Zidane or Riquelme?

[Dr. Know]

It hardly classes as carrying a team to the final. Although, given that many believe he carried the 98 France team it probably equates to that.

Just a few posts later:

but he carried france to the WC win in 98

:rolleyes: They never learn.

[Moishe]

Saying he was never the main man on any of his teams is one of the most foolish things I've ever read. You only need to go back to the last world cup to see what a ridiculous statement that is. Zidane carried a team that was having trouble qualifying in Europe and came out of retirement to get them to not only win their group and qualify for the world cup but go on to the finals. If you are going to make up things atleast make them somewhat believable.

Zizou did his job holding, distributing and orchestrating in 2006 but were they offensively that effective? The Spain match aside, they only scored more than one gol once and that was against Togo iirc. If anyone or part of that side truly carried that team it was again the defense. This also applies to the 98 side in which once again it was the defense that was the face of the side, namely Lillian Thuram. Thuram gets little mention when most folks go on about France and Zizou and imo he was the true face of those sides.


Your statement falls flat with the fact that France was struggling to even qualify for the world cup. Go back and research it if you dont believe me. Zidane came out of retirement and carried a less superior team than Argentina's to the final.
One other note, you seem to have overblown Riquelme's performance in the world cup. He was far from exceptional, and Argentina's early stage results were more of a team contribution rather than a one man show. Copa America is another example where Riquelme (with a star studded Argentina lineup) failed against Brazil without its main stars.
To say Zidane was not the face of juve, madrid is understandable but to say he wasnt the face on France's team is delusional. If that is so then name who was the face of France during this world cup, this should be interesting to read.

That's debatable whether or not our Argentina side was that much better than France. I'll happily acknowledge that yes, our attack options were in better form and higher talent but thats about where it ends. Mascherano and Zanetti aside, we were very suspect in the defensive third. Defensively we were nowhere close to France. Please don't bring up Beto Ayala, as great a player as he was, his decline started before the World Cup. His vulnerability to the counter attack was evident early in qualifiers.

You asked who the face of France was and as I stated above, Lillan Thuram and those defenses. You always go back to the Copa America but the fact is that he was the only attacker that came to play. He had the only real chances for Argentina and in truth played well considering the volume of fouls Brazil put on him.

i dont think anyone's questioning riquelme's genius, but whether it stands up to Zidane's is another point. Watching Riquelme closely the whole tournament, i can tell you he was nothing spectacular and Zidanes performances had a greater impact, and i think most people would agree to that. Ofcourse Riquelme has had brilliant moments including during qualifiers and his influence on Boca, but in comparison to Zidanes it falls short IMO.

Actually I think many with a non-global view of futbol severely question Romans genius. Can you honestly tell me how many matches of Romans you've watched? Correct me if I'm wrong but you take the approach that his experience in Europe strongly influences your opinion. Many of us Argentines feel that his not being taken in 2002 was the biggest reason we were laughed out of that torneo.

The ridiculous part is people trying to say zidane was a passenger for all his teams and was purely an aesthetic player.

I myself never said he was a passenger but I did say numerous times that he benefited on the club level from being a part of two great sides. When he was in Bordeaux and Cannes they accomplished little. Was he an aesthetic player? Absolutely and a very skilled and technically beautiful player to watch but was he really as influential as he's made out to be?

You and I will never agree at this point but I'm confident in the next few years you'll change your mind.

[Mojam5]

He had one excellent game, one good game and was downright awful for the rest. It hardly classes as carrying a team to the final. Although, given that many believe he carried the 98 France team it probably equates to that.
Downright awful on the rest? What games were you watching? Geez, you give a new meaning to player bias.

[Mojam5]

I'm admittedly a card-carrying member of the pirlo fan club, and he and iniesta are two of my favorite midfielders, but riquelme has more natural talent than both imho.

riquelme even has more natural talent than zidane i'd say. just my opinion, though, and i don't want to pull this thread too far off track.
Well theres a difference between talent and the actual result. Quaresma has just about as much talent as Ronaldo but you see the difference in where they are in their careers.

[Dr. Know]

Well theres a difference between talent and the actual result. Quaresma has just about as much talent as Ronaldo but you see the difference in where they are in their careers.

That's a horrible comparison because Quaresma's end result is nowhere near Ronaldo's.

Riquelme's end result in La Liga is very comparable to Zidane's despite playing in a far inferior team. If you take a look at their league goals Riquelme scored just as many as Zidane in much fewer games. I don't have assist stats but I'm pretty sure they're comparable as well, infact I think Riquelme's are superior.

[Volrath]

Downright awful on the rest? What games were you watching? Geez, you give a new meaning to player bias.
Invisible against Switzerland and South Korea in the group stages, didn't play against Togo.

Against Spain, apart from his goal at the very end to wrap that game up, he was nothing more then a passenger.

Against Brazil: brilliant game, no question about that.

Against Portugal: nowhere to be found apart from his penalty

Against Italy: penalty, was marked out by Pirlo and Gattusso, got frustrated and got a red card

[Massimo_Oddo]

Invisible against Switzerland and South Korea in the group stages, didn't play against Togo.

Against Spain, apart from his goal at the very end to wrap that game up, he was nothing more then a passenger.

Against Brazil: brilliant game, no question about that.

Against Portugal: nowhere to be found apart from his penalty

Against Italy: penalty, was marked out by Pirlo and Gattusso, got frustrated and got a red card

couldnt have put it better myself, though some people still believe he carried France to the final...

[celito]

Invisible against Switzerland and South Korea in the group stages, didn't play against Togo.

Against Spain, apart from his goal at the very end to wrap that game up, he was nothing more then a passenger.

Against Brazil: brilliant game, no question about that.

Against Portugal: nowhere to be found apart from his penalty

Against Italy: penalty, was marked out by Pirlo and Gattusso, got frustrated and got a red card

You beat me to the punch :p

I will add ... Zidane "carried" France in the first group stage to barely finishing 2nd place in a group with the Swiss, Korea, and Togo .... :D

[Rivo10]

Zizou did his job holding, distributing and orchestrating in 2006 but were they offensively that effective? The Spain match aside, they only scored more than one gol once and that was against Togo iirc. If anyone or part of that side truly carried that team it was again the defense. This also applies to the 98 side in which once again it was the defense that was the face of the side, namely Lillian Thuram. Thuram gets little mention when most folks go on about France and Zizou and imo he was the true face of those sides.



You asked who the face of France was and as I stated above, Lillan Thuram and those defenses[/QUOTE


[QUOTE]Actually I think many with a non-global view of futbol severely question Romans genius. Can you honestly tell me how many matches of Romans you've watched? Correct me if I'm wrong but you take the approach that his experience in Europe strongly influences your opinion.


.



An interesting debate, both sides have had some good argument's let's say.Though imo it's easier to scrutinize someone who's on top as to someone who isn't there yet.I'll answer the bold italic's in sequence.

Ofcourse i'll agree on the fact that France relied considerabally on a defensive system during Zidane's generation.Nobody should ever claim that Zizou should have the lone spotlight during that golden period.The like's of Thuram,Deschamp's and Desailly would surley have somthing to say about that.But as with every triumphant generation there is always a nucleus that will shine.For every Beckenbauer,Van Basten and Ronaldo there was a Muller,Rijkaard and Rivaldo....player's that all excelled with a prefered system ala Zizou and France.

France's defensive style in the past barring 2000 was only exemplified due to a lack of attacking option's.The like's of Laslandes,Dugarry and Anelka were a testament to that.There were flash brilliances from Trez and Henry but were not consistent.To sum it up their only way of passage was through Zidane, a role he thrived in.

Secondly you stated that the face of France was their defenses? You won't find alot of people at least with sufficinet claim to side that opinion.Zidane was still France's pacemaker.For all their defensive prowress an abscent Zidane during wcup 2002 only exposed a deterriorating France not to mention their overwhelming lack of imagination.Follow that with the abysmal performances during wcup qualification's for '06 and it's no secret to what was the missing ingredient.Here's an interesting stat that will always back Zizou's potentcy with France...

Out of 108 games played for the blues, somehow Zidane only managed to lose a staggering 7 games! In turn that's 82%:eek:

Compare that to the like's of Desailly,Deschamp's Vieira and Thuram there's a marginal difference.That's an even higher percentage than the like's of Beckenbauer,Cruyff and Platini.

Thirdly why wouldn't Riquelme's experience in Europe not be Dentrimental?

As for the topic, wouldn't it be noteworthy to mention Riquelme's failure to raise the stake's in three major tournament's?

Copa America '99 - Eliminated by Brazil

World Cup '06 - Eliminated by Germany

Copa America - Eliminated by a Brazil "B" side!

I mean really with the right intangible's you could make a case that Riquelme was even better than Zico.But in reality...

[Mojam5]

Invisible against Switzerland and South Korea in the group stages, didn't play against Togo.

Against Spain, apart from his goal at the very end to wrap that game up, he was nothing more then a passenger.

Against Brazil: brilliant game, no question about that.

Against Portugal: nowhere to be found apart from his penalty

Against Italy: penalty, was marked out by Pirlo and Gattusso, got frustrated and got a red card
have you seen how many games platini was absolutely invisible in? and your analysis of Spain and Portugal matches are completely incorrect. Zidane was key in maintaining posession and controlling the flow.
How can someone even think to claim Riquelme was more impressive during the world cup?

[Mojam5]

That's a horrible comparison because Quaresma's end result is nowhere near Ronaldo's.

Riquelme's end result in La Liga is very comparable to Zidane's despite playing in a far inferior team. If you take a look at their league goals Riquelme scored just as many as Zidane in much fewer games. I don't have assist stats but I'm pretty sure they're comparable as well, infact I think Riquelme's are superior.
there will always be aspects in the game one exceeds the other. And it seems to you that stats define a players success.

[Dr. Know]

there will always be aspects in the game one exceeds the other. And it seems to you that stats define a players success.

Of course they don't but it represents that both players can be completely compared to in terms of contributions to their respective teams. Of course Riquelme did not win as much as Zidane did with Real but he was playing for Villarreal a club that was in the second division just a few years prior to him joining. In spite of not having the supporting cast Zidane did Riquelme put in some performances that were very comparable to and even surpassed Zidane at times. So the result was there even though you seemd to imply there wasn't in your post.

[TKORL]

Pretty much all the credible footballing experts, analysts, legends are ignorant to think zidane is one of the all time greats while riquelme is not, but you with your track record of idiocy are not. What a joke.

This is one of the worst comparisons. A fairer one would be Riquelme vs Gerrard, Zidane and Riquelme are not on the same level on anything, accomplishments, talent, performances on big stages, leadership, compatibility playing with other big stars, etc.
I don't understand the Zidane bashing, he was easily one of the top 5 CAMs of his generation, and as that he does deserve respect. But I guess it's his fault he played for top clubs and an elite level country. To be a truly great player you have to eschew ambition and move to a smaller club and prove yourself there, just so some self-appointed experts on Bigsoccer can rate you...

[TKORL]

Invisible against Switzerland and South Korea in the group stages, didn't play against Togo.

Against Spain, apart from his goal at the very end to wrap that game up, he was nothing more then a passenger.

Against Brazil: brilliant game, no question about that.

Against Portugal: nowhere to be found apart from his penalty

Against Italy: penalty, was marked out by Pirlo and Gattusso, got frustrated and got a red card
He was outstanding against Spain. I wouldn't say he was France's best player, but he played very well against Spain, Brazil, and Portugal. But yes, he did have two mediocre group games. He clearly didn't carry them to the final, however he was the difference in the knockout stages.

[Massimo_Oddo]

He was outstanding against Spain. I wouldn't say he was France's best player, but he played very well against Spain, Brazil, and Portugal. But yes, he did have two mediocre group games. He clearly didn't carry them to the final, however he was the difference in the knockout stages.

complete rubbish!

He was great against Brazil but not against Portugal or Spain.

Vieira was much more important.

[Moishe]

An interesting debate, both sides have had some good argument's let's say.Though imo it's easier to scrutinize someone who's on top as to someone who isn't there yet.I'll answer the bold italic's in sequence.

Ofcourse i'll agree on the fact that France relied considerabally on a defensive system during Zidane's generation.Nobody should ever claim that Zizou should have the lone spotlight during that golden period.The like's of Thuram,Deschamp's and Desailly would surley have somthing to say about that.But as with every triumphant generation there is always a nucleus that will shine.For every Beckenbauer,Van Basten and Ronaldo there was a Muller,Rijkaard and Rivaldo....player's that all excelled with a prefered system ala Zizou and France.

France's defensive style in the past barring 2000 was only exemplified due to a lack of attacking option's.The like's of Laslandes,Dugarry and Anelka were a testament to that.There were flash brilliances from Trez and Henry but were not consistent.To sum it up their only way of passage was through Zidane, a role he thrived in.

Secondly you stated that the face of France was their defenses? You won't find alot of people at least with sufficinet claim to side that opinion.Zidane was still France's pacemaker.For all their defensive prowress an abscent Zidane during wcup 2002 only exposed a deterriorating France not to mention their overwhelming lack of imagination.Follow that with the abysmal performances during wcup qualification's for '06 and it's no secret to what was the missing ingredient.Here's an interesting stat that will always back Zizou's potentcy with France...

Out of 108 games played for the blues, somehow Zidane only managed to lose a staggering 7 games! In turn that's 82%:eek:

Compare that to the like's of Desailly,Deschamp's Vieira and Thuram there's a marginal difference.That's an even higher percentage than the like's of Beckenbauer,Cruyff and Platini.

Thirdly why wouldn't Riquelme's experience in Europe not be Dentrimental?

As for the topic, wouldn't it be noteworthy to mention Riquelme's failure to raise the stake's in three major tournament's?

Copa America '99 - Eliminated by Brazil

World Cup '06 - Eliminated by Germany

Copa America - Eliminated by a Brazil "B" side!

I mean really with the right intangible's you could make a case that Riquelme was even better than Zico.But in reality...

Good post with some fair points given. I will however respond to a few things. Your contention that Zizou alone should not receive the lions share of the spotlight is something I agree with. To me it takes away from what were some truly outstanding sides. The reliance on Zidane due to lack of consistent attacking options is fair but in all honesty even with proven attacking options later on with Les Bleus, they still never lit up the scoreboard and as recently as their most recent World Cup performances, it all came down to the defense not giving up gols. If they as a unit give up more gols, nothing I've seen indicates they could've increased their attack enough to offset a poorer defense.

That is situation with Riquelme in 1999 no? Aside from himself, the rest of the attack for Argentina was pretty limited. Palermo, Piojo Lopez and El Mellizo. Ortega and Aimar were the only other options and they weren't forwards. All Bielsas sides were based on the defense which his rosters always showed. The truth is in 1999 Riquelmes performance was the metronome for the side and when he was dropped for 2002, Bielsa really showed his ass as that side lacked any creativity nor a player to take control and pace the match. During the most recent World Cup, his absence clearly had a detrimental effect on the side. It was clear each and every time he came off the pitch especially against Germany; a sub which pretty much sealed our fate. This most recent Copa America? I just don't see how anyone can or still place the blame on Riquelme. He was arguably the best player in that torneo and the only player to show up in that final against Brazil. Let's take a look at the other attacking options that failed miserably in that match, Tevez and Messi; where are their critics?

Lastly his European experience should be based on the results while there. As has been stated and beaten to death, the Barca experience was a loss long before he got there. You seem to be an educated fan to know that he was never wanted by the coach and only brought in as a political move. Van Gaal never hid his disdain for Riquelmes signing nor did he hide the fact that Riquelme didn't fit into his plans. As for Villarreal, I don't think anyone questions the accomplishments with an at best average side. What he did was carry a side that had accomplished little or nothing before him and likely less now that he is gone. Sure Villarreal is having a decent season but they are not going to finish any better at any level while Riquelme was there. As influential as Roman has been in South America and with the National Team, it's clear that those accomplishments balance out the short stay in Europe.


I don't understand the Zidane bashing, he was easily one of the top 5 CAMs of his generation, and as that he does deserve respect. But I guess it's his fault he played for top clubs and an elite level country. To be a truly great player you have to eschew ambition and move to a smaller club and prove yourself there, just so some self-appointed experts on Bigsoccer can rate you...

I'm not really sure people are bashing Zidane as much as they are questioning the perception that he is first, on the level of Cruyff, Maradona, Pele or Beckenbaur which many are and secondly it is questioned as to whether Les Bleus success was solely because of Zidane. He deserves respect and hype but to say he was on the level of the games true greats is over the top.

Let me touch on the underlined part. The point many of us have made is that no he didn't need to move to a smaller side to show his worth. What needs to be factored in is what did he do with those smaller clubs while he was there? Most players can excel on a squad that is star-studded so why shouldn't his performances at Cannes and Bordeaux not be brought into the equation? If his level of play was so brilliant, he would have taken those sides to higher standards; something that just didn't happen.


On a side note, did you see which keeper Arsenal are trying to buy due to not wanting to rely on Almunia? I'll give you a hint, it's not Friedel either.

[bosterosoy]

riquelme to me is like a less talented pirlo

LOL

[bosterosoy]

that is true, but you can say much of the same for totti. he had 3 assists and made the passes that led to the penalty and the pass that sprang gila free for the second semi goal. versus germany and ukraine his ability to spread play and help keep possession was vital. his introduction changed the course of the australia game (and of course he converted the last minute penalty) after 120 minutes on a bad leg, versus germany, he was spent and france kept him under wraps. even though italy won, it will go down as a mediocre tournament. people don't want to hear about high passing percentages, how his substitution hurt the team, how in riquelme's case, he had an epic qualifying game versus brazil, etc. they want to be able to quickly remember certain moments. in totti's case above, ask sombeody to remember the ukraine game and they might mention buffon diving head-first into the post or zambrotta's scorcher (if they even rememebr that game at all), and then the germany game, they remember pirlo's no-look pass to grosso and his bending shot, and del piero's curler to seal it, and if they are defensive connoisseurs, cannavaro's double clearance and steal that sets up the last goal (in italian it sticks out more as the announcer goes into a frenzy saying cannavaro twice in rapid succession). totti, well, most people will remember only a penalty from that world cup, and a controversial one at that.

For another great representation of what your saying, you can compare Claudio Caniggia and Hernan Crespo. Hernan Crespo is now the second all-time leading goalscorer for Argentina's National Team. However, I dont think any Argentinian will question that Caniggia was better for the national team and would take Caniggia over Crespo. Crespo has scored around 34 goals (not sure how many exactly), while Caniggia scored a mere 16 goals for the national team. Yet, any Argentinian fan can recall various of Caniggia's clutch goals yet I don't remember any from Crespo unless you count a goal against Mexico. Caniggia had the goal against Brasil and then Italy in the 1990 WC etc etc

That being said, I wouldn't even have to think about it. I would take Riquelme over Zidane without hesitation

[TKORL]

I'm not really sure people are bashing Zidane as much as they are questioning the perception that he is first, on the level of Cruyff, Maradona, Pele or Beckenbaur which many are and secondly it is questioned as to whether Les Bleus success was solely because of Zidane. He deserves respect and hype but to say he was on the level of the games true greats is over the top.

Let me touch on the underlined part. The point many of us have made is that no he didn't need to move to a smaller side to show his worth. What needs to be factored in is what did he do with those smaller clubs while he was there? Most players can excel on a squad that is star-studded so why shouldn't his performances at Cannes and Bordeaux not be brought into the equation? If his level of play was so brilliant, he would have taken those sides to higher standards; something that just didn't happen.


On a side note, did you see which keeper Arsenal are trying to buy due to not wanting to rely on Almunia? I'll give you a hint, it's not Friedel either.

Only the casual observer would say that France's success was due to Zidane only, he had some of the best players in the world surround him in almost every position, at the same time, I highly doubt France would have the success they did without him, so he does deserve credit. It seems easy to say that because a team has outstanding players they are immediately great teams, however as we've regularly seen, it's not always the case.


To say that Zidane is on a different level from Cruyff, Maradona etc. is fine, but that comparison has rarely been done on this thread. Rather, the argument has been to show the talent of Zidane's teammates. As for his performances with smaller teams, he played at Cannes while still under the age of 20, so that's not a fair argument to make, however with Bordeaux, he still played in a UEFA Cup final, which is their only one to date. Of course he did have some good players beside him...

As for Almunia, the fact that a keeper who was a substitute for a relegated club has held the no.1 spot for EPL's top club only strengthens my point. If Robert Green signs for Arsenal, great, he's still nowhere near Casillas, Hildenbrand, Canizares, Valdes, Kameni, Abbondanzieri etc, and those are the top keepers in Spain.

[TKORL]

complete rubbish!

He was great against Brazil but not against Portugal or Spain.

Vieira was much more important.
It must be true if you say so...