Who is the greater player: Ryan Giggs vs Gareth Bale

Who is the greater player?

  • Total voters
    600
As an individual at his peak i'd have to say Bale just had that ability to score a screamer from nowhere and win the match, but in terms of overall career you can't beat what Giggs did for 20 years and remain at such a high level.

Career = Giggs

Peak = Bale
 
ThierryFabregas said:
Bale is clearly the better match winner, better big match player and stats prove it out

Giggs best seasons in the PL:

93/94 - 13 goals 7 assists
95/96 - 11 goals 9 assists
99/00 - 6 goals and 12 assists
01/02 - 7 goals and 12 assists
02/03 - 8 goals and 10 assists

Then compare to Bales best:

15/16 (only 21 starts) - 19 goals and 10 assists
13/14 (only 24 starts) - 15 goals and 12 assists
12/13 - 21 goals and 4 assists
17/18 (off 20 starts) - 16 goals and 2 assists
11/12 - 9 goals and 12 assists

Not only that he's bossed 2 CL finals. If he wasn't so injury prone he'd be seen in a far brighter light
Click to expand...

completely different players.

it’s like saying Ronaldo has only ever played as a right winger and comparing his career stats to Beckham.
 
ThierryFabregas said:
Bale is clearly the better match winner, better big match player and stats prove it out

Giggs best seasons in the PL:

93/94 - 13 goals 7 assists
95/96 - 11 goals 9 assists
99/00 - 6 goals and 12 assists
01/02 - 7 goals and 12 assists
02/03 - 8 goals and 10 assists

Then compare to Bales best:

15/16 (only 21 starts) - 19 goals and 10 assists
13/14 (only 24 starts) - 15 goals and 12 assists
12/13 - 21 goals and 4 assists
17/18 (off 20 starts) - 16 goals and 2 assists
11/12 - 9 goals and 12 assists

Not only that he's bossed 2 CL finals. If he wasn't so injury prone he'd be seen in a far brighter light
Click to expand...

Bale was better for wales too.

Giggs longevity came through more from his loyalty to United & SAF than some particularly wonderful technical ability.

People are talking about his CM tenure as he was playing like Xavi & Iniesta or Pirlo when he turned 38. He lost his pace as a winger & was under a manager who could win a title with cleverley in midfield- so the hype of Giggs playing this midfielder game and his ability to pass doesnt get me.

I remember watching him & not particularly being impressed with him. We could have used a new up and coming centre midfielder instead of him but we didnt - SAF stuck with him because he could make him work rather than him being anything exceptional as a midfielder.

Play giggs the midfielder at another club, under another manager then he would have been replaced by a better younger midfielders because he was average to decent but nothing to write home about at all. It was a combination of SAF & Giggs loyalty that played in to the longevity- ultimately I thought SAF held on to the likes of Giggs and scholes too long and had gone on managing 2 decades with some players still there that had to be replaced.

Even Giggs himself thinks Bale is the best welshman hes seen. Bale's stats are better but even more his trophies count is amazing and he actually plays a big part of that. No one can take that away from him.
 
Bebestation said:
Bale was better for wales too.

Giggs longevity came through more from his loyalty to United & SAF than some particularly wonderful technical ability.

People are talking about his CM tenure as he was playing like Xavi & Iniesta or Pirlo when he turned 38. He lost his pace as a winger & was under a manager who could win a title with cleverley in midfield- so the hype of Giggs playing this midfielder game and his ability to pass doesnt get me.

I remember watching him & not particularly being impressed with him. We could have used a new up and coming centre midfielder instead of him but we didnt - SAF stuck with him because he could make him work rather than him being anything capable as a midfielder.

Play giggs the midfielder at another club, under another manager then he would have been replaced by a better younger midfielders because he was average to decent but nothing to write home about at all. It was a combination of SAF & Giggs loyalty that played in to the longevity- ultimately I thought SAF held on to the likes of Giggs and scholes too long and had gone on managing 2 decades with some players still there that had to be replaced.

Even Giggs himself thinks Bale is the best welshman hes seen. Bale's stats are better but even more his trophies count is amazing and he actually plays a big part of that. No one can take that away from him.
Click to expand...
Even if you rule out Giggs longevity, Bale has basically been retired for 2 years so its not even longevity. Just compate them from 28 onwards and see the difference.
Giggs doesnt need longevity to have Bale beat, a regular retirement age would do
 
El Zoido said:
He went from a left wing back to a left wing forward. In terms of attributes and disciplines they’re very similar roles.
Click to expand...

Think you’re oversimplifying his evolution. He developed a number of other key attributes like his heading ability (which I would rank in the top 3 at Madrid even when Ronaldo was there); deadly finishing; off the ball movement etc that means he can probably play anywhere along the front-line including CF. He essentially became Ronaldo-lite in his latter years and even at his peak. When he played LB he couldn’t do many of the things he developed in his game later on.
 
cyberman said:
Even if you rule out Giggs longevity, Bale has basically been retired for 2 years so its not even longevity. Just compate them from 28 onwards and see the difference.
Giggs doesnt need longevity to have Bale beat, a regular retirement age would do
Click to expand...

That's ultimately career choices & that doesn't matter to me. Giggs remained loyal to United & SAF - SAF used giggs for near 10-20 years without upgrading him when we 100% should have on both him and Scholes by the end of it. Why did SAF do it? Not sure? But now everyone is talking about Giggs's Longevity due to his loyalty to United & SAF.

Bale has tried to remain loyal to Real Madrid (a club that shows no loyalty not even to a player like Raul, Casillas or C Ronaldo) & its stagnated his career whilst Giggs's just continued even though he didnt particularly improve. Bale also had injury problems but if Bale had made the right career choices then he would have had a longer looking longevity also.

I dont think Bale is anywhere near finished yet either & if he gets the chance to go to a club like Newcastle or maybe spurs as he has been linked to then he will surprise people. Again, if he chooses america or china then that's a poor career choice - but to me, Bales peak, wonder, goals, stats, national football all out does Giggs. I even respect the fact that he went to real madrid and didnt just turn in to another great welshman at United but maybe that's me. However, when the time is right he should have move from Real Madrid.
 
Bebestation said:
Bale was better for wales too.

Giggs longevity came through more from his loyalty to United & SAF than some particularly wonderful technical ability.

People are talking about his CM tenure as he was playing like Xavi & Iniesta or Pirlo when he turned 38. He lost his pace as a winger & was under a manager who could win a title with cleverley in midfield- so the hype of Giggs playing this midfielder game and his ability to pass doesnt get me.

I remember watching him & not particularly being impressed with him. We could have used a new up and coming centre midfielder instead of him but we didnt - SAF stuck with him because he could make him work rather than him being anything exceptional as a midfielder.

Play giggs the midfielder at another club, under another manager then he would have been replaced by a better younger midfielders because he was average to decent but nothing to write home about at all. It was a combination of SAF & Giggs loyalty that played in to the longevity- ultimately I thought SAF held on to the likes of Giggs and scholes too long and had gone on managing 2 decades with some players still there that had to be replaced.

Even Giggs himself thinks Bale is the best welshman hes seen. Bale's stats are better but even more his trophies count is amazing and he actually plays a big part of that. No one can take that away from him.
Click to expand...

Giggs has a far better trophy cabinet than Bale.

13 PL trophies for starters.
 
Bebestation said:
Bale was better for wales too.

Giggs longevity came through more from his loyalty to United & SAF than some particularly wonderful technical ability.

People are talking about his CM tenure as he was playing like Xavi & Iniesta or Pirlo when he turned 38. He lost his pace as a winger & was under a manager who could win a title with cleverley in midfield- so the hype of Giggs playing this midfielder game and his ability to pass doesnt get me.

I remember watching him & not particularly being impressed with him. We could have used a new up and coming centre midfielder instead of him but we didnt - SAF stuck with him because he could make him work rather than him being anything exceptional as a midfielder.

Play giggs the midfielder at another club, under another manager then he would have been replaced by a better younger midfielders because he was average to decent but nothing to write home about at all. It was a combination of SAF & Giggs loyalty that played in to the longevity- ultimately I thought SAF held on to the likes of Giggs and scholes too long and had gone on managing 2 decades with some players still there that had to be replaced.

Even Giggs himself thinks Bale is the best welshman hes seen. Bale's stats are better but even more his trophies count is amazing and he actually plays a big part of that. No one can take that away from him.
Click to expand...

Fair comments on his midfield exploits, I thought he was good there and he did a great job for Fergie but he was not some midfield maestro. However as far as his comments about greatest Welshman go would you expect him to say "Best Welshman? Yeah it's me"? :lol: Those comments have no bearing on the debate whatsoever.
 
 
Bebestation said:
That's ultimately career choices & that doesn't matter to me. Giggs remained loyal to United & SAF - SAF used giggs for near 10-20 years without upgrading him when we 100% should have on both him and Scholes by the end of it. Why did SAF do it? Not sure? But now everyone is talking about Giggs's Longevity due to his loyalty to United & SAF.

Bale has tried to remain loyal to Real Madrid (a club that shows no loyalty not even to a player like Raul, Casillas or C Ronaldo) & its stagnated his career whilst Giggs's just continued even though he didnt particularly improve. Bale also had injury problems but if Bale had made the right career choices then he would have had a longer looking longevity also.

I dont think Bale is anywhere near finished yet either & if he gets the chance to go to a club like Newcastle or maybe spurs as he has been linked to then he will surprise people. Again, if he chooses america or china then that's a poor career choice - but to me, Bales peak, wonder, goals, stats, national football all out does Giggs. I even respect the fact that he went to real madrid and didnt just turn in to another great welshman at United but maybe that's me. However, when the time is right he should have move from Real Madrid.
Click to expand...
But Bale isnt great sitting on the bench. The fact he has rarely played isnt a small factor here or else what are we judging them on? Even when he was playing he missed 1 in 2.
Bale hasnt played near enough to be in any of these discussions. If anything its lost potential
 
OrcaFat said:
Fantastic haul. The idea that a couple more CLs can amount to Giggs’ giant trophy stash is mental.
Click to expand...

Is it really? I think it's crazy that Bale's managed to win more CL trophies in his career than a club like United did.
 
Rozay said:
Longevity is certainly a key part of player comparison, but only to an extent. A player needs to play well for long enough for us to establish it as a lev for them. Otherwise, we’d be calling players GOATS off the back of a good month. That said, once a player has held a peak level for a few years - it is enough, for me anyway. What Giggs has done is mighty impressive, but a player is not required to play for 20 years in order to be a great. There are many greater players than Giggs who played at the top for a lot less time, and there are greater players than Giggs today who had established themselves as greater than him years ago, and they haven’t even retired yet. This is why I think it is important to not attach too much of his greatness because of his longevity. His longevity is to be praised separately.

I do realise that my previous post did seem to downplay Giggs slightly, so I retract some of that. I didn’t mean that Giggs was a charity case, nor was Fergie or anyone else who hung arou for that long. But the conditions were unique and different to any most other clubs. Giggs performed over 20 years, on and off, but the conditions to play yourself in and out of form for years were not enjoyed by other players. The manager himself never changed, so there was no added pressure of proving yourself to different men. But most importantly, other players move, for various reasons. They might start off lower and need a couple of moves to make it to a top club. They might want different experiences. All of these moves present a set of challenges that Giggs didn’t face. Which if course is no fault of his own, but that was all I meant previously, and I think is a factor in the conversation of longevity. Maybe if Leeds were not relegated, O’Leary stayed for 20 years, and Kewell didn’t bother to ever leave and try a different environment - he’d have had a lot more seasons like the ones he had just before he left. Pires had to wait until 26 to join Arsenal, and didn’t retire there either. In the time he was in the PL, he was at the very least Giggs’ equal. The whole 20 years thing is a bit of a red herring in these particular discussions I think. Peak level is far more important, as long as we’re not talking about a good 6 months or anything ridiculous like that.

As for Mané needing ‘a lot more than what he currently is to be in a conversation with Giggs’ - how much better does he need to get? It is admittedly a shorter sample, but he’s been a better player than Giggs was for two years I think. I don’t think he needs to do it for 20. Giggs didn’t do that for 20. He just played football at the top for 20. If that is what we are counting, Mane has been an impressive player, consistently, since he came to England with Southampton (and probably before). This right now is a peak for him, but he was playing well before, and Giggs has had seasons that were not as good as seasons Mané has turned out for Southampton himself. He hasn’t had seasons as good as what Mané is doing currently. So the implication would be that Giggs’ longevity is at 20 years, and Mané is at about 2 - which would suggest that Giggs was brilliant for 20 years and that Mané was rubbish before the last couple. Neither are true.

I’m more interested in comparing player’s best form with each others. Providing there is enough of a sample to draw. That is football. I never understand why people want to always get into a ‘bottom level’ debate. It’s not that relevant. Why would you take two great players and rank them based on who can outdo the other when they both decide to be shit, when the purpose of the comparison is because they both happen to be good?
Click to expand...
Like I mentioned in my previous post longevity isn't everything of course. Greatness is a combination of performances, trophies and longevity. I think Bale has enough trophies and noteworthy performances that he can be seen as better than Giggs even though he falls way short in the longevity department. Mane doesn't have anywhere near the trophies, performances or longevity in my opinion and that's why he needs more time to prove himself.

Another thing to go off which some may not like is the eye test. Giggs is just more talented than Mane and besides scoring, I can't think of what Mane can do better. Giggs could dribble better, take free kicks, cross, through balls and probably even head the ball better than Mane. Giggs is able to do much more with a football than Mane can and that's very clear. Bringing Bale back into this, he can do a lot of things better than Giggs which also helps his argument.

Mane is a great player but I genuinely believe players are made to look a lot better than they really are in Klopp's system. Mo Salah beat Shearer, Henry and Ronaldo's PL single season goal record playing under Klopp. I saw you in the Firmino thread calling him overrated which I don't necessarily disagree with but he's rated so high by people because he's in Klopp's system. I mean even he got 27 goals in a season which is insane when you really think about it.

You don't have to play for 20 years to be better than Giggs but you would need more iconic moments, trophies across a reasonable span of time. Mahrez even though he had a ridiculous season in 2015/16 for instance can't be seen as better than Giggs.
 
Bebestation said:
Is it really? I think it's crazy that Bale's managed to win more CL trophies in his career than a club like United did.
Click to expand...
You are consistently the worst poster in this forum. It's staggering. First, bizarrely, you're trashing Gigg's trophy haul (one of the best trophy hauls in the history of club football), and now you're taking a shot at United's UCL trophy haul in order to defend Gareth fecking Bale. Get a life. Are you sure you're a United fan? Unbelievable.
 
Adam-Utd said:
As an individual at his peak i'd have to say Bale just had that ability to score a screamer from nowhere and win the match, but in terms of overall career you can't beat what Giggs did for 20 years and remain at such a high level.

Career = Giggs

Peak = Bale
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how but a lot of people in this thread seem to have forgotten that Giggs scored plenty of worldies and scored match-winning goals in big games not to mention making equally important assists. Over a long period.

But again I acknowledge that Bale had a sustained purple patch where his physical and technical abilities were both at their peak at the same time. Giggs had very many high points and periods of exhilarating form but they were much more spread out.
 
billybee99 said:
You are consistently the worst poster in this forum. It's staggering. First, bizarrely, you're trashing Gigg's trophy haul (one of the best trophy hauls in the history of club football), and now you're taking a shot at United's UCL trophy haul in order to defend Gareth fecking Bale. Get a life. Are you sure you're a United fan? Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

I can put myself in a neutral position to look at football & I dont have to see things in red tinted glasses to appreciate football. what you think of me doesn't effect me.

I think Bale is a really good player. The way we all still pray in respect for Ole for scoring a last minute goal against bayern - bale has sorted out two finals for Madrid. If he was at any other club, he would be a different level of respect & to me - he gets that.
 
Rozay said:
Probably because nobody got together and concluded that any vote held by a Norwegian fan site (which is probably just a United Supporters Club) is conclusive in anything.

I suspect the average Welsh football fan would say Bale is better than Giggs. Calling Giggs better is like saying Okocha is ‘better’ than Gerrard, because he’s more skilful. Yea, and what else?
Click to expand...
Thing is, the thread title sats greater player. Even if you argue thal Bale was better, which I think is completely wrong, I cannot see anyone arguing that Bale is a greater player.

it is a Scandinavian United supporter forum that voted Giggs ahead of Ronaldo, Best, Charlton etc. It’s not just about being the best player. The greatest is about more than that. Bale is not in the great tier, not by a longshot, not for RM and probably not ecen for Tottenham. Giggs most definitely is an all time great for United - being a vital part of United being the most succesful team for twenty years.
 
El Jefe said:
Like I mentioned in my previous post longevity isn't everything of course. Greatness is a combination of performances, trophies and longevity. I think Bale has enough trophies and noteworthy performances that he can be seen as better than Giggs even though he falls way short in the longevity department. Mane doesn't have anywhere near the trophies, performances or longevity in my opinion and that's why he needs more time to prove himself.

Another thing to go off which some may not like is the eye test. Giggs is just more talented than Mane and besides scoring, I can't think of what Mane can do better. Giggs could dribble better, take free kicks, cross, through balls and probably even head the ball better than Mane. Giggs is able to do much more with a football than Mane can and that's very clear. Bringing Bale back into this, he can do a lot of things better than Giggs which also helps his argument.

Mane is a great player but I genuinely believe players are made to look a lot better than they really are in Klopp's system. Mo Salah beat Shearer, Henry and Ronaldo's PL single season goal record playing under Klopp. I saw you in the Firmino thread calling him overrated which I don't necessarily disagree with but he's rated so high by people because he's in Klopp's system. I mean even he got 27 goals in a season which is insane when you really think about it.

You don't have to play for 20 years to be better than Giggs but you would need more iconic moments, trophies across a reasonable span of time. Mahrez even though he had a ridiculous season in 2015/16 for instance can't be seen as better than Giggs.
Click to expand...

Yea that’s all fair. And I agree that Mané isn’t particularly skilful either, to an eye test. Amongst the best players, I don’t rate him that highly as a result. But...

If you wanted to make an argument FOR Mané against Giggs, you wouldn’t easily accept an eye test as valid. Giggs is clearly more talented. But then as I said earlier, Okocha is more talented than Gerrard and Lampard. For Giggs’ aesthetics to separate them, I think he’d need to be more productive and consistent. If he were, then down to the fact that he’s clearly more talented, I’d have him above. Same reason why I think Messi is easily better than Ronaldo. The thing is, his technique alone is not enough. If he scored 15 goals a season and Ronaldo scored 45, then you would have a tougher time arguing Messi is the better player. His superior talent matters so much because he is equally as effective.

If you came from Mars and watched one or two games, an eye test might tell you Eden Hazard is better than Ronaldo. As I said earlier, he would be, if he simply scored more goals and impacted a match more often. Mané has every right to say that he should not be compared to a winger who scores 6 goals a season. I know it’s not as simple as that, but you get what I mean (I hope). Giggs is easily more talented. But not necessarily ‘better’ as a result of it.
 
Rossa said:
Thing is, the thread title sats greater player. Even if you argue thal Bale was better, which I think is completely wrong, I cannot see anyone arguing that Bale is a greater player.

it is a Scandinavian United supporter forum that voted Giggs ahead of Ronaldo, Best, Charlton etc. It’s not just about being the best player. The greatest is about more than that. Bale is not in the great tier, not by a longshot, not for RM and probably not ecen for Tottenham. Giggs most definitely is an all time great for United - being a vital part of United being the most succesful team for twenty years.
Click to expand...

I’m familiar with the distinction of good and great, and ‘greatness’ is, to me, a load of bollocks in comparing two footballers. I don’t care if you are greater than someone if you’re not even better.

It is these metrics that allow R9 to win a Balon’Dor in a season where he played 7 club games because he came back and won the World Cup. It is these metrics to cause commentators to say ‘I was gonna give x MOTM, but after that late goal, I’m going to give it to y’. And so on and so forth. I understand that football is all about winning, but I’ve never agreed with that from an individual perspective.

This is why 1v1, these debates are always hard with United greats who won loads of trophies. Giggs in particular is the most decorated player in PL history. He had a great career, nobody can deny. Just personally, I’ve never fancied the old, ‘he’s a World Cup winner’ argument in a debate about who is better between x and y. What’s that got to do with it?

And even then, 4 Champions League medals is a pretty great achievement. As is being your country’s record goalscorer. But I do very much get what you’re saying.
 
OrcaFat said:
I’m not sure how but a lot of people in this thread seem to have forgotten that Giggs scored plenty of worldies and scored match-winning goals in big games not to mention making equally important assists. Over a long period.

But again I acknowledge that Bale had a sustained purple patch where his physical and technical abilities were both at their peak at the same time. Giggs had very many high points and periods of exhilarating form but they were much more spread out.
Click to expand...
It's no slight on Giggs I love the guy, obviously is FA cup Semi goal is the most famous of them all.

But Bale has scored in 2 champions league finals, and probably scored one of the best EVER. His highlight reel would piss all over Giggs i'm afraid.

Obviously Giggs had a better all round game but like I said, at their "peaks" i'd take Bale personally.
 
Rozay said:
I’m familiar with the distinction of good and great, and ‘greatness’ is, to me, a load of bollocks in comparing two footballers. I don’t care if you are greater than someone if you’re not even better.

It is these metrics that allow R9 to win a Balon’Dor in a season where he played 7 club games because he came back and won the World Cup. It is these metrics to cause commentators to say ‘I was gonna give x MOTM, but after that late goal, I’m going to give it to y’. And so on and so forth. I understand that football is all about winning, but I’ve never agreed with that from an individual perspective.

This is why 1v1, these debates are always hard with United greats who won loads of trophies. Giggs in particular is the most decorated player in PL history. He had a great career, nobody can deny. Just personally, I’ve never fancied the old, ‘he’s a World Cup winner’ argument in a debate about who is better between x and y. What’s that got to do with it?

And even then, 4 Champions League medals is a pretty great achievement. As is being your country’s record goalscorer. But I do very much get what you’re saying.
Click to expand...

I can't understand how greatness is bollocks. If a player never contributed to winning anything (for instance Gerrard), I would argue it is difficult to argue that player belongs amongst the greats. Bale of course has won plenty of medals, and was even a vital part of winning a couple of CL medals. That being said, there is a reason why RM fans never warmed to him. He has been far too much hit and miss.

I never knew that R9 only played 7 club games that season - that's ridiculous in a season where he won Ballon d'Or. He's probably still a great player because of his stupendous preak and impact, but his longevity wasn't exactly all that. Kind of the same as Ronaldinho.

Thinking about it (I rarely do), a comparison of Bale vs Giggs is more like comparing Nani vs Giggs or Nani vs Bale. Nani has been pretty good for his NT - even vital in winning the Euros. He had a couple of seasons where he was regarded as being one of the best wingers in the world, but the rest of his career has been far too inconsistent. I know comparing Nani to either of these two seems far out there, but I honestly think Nani is closer to Bale in terms of being a great player than Giggs, who is a level above. At his peak, I'd argue Giggs was every bit as good as Bale, but he was a traditional winger, so you cannot expect him to score as much. What elevates him is his longevity and ability to reinvent himself. Bale may still do that, but it looks a little unlikely. In Bale's peak seasons in the PL, there were discussions about who was best, him or Valencia, so it's not like he was head and shoulders the best winger in the world.

EDIT: Just read through some old posts from 2013 when Bale signed for RM, and many argued that the best player in the league that year was, not Bale... but Mata.
 
Adam-Utd said:
It's no slight on Giggs I love the guy, obviously is FA cup Semi goal is the most famous of them all.

But Bale has scored in 2 champions league finals, and probably scored one of the best EVER. His highlight reel would piss all over Giggs i'm afraid.

Obviously Giggs had a better all round game but like I said, at their "peaks" i'd take Bale personally.
Click to expand...
This is mostly reasonable except the part about the highlights reel. Giggs was nothing short of spectacular at times. But as I say, you have to look over many years to assemble Giggs highlights. Maybe those great moments fade in the memory amid the more moderate performances that Giggs admittedly turned out for spells.

I’ve said earlier that I’d take Bale’s best two years over Giggs best two years. But overall I take Giggs. I’m sure I’m biased but that’s how I feel.
 
R0nald0 said:
this basically depends on how you define "greatest".

Giggs was never in the top 5 players in the world whilst for 2-3 seasons, Bale clearly was. Balance that with Giggs' longevity and the ability to re-invent himself when his pace left him. It's like asking who the best player was between Ronaldinho and Robben.

for me, Bale wins this one, as does Ronaldinho in my other comparison.

If you're a United fan and you picked Giggs but also picked Ronaldinho, there is probably a good amount of United bias in your thinking!
Click to expand...
When exactly was Bale a top 5 player in the world? He had that one steam at Spurs towards the fag end of the season where he kept banging them in from distance but I think it skewed views since Suarez was the better player. And that's just in the PL. Bale was a really good player but he's overrated imo. Never top 5 in the world. Maybe top 5 attacker? I even doubt that. Top 5 end product player. Sure, I suppose.

Do some of you also consider Bale to be better than Rooney ? Because it's the same logic, discounting general play in favour of end product.
 
Rozay said:
It is these metrics that allow R9 to win a Balon’Dor in a season where he played 7 club games because he came back and won the World Cup.
Click to expand...
Rossa said:
I never knew that R9 only played 7 club games that season - that's ridiculous in a season where he won Ballon d'Or.
Click to expand...
Wait what? Mistakes? if yes, then it happens.

7 league games -- 2006/7 (Real)

Won B-d'Or in 2002, 12th Dec.
Brazil won WC in 2002, May/June.

2001/2002 (Inter) -- 10 league games out of 16 season total games
2002/03 (Real) -- 31 league games
 
Rossa said:
I can't understand how greatness is bollocks. If a player never contributed to winning anything (for instance Gerrard), I would argue it is difficult to argue that player belongs amongst the greats. Bale of course has won plenty of medals, and was even a vital part of winning a couple of CL medals. That being said, there is a reason why RM fans never warmed to him. He has been far too much hit and miss.

I never knew that R9 only played 7 club games that season - that's ridiculous in a season where he won Ballon d'Or. He's probably still a great player because of his stupendous preak and impact, but his longevity wasn't exactly all that. Kind of the same as Ronaldinho.

Thinking about it (I rarely do), a comparison of Bale vs Giggs is more like comparing Nani vs Giggs or Nani vs Bale. Nani has been pretty good for his NT - even vital in winning the Euros. He had a couple of seasons where he was regarded as being one of the best wingers in the world, but the rest of his career has been far too inconsistent. I know comparing Nani to either of these two seems far out there, but I honestly think Nani is closer to Bale in terms of being a great player than Giggs, who is a level above. At his peak, I'd argue Giggs was every bit as good as Bale, but he was a traditional winger, so you cannot expect him to score as much. What elevates him is his longevity and ability to reinvent himself. Bale may still do that, but it looks a little unlikely. In Bale's peak seasons in the PL, there were discussions about who was best, him or Valencia, so it's not like he was head and shoulders the best winger in the world.

EDIT: Just read through some old posts from 2013 when Bale signed for RM, and many argued that the best player in the league that year was, not Bale... but Mata.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I must first begin by inserting a green smiley at the bolded part : :lol: . People on Redcafe are ridiculously biased in my observation, and any form of debate as to who was better between Valencia and Bale at his very best at Spurs is one of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard. I’m sure even Antonio Valencia and his mother would be amongst the first to tell you that.

And yes, ‘greatness’ is bollocks in a who is better than who debate, in my opinion. The R9 example is just one of the most glaring that I gave you. R9 is my favourite ever footballer, but I’d be the first to say it was a ridiculous, albeit non-surprising award, given how these individual awards are dished out for team achievements. To expand, that same season, where Ronaldo was injured for all but 7 games - Micheal Ballack les Bayer Leverkusen to the Champions League final - but lost, and then led Germany to the World Cup final - but was suspended for the final and Germany lost. He was talismanic for a lesser fancied Leverkusen side, and dragged Germany to the final of the World Cup. He was, to me, undoubtedly the worthy winner that year. He was the ‘best player’. Ronaldo wasn’t. But the game is rigged so that Leverkusen and Germany both had to win two 90 minute matches in or for him to get the credit he deserved.

It is one thing to say ‘if a player never contributed to winning anything, for instance Gerrard (which ignores the fact that he almost single handedly dragged his team back from 3-0 down in a CL final and from 2-0 down to win an FA Cup final anyway) - you will struggle to put him amongst the greats. That’s fine. But you shouldn’t struggle to say he was better than Nicky Butt. And saying that Nicky Butt was better because he won a few league titles is ludicrous.
 
Web of Bissaka said:
Wait what? Mistakes? if yes, then it happens.

7 league games -- 2006/7 (Real)

Won B-d'Or in 2002, 12th Dec.
Brazil won WC in 2002, May/June.

2001/2002 (Inter) -- 10 league games out of 16 season total games
2002/03 (Real) -- 31 league games
Click to expand...

Okay, 10 league games, 16 in total. Far from enough. Imagine giving Pogba the Balon’Dor for this season because he came back and scored the winner in the Euro 2020 Final. It is not how awards should be distributed.

In 2006 Cannavaro won it for the same reasons. He wouldn’t have been in the top 10 players that year if Italy went out in the second round of the World Cup.
 
Rozay said:
Sorry, but I must first begin by inserting a green smiley at the bolded part : :lol: . People on Redcafe are ridiculously biased in my observation, and any form of debate as to who was better between Valencia and Bale at his very best at Spurs is one of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard. I’m sure even Antonio Valencia and his mother would be amongst the first to tell you that.

And yes, ‘greatness’ is bollocks in a who is better than who debate, in my opinion. The R9 example is just one of the most glaring that I gave you. R9 is my favourite ever footballer, but I’d be the first to say it was a ridiculous, albeit non-surprising award, given how these individual awards are dished out for team achievements. To expand, that same season, where Ronaldo was injured for all but 7 games - Micheal Ballack les Bayer Leverkusen to the Champions League final - but lost, and then led Germany to the World Cup final - but was suspended for the final and Germany lost. He was talismanic for a lesser fancied Leverkusen side, and dragged Germany to the final of the World Cup. He was, to me, undoubtedly the worthy winner that year. He was the ‘best player’. Ronaldo wasn’t. But the game is rigged so that Leverkusen and Germany both had to win two 90 minute matches in or for him to get the credit he deserved.

It is one thing to say ‘if a player never contributed to winning anything, for instance Gerrard (which ignores the fact that he almost single handedly dragged his team back from 3-0 down in a CL final and from 2-0 down to win an FA Cup final anyway) - you will struggle to put him amongst the greats. That’s fine. But you shouldn’t struggle to say he was better than Nicky Butt. And saying that Nicky Butt was better because he won a few league titles is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it Guardiola who argued that Valencia was the best winger in the world at one point, and that Mourinho felt the same and subsequently wanted to sign him for RM, albeit for a RB position. Perhaps not quite as absurd as you would have it.

I completely agree that comparing Nicky Butt to Gerrard is silly. However, what about Scholes to Gerrard? Scholes never had a great career for England. As for great vs good player, I think longevity and contribution to club matters greatly. For instance, Gary Neville was never one of the best players, but many would argue that he is a great player for his overall contribution and longevity. Personally, I think Giggs was a better player than Bale all things considered, and if we are thinking about great players, then Bale is not in that discussion, but Giggs is. To be a great player, you must have made your mark for one of the top clubs and be a legend there. Michael Ballack that you mention is a legend and a great player for Leverkusen; Giggs is for United. Gerrard is a great player for Liverpool (my previous comment was a little silly - still put him behind Scholes, mind you); Lampard is a great player for Chelsea, but Bale is not a great player for RM, and it is debatable if he is a great player for a Tottenham side that has won close to feck all with him in the team. Who is a greater player then, Kane or Bale? IMHO, neither belongs in the discussion with Giggs. Giggs' peak is being downplayed by many now because of his longevity.

To compare their PL campaigns:
Bale:
Appearances:
Goals: 42
Goals per match: 0,29
Assists per match: 0,13
Assists: 20
Big chances missed: 21

Giggs:
Appearances: 632
Goals: 109
Goals per match: 0,17
Assists: 162
Assists per match: 0,25
Big chances missed: 3

Yes, Bale scored more per match, but in all other stats, Giggs is the superior player. Big chances missed was a rather interesting and unique stat (not sure what I put into the unique aspect of it, but there you go). Bale missed 21 big chances, whereas Giggs missed 3 in 632 matches - sounds strange enough. It does tell me, and this is also true from watching them both, that Bale was/is a much more selfish player than Giggs. Thus, Giggs could have scored more goals and thus arguably won more matches than he did if playing similarly to Bale.

Looking at La Liga stats, Bale had a great season in 2015/2016 stats wise with 19 goals and 10 assists. The following season he had 7 goals and 2 assists, then 16goals and 2 assists and 8 goals and 2 assists. In 2013/2014 he scored 6 goals and assisted 3 in the CL, but he never managed more than 3 goals in the CL in any other season. Not bothering to give you all the Giggs CL stats, but they are not much worse - largely assisting more and scoring less - actually being a little inconsistent overall. 30 goals and 53 assists overall isn't too shabby though. Bale has 30 goals and 31 assists in less matches (95 vs 162) -not only Champions League as transfermarkt includes all the European/International, but you get what I'm saying.

So, Bale scores more, but is much more selfish. Other than that, I just don't seem him being a better player, and certainly not a greater one.
 
i can't believe there is a debate on this in a United forum of all places. It shows how wildly you can be overrated just by scoring in the right game.
 
This is coming from someone who was too young to see Giggs play in his prime (late 90's) and only seen a few glimpses of him through YouTube clips and watching old games.

I think Bale is individually the better player, he has a better shot on him, is more explosive and more a physical threat than Giggs ever was. Don't know who is the faster of the two though, Giggs was lightning quick once upon a time.

If you put Bale and Giggs next to each other, both in their prime, and had a contest with different sections like shooting, dribbling, etc, I think Bale would win almost every section.

However, if I had to pick one of them for a starting XI I'd pick Giggs. Reliable, a better team player, and a better understanding of the game. Giggs switched to a more central role after his physical decline which is easier said than done, which I couldn't imagine Bale doing successfully.
 
Rossa said:
Wasn't it Guardiola who argued that Valencia was the best winger in the world at one point, and that Mourinho felt the same and subsequently wanted to sign him for RM, albeit for a RB position. Perhaps not quite as absurd as you would have it.

I completely agree that comparing Nicky Butt to Gerrard is silly. However, what about Scholes to Gerrard? Scholes never had a great career for England. As for great vs good player, I think longevity and contribution to club matters greatly. For instance, Gary Neville was never one of the best players, but many would argue that he is a great player for his overall contribution and longevity. Personally, I think Giggs was a better player than Bale all things considered, and if we are thinking about great players, then Bale is not in that discussion, but Giggs is. To be a great player, you must have made your mark for one of the top clubs and be a legend there. Michael Ballack that you mention is a legend and a great player for Leverkusen; Giggs is for United. Gerrard is a great player for Liverpool (my previous comment was a little silly - still put him behind Scholes, mind you); Lampard is a great player for Chelsea, but Bale is not a great player for RM, and it is debatable if he is a great player for a Tottenham side that has won close to feck all with him in the team. Who is a greater player then, Kane or Bale? IMHO, neither belongs in the discussion with Giggs. Giggs' peak is being downplayed by many now because of his longevity.

To compare their PL campaigns:
Bale:
Appearances:
Goals: 42
Goals per match: 0,29
Assists per match: 0,13
Assists: 20
Big chances missed: 21

Giggs:
Appearances: 632
Goals: 109
Goals per match: 0,17
Assists: 162
Assists per match: 0,25
Big chances missed: 3

Yes, Bale scored more per match, but in all other stats, Giggs is the superior player. Big chances missed was a rather interesting and unique stat (not sure what I put into the unique aspect of it, but there you go). Bale missed 21 big chances, whereas Giggs missed 3 in 632 matches - sounds strange enough. It does tell me, and this is also true from watching them both, that Bale was/is a much more selfish player than Giggs. Thus, Giggs could have scored more goals and thus arguably won more matches than he did if playing similarly to Bale.

Looking at La Liga stats, Bale had a great season in 2015/2016 stats wise with 19 goals and 10 assists. The following season he had 7 goals and 2 assists, then 16goals and 2 assists and 8 goals and 2 assists. In 2013/2014 he scored 6 goals and assisted 3 in the CL, but he never managed more than 3 goals in the CL in any other season. Not bothering to give you all the Giggs CL stats, but they are not much worse - largely assisting more and scoring less - actually being a little inconsistent overall. 30 goals and 53 assists overall isn't too shabby though. Bale has 30 goals and 31 assists in less matches (95 vs 162) -not only Champions League as transfermarkt includes all the European/International, but you get what I'm saying.

So, Bale scores more, but is much more selfish. Other than that, I just don't seem him being a better player, and certainly not a greater one.
Click to expand...

I’ll start with the stats part first. The goals stat is more impressive as you said, and the stats don’t take into consideration that Bale was a left-back between 2007 and 2010. So his actual level as a forward, is all the more impressive I feel.

It is an interesting spin to put on lesser assist stats by saying Bale was ‘more selfish’. That is one of many ways such a star could be interpreted. Giggs record of 162 assists is a phenomenal number, which will likely never be beaten, but for the main fact that he hung around for so many years! Giggs played 22 seasons. 162 divided by 22 is just over 7 assists a season. My understanding is that that figure may not capture the entirety, and his average is higher than that. Also, I don’t need to deeply examine those stats to know that there is no way that Giggs missed only 3 big chances in 22 years. They cannot possibly be accurate.

As for the earlier part of your post, I do agree in some ways, and I’ve said similarly before. I don’t think Gary Neville was all that, but it seems that ‘Good x time = great’ to many people. Longevity is impressive, but it does not determine how good a player is. That player may also be good too, of course, but they are not good because of years. They are good because they are good. Peter Crouch was still knocking about in the PL at about 38. Teddy Sheringham at 40. In a conversation of ‘how good was Teddy Sheringham?’ - you need simply to answer that question. ‘How good was he?’ Paolo Maldini is a great defender, legendary. Javier Zanetti similarly. They are great players because they reached levels nobody else, or very few players did. Brighton have a RB who is about 40 who has been running up and down for them for years, Bruno something or the other. His longevity is very impressive, but it doesn’t make him any ‘better’ than he is or was.

I think longevity certainly matters in a conversation of best player, but mainly for the more obvious reason that if a player didn’t sustain a level for more than two minutes there will always be some sort of doubt about what you mark their actual level as. Are we gonna say Kevin Phillips was one of the best ever PL players, for example? But I think one point I need to reinforce is that players do not typically play at the top until 40, and great players are not required to play at the top level for 10+ years to earn a legacy. Once that is remembered, then comparing players who have a more regular lifespan to Ryan Giggs becomes easier without needing to bring in his longevity. It’s a red herring. We get it, he played for longer. But the other player played for long enough, and the question wasn’t about longevity. Arjen Robben retired much earlier, and he’s another winger I think was better than Giggs.

Giggs was a fantastic player in his own right, purely based on his ability. If anyone thinks Giggs was better than any winger, then it is not ridiculous to me (well except a few). But I don’t think the length of his career is a factor at all. I could probably name tens of players better than Giggs with shorter careers, so his longevity doesn’t matter if I’m arguing the case for one more.
 
bondsname said:
This is coming from someone who was too young to see Giggs play in his prime (late 90's) and only seen a few glimpses of him through YouTube clips and watching old games.

I think Bale is individually the better player, he has a better shot on him, is more explosive and more a physical threat than Giggs ever was. Don't know who is the faster of the two though, Giggs was lightning quick once upon a time.

If you put Bale and Giggs next to each other, both in their prime, and had a contest with different sections like shooting, dribbling, etc, I think Bale would win almost every section.

However, if I had to pick one of them for a starting XI I'd pick Giggs. Reliable, a better team player, and a better understanding of the game. Giggs switched to a more central role after his physical decline which is easier said than done, which I couldn't imagine Bale doing successfully.
Click to expand...

Giggs was a far, far better dribbler than Bale.

And I don’t know what relevance Giggs converting to a centre midfielder later in his career has to do with who you would pick for a starting XI, unless you want them to play LW and CM simultaneously.

And Bale has played left-back, left wing, 10/SS and right wing all to good levels in his career too, Giggs is not the only one who has played more than one position.
 
Bebestation said:
4 CL trophies? Thats just nasty. Leicester City have & Arsenal have PL trophies but okay.
Click to expand...
4 CLs and 1 league title doesn't compare to Giggs' incredible trophy haul. Liverpool 2005 also have a CL trophy.
 
Rozay said:
Okay, 10 league games, 16 in total. Far from enough. Imagine giving Pogba the Balon’Dor for this season because he came back and scored the winner in the Euro 2020 Final. It is not how awards should be distributed.

In 2006 Cannavaro won it for the same reasons. He wouldn’t have been in the top 10 players that year if Italy went out in the second round of the World Cup.
Click to expand...
Yeah agree with you there.
 
I think Bale has overcome Giggs in last few years on both club and national levels but I'm biased, so it's Giggs anyway. :D
 
Rozay said:
Giggs was a far, far better dribbler than Bale.

And I don’t know what relevance Giggs converting to a centre midfielder later in his career has to do with who you would pick for a starting XI, unless you want them to play LW and CM simultaneously.

And Bale has played left-back, left wing, 10/SS and right wing all to good levels in his career too, Giggs is not the only one who has played more than one position.
Click to expand...
I mentioned Giggs converting to a central position as to provide evidence for his football intelligence, as the central role is often described as the most complex role.

Bale started off as a LB and has played many positions, that is correct, didn't mean to imply that Bale isn't a smart footballer, I just don't put in the same bracket as Giggs. I consider Giggs to have far greater vision and awareness than Bale has.
 
bondsname said:
I mentioned Giggs converting to a central position as to provide evidence for his football intelligence, as the central role is often described as the most complex role.

Bale started off as a LB and has played many positions, that is correct, didn't mean to imply that Bale isn't a smart footballer, I just don't put in the same bracket as Giggs. I consider Giggs to have far greater vision and awareness than Bale has.
Click to expand...

Yea that is fair. I don’t think Bale could become a central midfielder. That said, I don’t think you always need to be the cleverest player to be a CM. Bale could potentially play CM in a Toure/Gerrard manner.

But there are many attributes in football. Passing is one, finishing is another. While Giggs moved inside, I suspect Bale will end up playing centre forward when he doesn’t have the legs for the wing anymore. In theory, I think he’d be good at it. He’s got a good frame, is good in the air, and has a great range of finishing.
 
Rozay said:
Yea that is fair. I don’t think Bale could become a central midfielder. That said, I don’t think you always need to be the cleverest player to be a CM. Bale could potentially play CM in a Toure/Gerrard manner.

But there are many attributes in football. Passing is one, finishing is another. While Giggs moved inside, I suspect Bale will end up playing centre forward when he doesn’t have the legs for the wing anymore. In theory, I think he’d be good at it. He’s got a good frame, is good in the air, and has a great range of finishing.
Click to expand...
No chance. His general play is too mediocre.
 
Bebestation said:
Is it really? I think it's crazy that Bale's managed to win more CL trophies in his career than a club like United did.
Click to expand...

Erm...that would make Keylor Navas and Victor Valdes 2 of the greatest keepers ever I guess? Sometimes it's about being in the right club at the right time...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.