Not shit but hardly brilliant either, i dont think 2 years at the top of your game make you a legend at a club, that's just me though.
But one great season is enough to make you declare Messi has proved " the best of his generation" in your opinion? Sounds fishy to me that.
Big big differences, on the one hand Henry was actually excellent for Monaco which is why he got his move to Juve,
Lets be honest he was no better at Monaco than Ron was at Sporting lisbon.
Juve didnt know how to deploy him, keeping him on the wing where he was ineffective.
Actually tbf he was a good winger at Monaco. Capable of playing upfront.
We all know what happend when Wenger got him at arsenal. What age was he when he joined Arsenal? 22? 23? he made an imediate impact.
No. He took just under 2 years to go from being good to absolutely brilliant.
Zidane was a playmaker, generally a position that required more time to mature into. Whilst a manager will gladly have a young winger out wide they think twice before allowing a young orchestrator a free reign in the side. He was already a full france international before joining Juve.
Which is isn't the issue. The issue is before he hit 25 he wasn't all that. But in just 2 years, i.e age 25 and 26, he did wonders for Bordeaux and France, then Juve and was in not time the best on the planet.
It is very normal for a player in a central midfield position to enjoy his finest years between the ages of 25 and onwards, that is quite obvious to all.
Clearly. But going from good to absolutely great in a short time is what I was pointing out.
It happens more often than you were willing to admit.
Ballack at 25 was leading Leverkusen to the champions league final etc, and again as a central midfielder it is very common to mature and be a better player.
Which isn't the issue. Below 25 he was not even close to talents like Messi, Fabregas or Rooney. That is why his improvement was more dramatic and prounced. Players like Rooney and Fabregas will reach such heights much slower because of how mature they were when they were really young.
That is why I keep stating that a Ronaldo has much more scope for all round improvement than a Messi.
As a winger it is much more common to get more playing time at a top side because you can afford to not be in games. A central midfielder must have disapline and that comes with maturity.
But playing time is not the issue. It's rate of development that is. If it was just about playing time a player like Lennon would be as almost as good as Messi and Ron by now.
From what I've seen of the football world, players who are very mature at young ages usually take longer to make the next steps in their development. Because they don't really have far to go to be finished articles. Rooney and Fabregas are great examples of this. They wont improve at a rate of a Ron. Same as Messi. The things they are left reaching for are things which mainly experience and age brings. That is why you won't see a Messi a make a Roanld like quantum leap in development. He will instead just get more consistent, physically stronger and develop better awareness.
While players like Ronaldo or Zizou who were raw at young ages, tend to climb the chain of development super fast. Even in a period of 2 seasons they can go from good to fecking brilliant. Yet still have things to add to their games. Like can eb sen with Ronaldo. That is why even, for example, between 96 and 99 Zizou just got better and better, as he matured in all aspects of his play.
and Kanu Nwankwo were considered better talents than he'd ever be? Years down the road after his massive flop at Juve. Just 2 years under Wenger he went from a failed winger to possible the best player to ever grace the premiership and was competing with the likes of Ronaldinho for world player of the year.