I think Rafa was rated as very good but not great which is pretty fair.Herrera, Pogba, Kagawa, Anderson and Rafael.
I think Rafa was rated as very good but not great which is pretty fair.Herrera, Pogba, Kagawa, Anderson and Rafael.
PL title in the singular, I don’t think they win in 2004 against that Arsenal team with Ferdinand. I don’t remember him being *that* good before Vidic came, or at least didn’t peak at United until after drugs test ban. When Vidic came it felt like United hit another level defensively.Utd won titles with Rio and Brown/Silvestre. Probably would have won in 2004 but for Rio suspension. It’s like the Steph Curry KD situation. He had won before Vidic got there
Nah. He's far too good to be viewed as overrated.It’s Scholes. He was a wonderful footballer but he’s vastly overrated by most United fans.
Were top in Jan at the time of his suspension. Before Vidic Rio had made the premier league team of the year 2X, lead a Leeds defense on a deep CL run, won a league cup with United alsoPL title in the singular, I don’t think they win in 2004 against that Arsenal team with Ferdinand. I don’t remember him being *that* good before Vidic came, or at least didn’t peak at United until after drugs test ban. When Vidic came it felt like United hit another level defensively.
This. Absolutely embarrassing. Someone will probably mention the king at some point, too.Scholes, Giggs, Schmeichel being mentioned
For me it is Roy Keane.
People rated his mentality more than him actually on the ball.
.
Still to this day you will hear how he gets in to any team of the century when i don't believe that to be true.
It was like when people said that Ruud was good as Henry when that was obviously not the case. Keane might have been better than Viera but i wouldnt rate Viera that highly as the best midfielders of all time.
I think Carrick is rated fine. A level below Scholes & Keane but a level above Butt. His long passing was great but he didn't have defensive capability to play as the single CDM either so playing Scholes & Carrick deeper was hard because of his incapable ability off the ball and is probably why he didn't get chosen for England much aswell. This is why for me when Hargreaves came for one season or two - we went up a level as a team.
The fact you think that about xabi alonso says it all.For balance, I'm the same on Xabi Alonso for us....very overrated.
It is the opposite, he is underrated on the ball. Brilliant passer who was actually better at it than young Scholes. He was the one who ran the midfield. Absolutely central to our most successful period.For me it is Roy Keane. A better captain than he was a player.
People rated his mentality more than him actually on the ball.
.
Still to this day you will hear how he gets in to any team of the century when i don't believe that to be true.
It was like when people said that Ruud was good as Henry when that was obviously not the case. Keane might have been better than Viera but i wouldnt rate Viera that highly as the best midfielders of all time.
I think Carrick is rated fine. A level below Scholes & Keane but a level above Butt. His long passing was great but he didn't have defensive capability to play as the single CDM either so playing Scholes & Carrick deeper was hard because of his incapable ability off the ball and is probably why he didn't get chosen for England much aswell. This is why for me when Hargreaves came for one season or two - we went up a level as a team.
Says what though? I can think that a player was very good, whilst realising that he had moments, seasons even, when his standards seem to have dipped. I think that he was more consistent during his time at Madrid.The fact you think that about xabi alonso says it all.
For balance, I've only ever liked 2 Liverpool players; Xabi Alonso and John Barnes.
2003/04 could have gone either way until Rio got banned. We were actually top of the ladder until his last game, at which time we lost that match by conceding after he went off which allowed Arsenal to move ahead by two points. After that Arsenal went on a run of another 7 wins in a row, but then only won four of their last nine games (obviously drawing all the others). If they'd got the same point tally anyway they 'probably' would have just beaten us, but we would have been right on their tails and who knows how they would have reacted to the extra pressure.PL title in the singular, I don’t think they win in 2004 against that Arsenal team with Ferdinand. I don’t remember him being *that* good before Vidic came, or at least didn’t peak at United until after drugs test ban. When Vidic came it felt like United hit another level defensively.
It’s Scholes. He was a wonderful footballer but he’s vastly overrated by most United fans.
For me it is Roy Keane. A better captain than he was a player.
People rated his mentality more than him actually on the ball.
.
Still to this day you will hear how he gets in to any team of the century when i don't believe that to be true.
It was like when people said that Ruud was good as Henry when that was obviously not the case. Keane might have been better than Viera but i wouldnt rate Viera that highly as the best midfielders of all time.
I think Carrick is rated fine. A level below Scholes & Keane but a level above Butt. His long passing was great but he didn't have defensive capability to play as the single CDM either so playing Scholes & Carrick deeper was hard because of his incapable ability off the ball and is probably why he didn't get chosen for England much aswell. This is why for me when Hargreaves came for one season or two - we went up a level as a team.
The younger Scholes? Yeah, I'd probably agree with you to some extent (although not being as good as Keane is an extremely harsh bar since Keane is arguably the best midfielder in PL history).Scholes. Not as good as Keane and not always trusted by Fergie. Fantastic player but the fact that he's been mentioned in the 'top 25 players since 2002' thread shows how his legend has grown.
For balance, I'm the same on Xabi Alonso for us....very overrated.
All good points to be fair. My issue is that you often see people here claim that Ferdinand was a tier/level above Vidic because of technique on the ball, when it wasn't the case when they were playing together. Look at the best PL CBs thread or some other thread and you will have people putting Ferdinand in the top 2 and Vidic outside the top 8 or not even on their lists. When if you look at accolades from the time:2003/04 could have gone either way until Rio got banned. We were actually top of the ladder until his last game, at which time we lost that match by conceding after he went off which allowed Arsenal to move ahead by two points. After that Arsenal went on a run of another 7 wins in a row, but then only won four of their last nine games (obviously drawing all the others). If they'd got the same point tally anyway they 'probably' would have just beaten us, but we would have been right on their tails and who knows how they would have reacted to the extra pressure.
Rio definitely peaked in 06/07 and 07/08 (the two years he was the best in the world IMO) which was after Vidic arrived, but he was still very good before that. Had a few too many mistakes in him to be truly one of the best in the world at that time, but he was still very good while having the potential to get even better if he ironed out the mistakes.
In 08/09 Rio declined due to the back injury and was never quite the same again. From that point forward Vidic was then better (partly because of Rio's decline, partly because of Vida himself getting even better). The fact that Rio was still arguably the second best in the world for a couple of seasons despite an obvious decline showed how good he was for those couple of seasons before that.
Hargreaves is the overrated one for me. Barely played, and when he did his best games were in a wide midfield role specialized role, yet people think he was somehow instrumental and even more so than Carrick who played nearly always.For me it is Roy Keane. A better captain than he was a player.
People rated his mentality more than him actually on the ball.
.
Still to this day you will hear how he gets in to any team of the century when i don't believe that to be true.
It was like when people said that Ruud was good as Henry when that was obviously not the case. Keane might have been better than Viera but i wouldnt rate Viera that highly as the best midfielders of all time.
I think Carrick is rated fine. A level below Scholes & Keane but a level above Butt. His long passing was great but he didn't have defensive capability to play as the single CDM either so playing Scholes & Carrick deeper was hard because of his incapable ability off the ball and is probably why he didn't get chosen for England much aswell. This is why for me when Hargreaves came for one season or two - we went up a level as a team.
he’s talking absolute nonsense but your maths is a bit off hereYour profile stats you’re 34 which means you were the ripe age of 11 when Keane left United . Your comment follows that mindset also
Man Utd over rated xi, now looks like this.
Schmeichel
G. Neville Rio Vidic Evra
Beckham Keane Carrick Giggs
Scholes
Rooney
Subs: VDS, Stam, Heinze, RVN, Park
Anyone rating Vidic outside the top 8 is definitely underrating him, that's for sure. When rating PL defenders I personally would have him #3. I think Rio's absolute peak was higher (I rate his 07/08 as the best season for a defender in PL history, and probably the best in the world since Nesta in 02), but Vidic was almost as good the very next season. In fact he was somehow even better for the first half of 08/09, but dropped off a bit in the second half of the season so that's why I don't think he was quite as good as Rio had been the previous season.All good points to be fair. My issue is that you often see people here claim that Ferdinand was a tier/level above Vidic because of technique on the ball, when it wasn't the case when they were playing together. Look at the best PL CBs thread or some other thread and you will have people putting Ferdinand in the top 2 and Vidic outside the top 8 or not even on their lists. When if you look at accolades from the time:
...
Premier League Player of the Year in particular, Vidic, Ronaldo, De Bruyne and Thierry Henry are the only multiple winners. That's the company he's keeping. Maybe it's a case where Vidic is underrated than Ferdinand is overrated.
Agree with De Gea. We believed, including me at that time, he was the best in the world although he wasn't at any point in his career.Off the top of my head, I don't think I'd say any of our really top players are overrated. Maybe De Gea since people continued rating him as one of the best many years after he declined, but that's about it.
People like Matic and Mata more come to mind for me. They both seem to get remembered fondly and rated more highly than players in the same teams who were better and more consistent. I'm sure they were nice guys, but both of them had many more poor games for us than good.
Scholes one is surprising and has been mentioned too often. Also the fact that people are saying he only turned world-class after 2004 which is funny as he played for almost 8-9 more years after that.Some of the takes in this thread is just embarrassing. Imagine calling Scholes overrated , Keane overrated, Vidic overrated, Giggs overrated. I would love to have those overrated players in our current team.
15 , my point still standshe’s talking absolute nonsense but your maths is a bit off here
And by many United and non-United players from at least 6-7 different countries. Not sure what kool aid they all are drinking to call him a great.It’s Scholes. He was a wonderful footballer but he’s vastly overrated by most United fans.
I think Scholes went from being underrated to overrated to underrated again. I remember Piers Morgan put him in an all-time World XI, I think that level would be overrated, but he was still world-class. Keane is due to his media personality and how he left United I think, plus the hardman image rather than being a good technical footballer as well.Keane and Scholes being mentioned is criminal, can't even wrap my head around it.
I've said it a long ago, the issue with this kind of threads usually it's:
. Some will be called overrated because of being Very good to Excellent, but not Pele level while they feel that were treated as such or as the best player in the world: players mostly like Beckham, but can happen with a Rooney, Cantona, Schmeichel etc and think that they do not deserve it.
. Some people will think like the first situation, but regarding players that the majority feels are not in a Rooney level, someone like Carrick, that being complete and great for the club does not feel enough on a world wide enviroment in comparison with other players with bigger names. This sometimes can even happen to players with a bigger status like Keane if somebody feels that someone like Rikjaard was better and feels that Roy it's treated with more or less the same praise.
. Some people will let their feelings towards certain players that left badly the club or didn't have the best of their carreers in United, Pogba, Tevez, Di Maria...etc.
. Some players were good, to very good on some day, but clearly not top notch or all timer like Heinze, yet having very good to great perfomances for the club, so some people feel they were overrated (same happens with players without even that great, but solid and nice dudes)
. Some will use the world overrated with players as talented as Scholes, usually the type of: player's player, because they do not have the numbers, stats, athletism or status of a Zidane and they feel that sometimes are treated with praise they do not deserve, more or less happens the same for inconsistent, less vocal, or not in your face players, yet clear talented fellas.
. Players from the core of the club and more being from the Nationality of the club in case, would always receive more praise if they are very good to great, so some people thinks it's in an undeserving way.
PD: And finally the label "World Class", it's dubious as it comes. For me it's way over the top to think that World class it's someone that would instantly will be first team in a World 11, or be first team at any team or the so call Big Ones...it doesn't work that way, that's way too much and every team is a world on its own while being first team does not always has to do with quality. For a period of time Mascherano wasn't even called for West Ham's first eleven.
World Class for me it's simply a player manteining a very good to great level most of their carreers, that makes a name for himself at some period and that just feels somehow above a "normal" Elite player.
My definition of World Class is that if you were picking a best XI in the world, they would be part of the conversation but may not make the team.
So for example recently there could be 3 or 4 GKs
I think that's not that bad, but still it's too much, in fact a player that at least does not look out of place on any League also might be more accurate as being World Class with the aditament that he tends to be among the best/more important players in his team but even this last aspect it's not as important. And BTW would also involve some period in his carreer that he would be on a lesser version of himself. I trully do not give that term that much importance, mostly because it usually ends with people not giving a World Class label to someone like Scholes.