Greatest Modern Player ??

[kingkong1]

I have no problem with Zidane as far as the aesthetics of his play nor his contribution. I have no issue with his being considered one of if not the best player of the past 20 years. But please don't tell me he carried France because it's just not the case. Baborum even stated that France could've won without Zidane but you can't say the same about Argentina 86 without Diego. 1986 and Diego Maradona is what set the bar for carrying a team and Zidane has never had a torneo like that. Zidane was a great player on a great team/s while Diego was a even greater player on a good team. That to me is the difference and why I think Zidane is overrated.I think that you as an Argentine exaggerate when you say El Pibe won 86 all by himself; on the other hand I never stated Zidane did it.

Besides how could I compare a genius like Maradona with a no more than a great player as Zidane?...

All I said he was a big factor in France's success. And Babaorum proved it. Period.

In a post addressed to you, I wrote (page 10): (...) he (Zidane) in my opinion was the best in the last 15 years, what frankly is not say much for who goes to stadiums since 1958 like me.

(And here, believe me, I'm not bragging: getting old is nothing to brag about :D)

If we extend however that range to 25 years or 30 years he's gonna be behind (sometimes way behind) players like Zico, Maradona, Platini, Ardiles, Falcão, Pasarella and others; if we try to go farther, then Zidane will become only an excellent player like so many and will (honourably it's true) vanish in the dust of history.
But people in this forum don't read each other...

Too much of that 'inocuous' Ripped Fuel from Twin Labs! :o ...

[Moishe]

Eh Moishe, eres ocho o ochenta, huh?...

(And I'm not the one who brought up the drugs issue here...)

But you made El Pibe now look like Madre Theresa of Calcuttah!...

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/9707/maradona21ok3.jpg

Look at those angelic red eyes (puke!...)

And this in a WC quarterfinal, the whole world watching...

When you take those 'vitamins' that 'almost anyone can buy' do you also get like that??? :p ...

Ocho o ochenta? No se no mas. "Nevertheless in 94 Maradona was still there taking the tablets", this is where you brought up drugs, remember those words or has the LSD had long term effects:rolleyes: Now I'm not sure I in any way made El Diego look like Madre Theresa all I did was use his play in one tournament as what defines carrying a team. I know you can grasp that, you just like to be difficult. Oh and as far as ephedrine is concerned, I don't like speed due to a very high metabolism as it is.

[Tribune]

Moishe, allow me to interfere.

First and foremost, KingKong1, about the aesthetics things : the problem with rating a player based on such a criterias is the impossibility to differentiate between him and the other candidates. Aesthetics are so exclusively subjective that, in a discussion about the rating of a player, they become a non-argument by default. Who was more beautiful to watch : Zidane or Rivaldo ? Zico or Maradona ? Cruyff or Beckenbauer ? Pele or Garrincha ? Van Basten or Ronaldo ? Eusebio or Puskas ? There is no answer which can be given to such a question and thus a player should be rated not according to the aesthetics of his game, but rather the difficulty of his style, the influence exerted on his team's game and the level of threat for the opposition.
This what Teso meant (I think :p).

Coming back to Zidane : of course that many other players had solid defenses to protect their backs. There could be no other way, but that's not the problem here. So, since you said that you don't put him on par with some of the greatest players pre-1990, I will refer only to the big guns from the last 15 years. Do you think you can put Zidane's performance from 1998 on par with Romario's 1994 or Ronaldo's 2002 ? These two players have the main offensive weapons in the respective tournaments, being a constant threat from the beginning till the end.
In contrast, Zidane's moments of brilliance have been only episodic and his form in the major international tournaments has been quite erratic. He blew hot and cold, to say so. One of my major reasons to consider Zidane extremely overrated is the enormous credit which he gets for his WC win, especially in comparison with players like Cruyff, Zico and Platini, who didn't win it, when his only stellar moment consisted of a final against a severely crippled brazilian side. That's a bit hard to swallow especially when I can think of at least 20 players who had better performances than him at WC level.
Babaorum numbers may look impressive at first sight, but, in my case, not the overall international record is what counts the most, but the performances in the major tournaments. What happens outside of this is only the foundation of a legacy. For instance, Henry may seem France's best striker at international level, but his performances in major were nothing special. For instance, Jimmy Greaves international record is impressive (44 goals in 57 goals), but I can't rate him higher than his contemporary Eusebio because he was a no-show in his both WC. I think you get the point. And, as I said, Zidane's form has been quite inconsistent.
In defense to Moishe's points, it could be said that France played 20 official games without Zidane and lost only 3 (one of them, against Holland in Euro 2000, playing with a B-team).

In regard to his club performances, I have made once a long analysis, which you may want to look at. I argued that Zidane did not have a major impact on the level of his team's performances and I stand by that.
The reasons resides in the fact that Zidane is a "keeping posession" type of player, but at the same time he is not threatening enough for the opposition, because he is not direct enough.
For instance, I have a talk once with a Zidane fan who refered to me the Man Utd - Real Madrid game as one of his top-class games. I didn't get into an argument at the time, because I didn't have the match fresh in my mind. But, only several weeks afterwards, I rewatched the game and this time, with that discussion still on my mind, I paid special attention to Zidane : how many times does he creates threat for the opposite goal ? Well, the conclusion. In probably the most offensive game I watched over the last decade, Zidane was involved in only 3 threatening plays : a pass for Figo, who hit the post from a tight angle, the build-up for the second goal (pass to the left for R.Carlos, who assisted Ronaldo) and another pass near the end of the game for Portillo who shot wide.
In such an offensive game, Zidane never had a shot on goal for 90 minutes. And, also, the 3 plays mentioned are not a very impressive number, when we talk about the number 10, in other words the offensive engine of a team, in a game who had practically tons of chances.

Roughly speaking, Zidane often shied away from defenses and he does not push forward as much as it should. As a consequence, his style of play makes him very dependant on his teammates' performances.
Please, examine his career year by year. You will notice that there are major drops in Zidane's level whenever his teams falls back to a more pedestrian level. Absolutely all of Zidane's trophies, paraded so much by his fans who like to boast that he won everything, were won when his teams were by far the best in the competition.
It's not a coincidence that Zidane wasn't able to achieve anything with "normal" teams or that he didn't manage to be the difference maker for his previous stellar teams when they struggled.

[Moishe]

I think that you as an Argentine exaggerate when you say El Pibe won 86 all by himself; on the other hand I never stated Zidane did it.

Besides how could I compare a genius like Maradona with a no more than a great player as Zidane?...

All I said he was a big factor in France's success. And Babaorum proved it. Period.

In a post addressed to you, I wrote (page 10):But people in this forum don't read each other...

Too much acid!...

Acid aside, I have always given praise to the defense of the 1986 team but hold firm in my belief that the teams attacking options without Diego were at best good not great. Valdano, Burruchaga....were all good but not capable of making it all come together like Diego. I am also well aware that you never said Zidane carried France. I never implied it nor stated "KingKong1 said".

I also acknowledged Baborum and the stats nor did I ever say that Zidane wasn't important to France. I simply said he did not carry France. They could have won without him, something Baborum even acknowledged was a possibility. What's strange is that we may actually agree on a lot with Zidane other than what defines carrying a team. Say no to drugs King1 they are really starting to effect you negatively;)

[luciusmagister]

Depends on who's asked. I would say the early 90's if anything but then again I'm an old fart.
If that is the case then a lot of players come to mind.

Maradona was still around in the early 90's and some might say he is the greatest player ever. When I was a kid there wasn't a bigger player. The guy was magic with the ball and knew where to be when he didn't have it.
M-x9y_-QfC8

Zidane and Maldini have won just about everything.

Van Basten, Leonardo Araújo and Weah were breathtaking. In fact, Milan were probably the team of the 90's and you could probably throw a dart at a team sheet and hit a player that could be called one of the greatest modern players.

Ronaldo was awesome and unstoppable for a period of his career.

I guess it has to be Maradona, Ronaldo or Zidane for the "modern" era for me offensively and Maldini defensively.

[Moishe]

Moishe, allow me to interfere.

First and foremost, KingKong1, about the aesthetics things : the problem with rating a player based on such a criterias is the impossibility to differentiate between him and the other candidates. Aesthetics are so exclusively subjective that, in a discussion about the rating of a player, they become a non-argument by default. Who was more beautiful to watch : Zidane or Rivaldo ? Zico or Maradona ? Cruyff or Beckenbauer ? Pele or Garrincha ? Van Basten or Ronaldo ? Eusebio or Puskas ? There is no answer which can be given to such a question and thus a player should be rated not according to the aesthetics of his game, but rather the difficulty of his style, the influence exerted on his team's game and the level of threat for the opposition.
This what Teso meant (I think :p).

Coming back to Zidane : of course that many other players had solid defenses to protect their backs. There could be no other way, but that's not the problem here. So, since you said that you don't put him on par with some of the greatest players pre-1990, I will refer only to the big guns from the last 15 years. Do you think you can put Zidane's performance from 1998 on par with Romario's 1994 or Ronaldo's 2002 ? These two players have the main offensive weapons in the respective tournaments, being a constant threat from the beginning till the end.
In contrast, Zidane's moments of brilliance have been only episodic and his form in the major international tournaments has been quite erratic. He blew hot and cold, to say so. One of my major reasons to consider Zidane extremely overrated is the enormous credit which he gets for his WC win, especially in comparison with players like Cruyff, Zico and Platini, who didn't win it, when his only stellar moment consisted of a final against a severely crippled brazilian side. That's a bit hard to swallow especially when I can think of at least 20 players who had better performances than him at WC level.
Babaorum numbers may look impressive at first sight, but, in my case, not the overall international record is what counts the most, but the performances in the major tournaments. What happens outside of this is only the foundation of a legacy. For instance, Henry may seem France's best striker at international level, but his performances in major were nothing special. For instance, Jimmy Greaves international record is impressive (44 goals in 57 goals), but I can't rate him higher than his contemporary Eusebio because he was a no-show in his both WC. I think you get the point. And, as I said, Zidane's form has been quite inconsistent.
In defense to Moishe's points, it could be said that France played 20 official games without Zidane and lost only 3 (one of them, against Holland in Euro 2000, playing with a B-team).

In regard to his club performances, I have made once a long analysis, which you may want to look at. I argued that Zidane did not have a major impact on the level of his team's performances and I stand by that.
The reasons resides in the fact that Zidane is a "keeping posession" type of player, but at the same time he is not threatening enough for the opposition, because he is not direct enough.
For instance, I have a talk once with a Zidane fan who refered to me the Man Utd - Real Madrid game as one of his top-class games. I didn't get into an argument at the time, because I didn't have the match fresh in my mind. But, only several weeks afterwards, I rewatched the game and this time, with that discussion still on my mind, I paid special attention to Zidane : how many times does he creates threat for the opposite goal ? Well, the conclusion. In probably the most offensive game I watched over the last decade, Zidane was involved in only 3 threatening plays : a pass for Figo, who hit the post from a tight angle, the build-up for the second goal (pass to the left for R.Carlos, who assisted Ronaldo) and another pass near the end of the game for Portillo who shot wide.
In such an offensive game, Zidane never had a shot on goal for 90 minutes. And, also, the 3 plays mentioned are not a very impressive number, when we talk about the number 10, in other words the offensive engine of a team, in a game who had practically tons of chances.

Roughly speaking, Zidane often shied away from defenses and he does not push forward as much as it should. As a consequence, his style of play makes him very dependant on his teammates' performances.
Please, examine his career year by year. You will notice that there are major drops in Zidane's level whenever his teams falls back to a more pedestrian level. Absolutely all of Zidane's trophies, paraded so much by his fans who like to boast that he won everything, were won when his teams were by far the best in the competition.
It's not a coincidence that Zidane wasn't able to achieve anything with "normal" teams or that he didn't manage to be the difference maker for his previous stellar teams when they struggled.

I couldn't have said it better myself:p:D Well said Tribune.

[Moishe]

Maradona was still around in the early 90's

In the early 90's Maradona was already starting to show decline. Throw a 15 month suspension into the mix along with 1994 and you have a pretty forgettable time. Maradona was definitely at his best in the 80's.

[luciusmagister]

In the early 90's Maradona was already starting to show decline. Throw a 15 month suspension into the mix along with 1994 and you have a pretty forgettable time. Maradona was definitely at his best in the 80's.
Yeah, no doubt but he played in the 90's. I even consider the 80's to be the "modern era". BTW I thought the '94 ban was stupid and I think it nearly ruined the world cup for me.

[sidis]

romário

[Moishe]

Yeah, no doubt but he played in the 90's. I even consider the 80's to be the "modern era". BTW I thought the '94 ban was stupid and I think it nearly ruined the world cup for me.

I'm curious as to why you felt the 1994 ban was stupid.

[luciusmagister]

I'm curious as to why you felt the 1994 ban was stupid.
Ephedrine is found in so many OTC products and wasn't banned in many pro sports leagues at the time. I think FIFA was looking to ban Maradona with the drug test. I don't believe it was a random selection at all; I think they wanted him out.

[luciusmagister]

romário
He is a could have been if you ask me.

[Moishe]

Ephedrine is found in so many OTC products and wasn't banned in many pro sports leagues at the time. I think FIFA was looking to ban Maradona with the drug test. I don't believe it was a random selection at all; I think they wanted him out.

The truth is that Maradona was not booted out by FIFA but by the AFA. It also wasn't exclusively ephedrine in his system but also phenylpropanolamine, pseudo-ephedrine, non-pseudo-ephedrine and methylephedrine. Had it been just one of those drugs he would have been okay but the fact it was cocktail is what doomed Diego. The only substance Diego acknowledged taking was Ripped Fuel which can be purchased with or without ephedrine. He played stupid and it didn't cut the mustard. Nothing on the market has all five forms which is what FIFA was going to hang it's hat on. He was clearly looking for an advantage and as an Argentine I can freely admit it.

The truth is all those drugs he had in his system according to WADA (World Anti Doping Agency) are all okay as long as they remain below a certain level but any trace of THC is an instant bust and suspension. Somehow from a performance stand point that just doesn't make sense.

[Kulspruta]

What do you mean a could have been? He was the bright spot in a world cup winning team, scored tons of goals in ways other players wouldn't even dare try, is 42 and still playing at a competitive level with a good scoring ratio, was the top scorer of the brazilian league in 2005 at 39 years old, ahead of Tevez. If he was any better he would have to be mentioned alongside Pele and Maradona.

* South American championship (U 20): 1985
* Rio state league's top scorer: 1986, 1987, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000
* Olympic Games's top scorer: 1988
* Dutch league's top scorer: 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992
* Dutch Cup's top scorer: 1989, 1990
* Brazilian champions league's top scorer: 1990
* European Champions League's top scorer: 1990, 1993
* Spanish league's top scorer: 1994
* The best South American top player of the Spanish league (EFE trophy): 1994
* World Cup's top player: 1994
* Onze d'Or (top player of the year for the Onze Mondial French newspaper): 1994
* FIFA Top player: 1994
* Confederations Cup's top scorer: 1997
* Rio-São Paulo tournament's top scorer: 1997, 2000
* Brazilian Cup's top scorer: 1998, 1999
* Copa Mercosul's top scorer: 1999, 2000
* João Havelange's top scorer: 2000
* Top player of the Intercontinental Cup's final: 2000
* Brazilian Bola de Prata (Placar): 2000
* El Pais newspaper (top player): 2000
* Brazilian league's top scorer: 2001, 2005


COULD HAVE BEEN?

[luciusmagister]

The truth is that Maradona was not booted out by FIFA but by the AFA. It also wasn't exclusively ephedrine in his system but also phenylpropanolamine, pseudo-ephedrine, non-pseudo-ephedrine and methylephedrine. Had it been just one of those drugs he would have been okay but the fact it was cocktail is what doomed Diego. The only substance Diego acknowledged taking was Ripped Fuel which can be purchased with or without ephedrine. He played stupid and it didn't cut the mustard. Nothing on the market has all five forms which is what FIFA was going to hang it's hat on. He was clearly looking for an advantage and as an Argentine I can freely admit it.

The truth is all those drugs he had in his system according to WADA (World Anti Doping Agency) are all okay as long as they remain below a certain level but any trace of THC is an instant bust and suspension. Somehow from a performance stand point that just doesn't make sense.
THC? I don't get it from a performance stand point. :D

I thought Maradona was pretty good before he got booted and I think it really effected the Argentinian team when he left. If it was the AFA that gave him the boot it was the wrong thing to do as they shot themselves in the foot and if he wasn't good enough they should have asked him to leave before the tournament started.

I wonder if they tested for blood doping back then. I hear some Italian teams were famous for the practice back then.

[luciusmagister]

What do you mean a could have been? He was the bright spot in a world cup winning team, scored tons of goals in ways other players wouldn't even dare try, is 42 and still playing at a competitive level with a good scoring ratio, was the top scorer of the brazilian league in 2005 at 39 years old, ahead of Tevez. If he was any better he would have to be mentioned alongside Pele and Maradona.

* South American championship (U 20): 1985
* Rio state league's top scorer: 1986, 1987, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000
* Olympic Games's top scorer: 1988
* Dutch league's top scorer: 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992
* Dutch Cup's top scorer: 1989, 1990
* Brazilian champions league's top scorer: 1990
* European Champions League's top scorer: 1990, 1993
* Spanish league's top scorer: 1994
* The best South American top player of the Spanish league (EFE trophy): 1994
* World Cup's top player: 1994
* Onze d'Or (top player of the year for the Onze Mondial French newspaper): 1994
* FIFA Top player: 1994
* Confederations Cup's top scorer: 1997
* Rio-São Paulo tournament's top scorer: 1997, 2000
* Brazilian Cup's top scorer: 1998, 1999
* Copa Mercosul's top scorer: 1999, 2000
* João Havelange's top scorer: 2000
* Top player of the Intercontinental Cup's final: 2000
* Brazilian Bola de Prata (Placar): 2000
* El Pais newspaper (top player): 2000
* Brazilian league's top scorer: 2001, 2005


COULD HAVE BEEN?
Great player no doubt but the greatest of the modern era? He certainly had the talent to be the G.O.A.T. let alone the modern era but he seems to have lacked in discipline. No offense to the Brazilian league but to be the best you have to play the best. I'll bet I could be the top scorer if I played in the local u-12 club system. Take away a handful of bright seasons in Europe and 94's WC and what else is there?

[Moishe]

THC? I don't get it from a performance stand point. :D

I thought Maradona was pretty good before he got booted and I think it really effected the Argentinian team when he left. If it was the AFA that gave him the boot it was the wrong thing to do as they shot themselves in the foot and if he wasn't good enough they should have asked him to leave before the tournament started.

I wonder if they tested for blood doping back then. I hear some Italian teams were famous for the practice back then.

The AFA really didn't have a choice. Either do it themselves or have FIFA throw sanctions at them. Double edged sword to be honest. As far as blood-doping, in futbol I really doubt it. Hell the 1996 Tour de France winner Bjarne Riss was known as Mr. 60% due to his extremely high hematocrit level which is an indicator of EPO usage. The catch is that in 1996 neither the UCI nor WADA was testing riders for EPO. It was said his blood when drawn for other doping agents was as thick as maple syrup. 1998 is about the time cycling figured out they had a problem. Again with regards to blood doping and futbol, again I really doubt it due to the extreme differences in the sports and the bodies needs.

[Kulspruta]

Great player no doubt but the greatest of the modern era? He certainly had the talent to be the G.O.A.T. let alone the modern era but he seems to have lacked in discipline. No offense to the Brazilian league but to be the best you have to play the best. I'll bet I could be the top scorer if I played in the local u-12 club system. Take away a handful of bright seasons in Europe and 94's WC and what else is there?
And how heck does Romário and the brazilian league compare to you and the local u-12 club system? If some transcendental almighty entity was born in a human body and started playing footbal in the brazilian league, flying and scoring a hundred goals per game, would you say he was not the best because he wasn't playing Rio Ferdinand twice in a season and the Martin Taylors week in and week out? Wake up. The guy was the dutch league's top scorer four years in a row, and it was a good league in the late 80s and early 90s, he was the CL top scorer twice and the spanish league top scorer in 1994. Isn't that Europe enough for you?

To be the best you have to be the best, and that's it.

[kingkong1]

Moishe, allow me to interfere.

First and foremost, KingKong1, about the aesthetics things : the problem with rating a player based on such a criterias is the impossibility to differentiate between him and the other candidates. Aesthetics are so exclusively subjective that, in a discussion about the rating of a player, they become a non-argument by default. Who was more beautiful to watch : Zidane or Rivaldo ? Zico or Maradona ? Cruyff or Beckenbauer ? Pele or Garrincha ? Van Basten or Ronaldo ? Eusebio or Puskas ? There is no answer which can be given to such a question and thus a player should be rated not according to the aesthetics of his game, but rather the difficulty of his style, the influence exerted on his team's game and the level of threat for the opposition.
This what Teso meant (I think :p).

Coming back to Zidane : of course that many other players had solid defenses to protect their backs. There could be no other way, but that's not the problem here. So, since you said that you don't put him on par with some of the greatest players pre-1990, I will refer only to the big guns from the last 15 years. Do you think you can put Zidane's performance from 1998 on par with Romario's 1994 or Ronaldo's 2002 ? These two players have the main offensive weapons in the respective tournaments, being a constant threat from the beginning till the end.
In contrast, Zidane's moments of brilliance have been only episodic and his form in the major international tournaments has been quite erratic. He blew hot and cold, to say so. One of my major reasons to consider Zidane extremely overrated is the enormous credit which he gets for his WC win, especially in comparison with players like Cruyff, Zico and Platini, who didn't win it, when his only stellar moment consisted of a final against a severely crippled brazilian side. That's a bit hard to swallow especially when I can think of at least 20 players who had better performances than him at WC level.
Babaorum numbers may look impressive at first sight, but, in my case, not the overall international record is what counts the most, but the performances in the major tournaments. What happens outside of this is only the foundation of a legacy. For instance, Henry may seem France's best striker at international level, but his performances in major were nothing special. For instance, Jimmy Greaves international record is impressive (44 goals in 57 goals), but I can't rate him higher than his contemporary Eusebio because he was a no-show in his both WC. I think you get the point. And, as I said, Zidane's form has been quite inconsistent.
In defense to Moishe's points, it could be said that France played 20 official games without Zidane and lost only 3 (one of them, against Holland in Euro 2000, playing with a B-team).

In regard to his club performances, I have made once a long analysis, which you may want to look at. I argued that Zidane did not have a major impact on the level of his team's performances and I stand by that.
The reasons resides in the fact that Zidane is a "keeping posession" type of player, but at the same time he is not threatening enough for the opposition, because he is not direct enough.
For instance, I have a talk once with a Zidane fan who refered to me the Man Utd - Real Madrid game as one of his top-class games. I didn't get into an argument at the time, because I didn't have the match fresh in my mind. But, only several weeks afterwards, I rewatched the game and this time, with that discussion still on my mind, I paid special attention to Zidane : how many times does he creates threat for the opposite goal ? Well, the conclusion. In probably the most offensive game I watched over the last decade, Zidane was involved in only 3 threatening plays : a pass for Figo, who hit the post from a tight angle, the build-up for the second goal (pass to the left for R.Carlos, who assisted Ronaldo) and another pass near the end of the game for Portillo who shot wide.
In such an offensive game, Zidane never had a shot on goal for 90 minutes. And, also, the 3 plays mentioned are not a very impressive number, when we talk about the number 10, in other words the offensive engine of a team, in a game who had practically tons of chances.

Roughly speaking, Zidane often shied away from defenses and he does not push forward as much as it should. As a consequence, his style of play makes him very dependant on his teammates' performances.
Please, examine his career year by year. You will notice that there are major drops in Zidane's level whenever his teams falls back to a more pedestrian level. Absolutely all of Zidane's trophies, paraded so much by his fans who like to boast that he won everything, were won when his teams were by far the best in the competition.
It's not a coincidence that Zidane wasn't able to achieve anything with "normal" teams or that he didn't manage to be the difference maker for his previous stellar teams when they struggled.Yep, mate!...

It's not by chance I'm dealing with my good old friend Tribune.

You don't show up much in BS, buddy, but when you do, you generally do it in the form of a wise magistrate soundly hitting the nail with brilliant and almost incontestable verdicts.

Almost.

If not, you wouldn't be human: and, fortunately for us, you are.

But let's go to what matters.

First:

I never advocated 'aesthetics' (tell me when, please) as a primary criterion for judging a player or a team.

It was Teso dos Bichos who came with this story that people in BS were using it to judge players.

What I advocated - in agreement with GTGunning - was that efficient, well played football necessarilly leads to beautiful, aesthetic footbal.

In other words, the aesthetics of football is efficiency.

And that's absolutely objective.

As I had put it, an elástico by Rivelino is a 'work of art', for sure, but a work of art totally analysible, which can be perfectly dissecated in laboratory in its minimum steps.

Allow me to post it again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMXn5hpxaxE

First of all it's not just an elástico performed just for the sake of it: it functionally leads to the its natural and inevitable end, which is the goal.

You can analyze it photogram by photogram: and there is an irresistible LOGIC in all that BEAUTY.

El Pibe (haya suficiente Valium...) must have fits of envy watching it.

A true & efficient beauty...

BTW, if you pay attention - unless it happens by chance - a goal is NEVER ugly.

So, there will always exist aesthetics involved in an efficient move, not as an end in itself, but as a natural consequence of a very well STRUCTURED and LOGIC initiative of a player (or players)...

Beauty is 'just' the final touch, the cherry of the pie: 'trivial' nevertheless indispensable...

Without it the pie is not a pie.

And you can eat only once (or two or three times) but if it's well 'conceived', if it's well made, and has the right ingredients, you'll never forget it.

Puskas was an example, Zico, Platini, Cruyjf were others - and never won any world 'titles'...

And it's (in a lesser scale maybe) the case of Zidane...

And when I referred to Zidane I didn't refer necessarilly to his titles (for sure 'rarer' than the ones of a Pelé or Maradona) but to his absolutely efficient moves that inevitably lead to importan conquests.

I never childishly said (as you 'wickedly' tried to put it) that if 'X' plays nicer than 'Y', 'X' is necessarilly better than 'Y"...

Don't underestimate the intelligence of one of your more faithful and fervorous disciples, Your Excellency.

Second:

You point out as main criterions to analyze a player 'the difficulty of his style, the influence exerted on his team's game and the level of threat for the opposition', forgetting that this 'influence' and 'level of threat' for the enemy can be exerted many times in invisible ways.

Never having a shot on goal for 90 minutes - sorry, Tribune - is hardly a decent criterion to judge a player either.

There are players who don't appear to the public or to the cameras, but they are so strategically situated in the field that - not all the time but in key moments, and that's what Babaorum proved to be true - almost unnoticeably make the team move, concentrating all the responsability on their shoulders, and, directly or indirectly, creating the conditions for the existence of shots on goal in those 90 minutes - and that was the case of pillars like Jair da Rosa Pinto in 1950, Zito and Didi in 1958, Masopust in 1962, Águas in 1966, Tostão in 1970, Breitner in 74, Ardiles in 78, Falcão and Sócrates in 82, Platini in 86, Mathäeus in 90, Mauro Silva and Bebeto in 94 - and, last but not least, Zinedine Zidane in 1998 and 2006...

Like them (and here allow me to edit a bit your phrase), Zidane always gave the impression of 'often shying away from defenses and not pushing forward as much as it should'.

Your, in my opinion, erroneous conclusion was that, 'as a consequence, his style of play made him very dependant on his teammates' performances', when I think that the correct would be to say that 'his style of play was to unselfishly adapt itself to his teammate's performances in order to make them evolve with more efficacy' - something that he achieved with rare accuracy.

What inevitably lead to the beauty that it was to see him playing - for who knows how to see, of course.

My opinion, and - in the name of the (sometimes secret) BEAUTY of the game - the opinion of very good people, too :cool: ...

[luciusmagister]

To be the best you have to be the best, and that's it.
Some people have played in way better leagues and have a better record in club and international football. Zidane, for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zidane#Honours

Great player and had a number of good seasons but no way does Romário rate the best of the modern era maybe not even top 5.