dribbling, but I'm not sure about being fast without the ball.
Because I can't tell. He's so fast at dribbling, but I'm not sure about being fast without the ball.