Greatest Modern Player ??

[Kulspruta]

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.

Records in club and international football it is then. Which of these two had the better record, number one or number two?


1)
Club
Boca Juniors: Primera División (1981)
Barcelona: Copa Del Rey (1983), Copa de la Liga (1982), Spanish Super Cup (1983)
SSC Napoli: Serie A (1987), Coppa Italia (1987), Capocannoniere (1988), UEFA Cup (1989), Serie A (1990), Italian Super Cup (1991)
Country
Argentina: Fifa World Youth Championship (1979), Fifa World Cup (1986), 1990 Fifa World Cup runner-up (1990), Artemio Franchi Trophy (1993), 75th anniversary Fifa Cup (1979)

2)
Club
Girondins de Bordeaux: UEFA Cup Runners Up (1995-1996), UEFA Intertoto Cup (1995)
Juventus F.C.: Serie A (1996-1997, 1997-1998), European Super Cup (1996), International Cup (1996), Italian Super Cup (1997), UEFA Champions League Runners Up (1996-1997, 1997-1998)
Real Madrid: La Liga (2002-2003), UEFA Champions League (2001-2002), International Cup (2002), European Super Cup (2002), Spanish Super Cup (2001, 2003)
Country
France: FIFA World Cup (1998), FIFA World Cup Runner up (2006), European Championship (2000)

And yet, which one was the better player? Now, try naming 5 players better than Romário in these last 18 years, without making an embarrasment of yourself. Next you're gonna be saying Vitor Baia was better than Pelé.

[luciusmagister]

O.K. let me put it this way if I were picking forwards of "the modern era" I would pick Van Basten and Ronaldo to start and Weah, Romário, and Batistuta for the bench.

With regards to the whole team there are a number of players I'd take above Romário.

[jpick]

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.


yeah, this is all something i agree with. it gets back to the old debate, of who would you rather have...player A>player B when surrounded by other great players, but player B> player A when on a mid-table team.

there are many styles of play or positions where this CAN happen, it is not paradoxical...in fact, as i think you are alluding to, this is very common among what you call "possession-based players." In fact, almost every deep-lying playmaker falls into this mold (xavi, pirlo, carrick, et al, guys like pep earlier did similar, as far back as even gerson and didi from games I have saw for brazil, though I defer to your knowledge of those last 2), when a great team is constructed and all the parts are pretty good...a dlpm or deeper #10 "directors" of play can make it run like a fine-oiled machine, yet in a mid-table team, even if they are useful and good, they might not be worth as much. they would be "casting their pearls before swine." whereas another player who is lesser teams, can do more on his own, would be better for them.

so, does that make zidane-type players lesser or better, especially considering that most great players are measured on the big stages and that football is a team sport?

It is a tough question and something to consider, not to be dismissed lightly.

oh, and I take this time to publicly apologize for my snide remark against you, earlier, it was uncalled for. :o

cheers

[kingkong1]

yeah, this is all something i agree with. it gets back to the old debate, of who would you rather have...player A>player B when surrounded by other great players, but player B> player A when on a mid-table team.

there are many styles of play or positions where this CAN happen, it is not paradoxical...in fact, as i think you are alluding to, this is very common among what you call "possession-based players." In fact, almost every deep-lying playmaker falls into this mold (xavi, pirlo, carrick, et al, guys like pep earlier did similar, as far back as even gerson and didi from games I have saw for brazil, though I defer to your knowledge of those last 2), when a great team is constructed and all the parts are pretty good...a dlpm or deeper #10 "directors" of play can make it run like a fine-oiled machine, yet in a mid-table team, even if they are useful and good, they might not be worth as much. they would be "casting their pearls before swine." whereas another player who is lesser teams, can do more on his own, would be better for them.

so, does that make zidane-type players lesser or better, especially considering that most great players are measured on the big stages and that football is a team sport?

It is a tough question and something to consider, not to be dismissed lightly.

oh, and I take this time to publicly apologize for my snide remark against you, earlier, it was uncalled for.

cheersMan,

And I am the confuse one!!! :confused: ...

:D

[sidis]

O.K. let me put it this way if I were picking forwards of "the modern era" I would pick Van Basten and Ronaldo to start and Weah, Romário, and Batistuta for the bench.

With regards to the whole team there are a number of players I'd take above Romário.

In first time you say that romario don't have regular seasons, and you pick VAN BASTEN AND RONALDO ahead him? these players had regular seasons? they was always with injuries.

You sai the brazilian league inst good, but in fifa club world cup, the final was with 2 brazilian teams, the most gams betwen brazilan ane european sides was won by brazilian sides.

são paulo wins 92's barcelona (with romario) for 4x1 in the camp nou with romario on field, and 4x0 against real madrid

Brazilian league isnt the top in the world, but had much more mid teams who can play hard against anyone.

if we don't hava a real madrid or milan, we at least had 12 valencias or lyons.

[sidis]

-Romario is the modern player with more official goals.
-Have 18+ top scorers in his carreer.
-In their top, make 100 metters at 10.8s and jump 1,12m in the field (michael jordan jump 1,05 meter on gym).
-shoot with both legs, dribble to both sides, is good with head (100+ goals even being ery short 1,68m).

the unique non-modern aspect of romário is that he can't play in much positions, he play at second striker and attacking midfielder in some moment but he was a primarly center forward.

[Kulspruta]

Not again. And with Teso, Kingkong and Tribune lurking around too!

[kingkong1]

if we don't hava a real madrid or milan, we at least had 12 valencias or lyons.If Flamengo is the #1 Valencia and Vasco the #12 Lyon, I agree :cool: ...

[Tribune]

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.


Aesthetics cannot be a criterion when attempting to establish players' rankings. Simply because efficient football does not necessarily leads to beautiful football. Proof : Inzaghi.
There is also the opposite example as well, in a player like Bergkamp, for instance, who displayed great beauty in his play, but he wouldn't make it in a top 5 of this generation.
About your statement that aesthetics of football is efficiency, that is a total fallacy. According to the criterion you have brought forward, it would result that Gerd Muller is the most enjoyable player ever, maybe even ahead of Pele himself. Not sure if this conclusion will gain many adepts.


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...


Not sure if I follow you here, your point is ? An elastico can generate a beautiful play, which can result in a goal. And ?


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 can say the same about players like Didi or Michael Laudrup, that does not result in them being the best in their generation.


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


No, but my remark was more one for general consumption, because aesthetics seem to play too big a part when rating Zidane. I would think that aesthetics should represent only a bonus, the cherry on the cake, but, in Zidane's case, it's more than that, because, due to the aesthetics of his game, many of his weaknesses have been swept under the carpet.


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.



If that is the case, if Zidane exerts his "influence" in an invisible way, how did you actually become aware of it ? If it's "invisible", it cannot be seen, right ? :p
BTW, did you just rate Zidane as the best in his generation based on an "invisible" factor ? That's a bit of a stretch. :D


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


When you talk about a number 10, it is. Anyway, better than the vague factor "playing with grace and honor".



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...


That's the whole point. Zidane did exactly what most of these guys did, yet he is given far much more credit.
The problem here is the "relativity" of the issue. Nobody is saying that Zidane is rubbish (except Teso :p), but on the other hand he is placed on a pedestal higher than other guys who simply didn't benefit from the same chances as he did.
For instance, if I'm going to ask you how is Zidane better than a player like Michael Laudrup, what are you going to say ?
The same question about Zidane and Rivaldo.


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'.


Only gave the impression ? Ok. Let's say is true. Does that make him automatically the best player of his generation ?
Accidentally, I don't think there is a clear "number one" in the last 15 years. All are flawed in my opinion, but I can think of some players who have displayed level of forms superior to anything Zidane is showed. His main boon is that he stayed in the spotlight for a longer period than all the other candidates, had little problems with injuries and also was a part of the most dominant teams of the last decade both an club and international level.


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.


Explain Zidane's significant drops in form in 1999, 2001, 2004, 2005, coincidentally all years when his club teams seriously underperformed. Did he adapt his game to the crappiness of his teammates ?

[gmonn]

Aesthetics cannot be a criterion when attempting to establish players' rankings. Simply because efficient football does not necessarily leads to beautiful football. Proof : Inzaghi.
There is also the opposite example as well, in a player like Bergkamp, for instance, who displayed great beauty in his play, but he wouldn't make it in a top 5 of this generation.
About your statement that aesthetics of football is efficiency, that is a total fallacy. According to the criterion you have brought forward, it would result that Gerd Muller is the most enjoyable player ever, maybe even ahead of Pele himself. Not sure if this conclusion will gain many adepts.


You don't quite get what we mean by aesthetics, if King Kong and I are talking about the same thing. In mixed martial arts cage fighting and in boxing there are beautiful takedowns, beautiful kicks, beautiful punches. What made them beautiful? The unusually perfect efficiency of the execution. Sure a scrambling ugly goal might not be beautiful, but something beautiful happened up the field to allow that goal to take place. Efficiency is efficiency of thought, of movement, of team movement. "Without waste." Pele was the epitome of efficiency. I don't know about King Kong, but I'm responding to the utter dismissal of aesthetics. We're not talking flourishes and flamboyance here.

[schafer]

This was a post on another Zidane thread a few years ago, and I remember it cause it was one of the best explanations of his strengths as a player and his role in the team. I'm not sure where he ranks in terms of modern players but I feel this is a good description:

I think issues that we "fan boys" and everyone else differs on is exemplified by the last sentence in your post: That some feel that people make him out to be what he never was. The only reason people would try to make him out to be something he never was is when you start comparing him to different kinds of players, the kind that are there to score goals or the kind of traditional number 10's that sit behind the strikers. Yes, to many Zidane should be exactly the kind of player, and when you start comparing him to players like Pele or Maradona you start to see that the latter two were able to score loads of goals for their team and single-handedly win games while one can only remember a handful of times that Zidane has done that.

The problem with this whole debate is that Zidane is a completely different kind of player than Pele or Maradona. In fact I argue that Zidane is probably one of the more unique players I've ever seen in the sense that it is incredibly hard to find someone that plays with his style. By style I don't just mean the elegance and grace that other posters refer to, but his entire attitude of play. Zidane is not the kind of player to try to dribble through midfields a la Maradona to lead his team to victory and not the kind of player to make rampaging runs forward a la Ronaldinho, but I'll tell you what Zidane does better than anyone else.

Zidane's main strength is his ability to raise the level of play of his entire team by bringing everyone into the game with his passing and movement. When he gets the ball he's not necessarily looking to play every killer pass or beat a defender, but rather he's already looking for the open man to switch the ball to. He doesn't always try to make killer through balls a la Ronaldinho which only works some of the time, but always looks to retain possession with simple and effective passing. One of the things I admire the most about his play is his unselfish style of moving the ball around to his teammates.

Because of this, he is not the player that you look to when you need a goal in the last minute of the game (though his superb set-pieces often can accomplish this) but rather he's the kind of oil in a machine that keeps all the parts moving well. Remember his game against Brazil this World Cup? I don't think he had a shot on goal but his movement of the ball made France look like such a good team because everyone was moving so well whenever he had it. When he has the ball his teammates make runs knowing that he can find them with accurate passes and as a result the entire team plays better.

I know many of you refer to games where he appeared "invisible", but I have also pretty much watched every single game he has played for the past 5 years and I can say with full confidence that even in those games where he isn't making flashy goals or assists he rarely ever loses the ball, and is always still making good passes that don't make the highlight reels.

His enigmatic style means he won't ever score nearly as many goals as a traditional number 10 and probably won't ever even shoot as much as a Riquelme or Ronaldinho, which makes it unfair to compare him to those kinds of players. In my opinion though, the way he uses his technique to retain possession and bring his teammates into the game is just unparalleled and is in his own sense a much more effective team player.

[Tribune]

You don't quite get what we mean by aesthetics, if King Kong and I are talking about the same thing. In mixed martial arts cage fighting and in boxing there are beautiful takedowns, beautiful kicks, beautiful punches. What made them beautiful? The unusually perfect efficiency of the execution. Sure a scrambling ugly goal might not be beautiful, but something beautiful happened up the field to allow that goal to take place. Efficiency is efficiency of thought, of movement, of team movement. "Without waste." Pele was the epitome of efficiency. I don't know about King Kong, but I'm responding to the utter dismissal of aesthetics. We're not talking flourishes and flamboyance here.

No offence, meant, Gt, but I think it's the other way around. I understand the point you are trying to put across, the problem is that all great players have an aesthetical part engrained in their game and, due to the impossibility to establish "levels of aestheticism", using this as a criterion makes the respective ranking way too arbitrary.
The aesthetical part is not irellevant in the sense that it has no meaning for the game, but in the sense that you cannot bring forward such an argument in a discussion about the compared standings of several great players, because, if player X was the most enjoyable to watch for a certain fan, it might be different for another fan.
I'll give you an example : for me, the most enjoyable player I've seen was Zico, yet I wouldn't tell that he was the best of his generation because of that.

[gmonn]

No offence, meant, Gt, but I think it's the other way around. I understand the point you are trying to put across, the problem is that all great players have an aesthetical part engrained in their game and, due to the impossibility to establish "levels of aestheticism", using this as a criterion makes the respective ranking way too arbitrary.
The aesthetical part is not irellevant in the sense that it has no meaning for the game, but in the sense that you cannot bring forward such an argument in a discussion about the compared standings of several great players, because, if player X was the most enjoyable to watch for a certain fan, it might be different for another fan.
I'll give you an example : for me, the most enjoyable player I've seen was Zico, yet I wouldn't tell that he was the best of his generation because of that.

For me it has been Zico, Cruyff, Ronaldinho, Zidane, and Messi. Aesthetics must be telling me something highly relevant.

[jpick]

This was a post on another Zidane thread a few years ago, and I remember it cause it was one of the best explanations of his strengths as a player and his role in the team. I'm not sure where he ranks in terms of modern players but I feel this is a good description:

schafer, the post you mention is what I was trying to say, but he said it better, thanks. :)

that is why zidane is a little harder to judge, imho.

[Tribune]

For me it has been Zico, Cruyff, Ronaldinho, Zidane, and Messi. Aesthetics must be telling me something highly relevant.

Yet, the best of that respective timespan, Maradona, does not appear on your list. Thanks for making my point.

[gmonn]

Yet, the best of that respective timespan, Maradona, does not appear on your list. Thanks for making my point.

No, it only means I wasn't able to watch Maradona except a few games in world cups.

[Tribune]

No, it only means I wasn't able to watch Maradona except a few games in world cups.

Then how did Zico make your list ? That would void this excuse by default. There is no way you got more opportunities to watch Zico than Maradona unless you happened to live in Brazil in the 70s and early 80s. But if that was the case, then it would exclude Cruyff from your list, because, if you lived in Brazil, that would have limited your access to the dutchman's games outside of the WC.

Gt, you are a quality poster, but, now, you are just digging yourself a hole.

And, btw, I understand perfectly what you said : that an efficient play is always beautiful. There are several problems with it :

1. The opposite is not always true ;

2. There are many kinds of efficiency and many kinds of aesthetics ; also different levels of efficiency/aesthetics.

3. Your point and Teso's utter dismissal of the aesthetics are not mutually exclusive at all because they don't refer to the same thing.

[gmonn]

Zico made your list, which voids this excuse by default. There is no way you got more opportunities to watch Zico than Maradona unless you happened to live in Brazil in the 70s and early 80s. But if that was the case, then it would exclude Cruyff from your list, because, if you lived in Brazil, that would have limited your access to the dutchman's games outside of the WC.

Okay, I'll explain. I lived in Washington DC when Cruyff played for the local team there, so I was able to watch him at the stadium. He was magnificent. A cable channel, Univision, I believe it was, used to show Flamengo's league games on a regular basis. So I'm not BSing you here. Of course Maradona was a beautiful player also, I simply wasn't fortunate enough at the time to see much of him.


And, btw, I understand perfectly what you said : that an efficient play is always beautiful. There are several problems with it :

1. The opposite is not always true ;

2. There are many kinds of efficiency and many kinds of aesthetics ; also different levels of efficiency/aesthetics.

3. Your point and Teso's utter dismissal of the aesthetics are not mutually exclusive at all because they don't refer to the same thing.

If true, I guess I came in late in the discussion and didn't understand the context of Teso's dismissal. My only point is that aesthetics can never be thrown out entirely because they do accompany greatness.

[kingkong1]

Aesthetics cannot be a criterion when attempting to establish players' rankingsAgain that's out of question: I don't know why you keep trying lulling people into thinking that that's my opinion...efficient football does not necessarily leads to beautiful football. Proof: Inzaghi (...) There is also the opposite example as well, in a player like Bergkamp, for instance, who displayed great beauty in his play, but he wouldn't make it in a top 5 of this generation.Smoke curtain, once more, Tribune!...

I could be mean to you and twist your 'reasoning' too (as you just did to mine), and say:

Just because you think Inzaghi is 'ugly' and Bergkamp 'handsome'? :D ...

Jokes apart, I totally disagree about Inzaghi, and with me the whole milanese and Italian tiffosi.

His innumerable and important goals ARE beautiful because of the good amount of talent, opportunism and SCIENCE used to score them.

Like G. Stein's 'rose', a goal is a goal is a goal...

Wish you or not, a goal - whichever form it's scored, Tribune - is always a BEAUTIFUL goal...

Specially if it's for your team...

Ary Barroso, the famous composer of Aquarela do Brasil and a fanatic 'flamenguista' (all of us are fanatic for our clubs, including you, Trib) used to say: 'The most beautiful thing is when my team wins in the last second of a game with a PK goal, AND ROBBED...' :pAbout your statement that aesthetics of football is efficiency, that is a total fallacy. According to the criterion you have brought forward, it would result that Gerd Muller is the most enjoyable player everBut, until 2006, Tribune, he was!...

Just ask Bayern's and Germany millions of rooters, independently of the thousands of fans he still got around the world. Until Ronaldo broke his record, everybody just talked about Müller...maybe even ahead of Pele himselfWho knows?...

If Pelé hadn't scored his 1 000 + goals (many of them also 'ugly', 'scrambled', a few even 'robbed'), he probably wouldn't have 'objective' elements to back up his fame, and he would have to survive out of absolutely personal and subjective opinions of the type:a player like Bergkamp, for instance, who displayed great beauty in his play (...) wouldn't make it in a top 5 of this generationAnd you can be sure that in Pelé's and Müller cases quantity meant quality...
Not sure if I follow you here, your point is ? An elastico can generate a beautiful play, which can result in a goal. And ?
You didn't follow me - better be sure about it.

Getting slow, huh? (lol)...

There you go again (purposedly?) misquoting me...

Used to play clean, Tribune, what's happening?...

Unless you're just joking, of course.

I never referred to...'an elastico'!

But to a specific elástico by Rivelino (BTW by who else, since he was its creator?)...

Not only that:

That elástico represented a concrete situation in which he used that TECHNICAL resource against Vasco da Gama in the 70's, which was FUNCTIONALLY (and consequently AESTHETICALLY) essential to the victory of its team (the score was precisely Flu 1 x 0 Vasco that day).

That's where it derives its beauty from.

Its beauty was not necessarily in the gimmics itself, but in the success of its outcome (even if by chance that ball hadn't entered).
No, but my remark was more one for general consumption, because aesthetics seem to play too big a part when rating Zidane.
Not in my opinion: Zidane in your opinion is overrated because plays beautifully, but for me Romário, Ronaldinho, Riquelme perhaps are even more skilled and for you are not that overrated...

The great difference for me was that Zidane was more complete as a team man.in Zidane's case, it's more than that, because, due to the aesthetics of his game, many of his weaknesses have been swept under the carpet.Totally subjective opinion...

It's the type of opinion that you can easily dismiss by saying "I respect it, but I disagree', and my or anyone's equally subjective opinion will have the same weight as yours (even you being Tibune...)I would think that aesthetics should represent only a bonus, the cherry on the cakeAs I said, without the cherry - or that 'bonus' - the cake is not a cake, a pair or shoes without a good 'wax' is not a pair of shoes, and a luscious young lady with no perfume and a hairy armpit, at least for me, Tribune, is a man...

Unless you share Teso preferences (not for men, of course, but for hairy & stinky armpit ladies)...If that is the case, if Zidane exerts his "influence" in an invisible way, how did you actually become aware of it ? If it's "invisible", it cannot be seen, right ?
BTW, did you just rate Zidane as the best in his generation based on an "invisible" factor ? That's a bit of a stretch.

C'mon Trib...

Those fireworks, you use with others, not me...

I used the word invisible exactly as you quoted above (didn't even have to respond you, but there you go!): with quotation marks...

And quotation marks express irony, double meaning, etc...

Spare me from your verbal elásticos :rolleyes: ...
When you talk about a number 10, it is. Anyway, better than the vague factor "playing with grace and honor".

That phrase between quotation marks IS NOT MINE (getting nervous, Tribune)...Only gave the impression ? Ok. Let's say is true. Does that make him automatically the best player of his generation ?
Unfortunately his generation, and the last 20 years, haven't been particularly prodigal in geniuses in football history.

So, even if I agree with you that if compared to players of more generous eras he was not ALL that much of a genius, I still thing he was a great player, and as far as the last 20 years he could have perfectly been the best of his generation...Accidentally, I don't think there is a clear "number one" in the last 15 years. All are flawed in my opinion, but I can think of some players who have displayed level of forms superior to anything Zidane is showed.I go along without any problems with that: I myself never stated he was clearly 'number one'.Explain Zidane's significant drops in form in 1999, 2001, 2004, 2005, coincidentally all years when his club teams seriously underperformed. Did he adapt his game to the crappiness of his teammates ?Don't have to explain anyhing, Tribune.

As you said all the so-called 'best' players in the last 15 years had their ups and downs.

Let's be generous and priviledge the 'ups'.

And as far as 'ups', Zidane, for me, was, not by far, but, most likely, the best.

[Tribune]

C'mon Trib...

Those fireworks you use with others, not with me...

I used the word invisible exactly as you quoted above (didn't even have to respond you, but there you go!): with quotation marks...

And quotation marks express irony, double meaning, etc...

Spare me from your verbal elásticos :rolleyes: ...



Well, if I didn't use those fireworks, JJF could accuse (and rightfully so) me of showing favoritism towards the fans of brazilian football. :p
So, no discrimination ! :D


Again that's out of question: I don't know why you keep trying lulling people into thinking that that's my opinion...


Because my point wasn't adressing exclusively to you. You took the brunt of it, because you chose to be the flag-bearer of this cause. That's an honorable decision, but you have to remember that the flag-bearer many times takes the first bullet during the assault, although he is just "one of many".


If Pelé hadn't scored his 1 000 + goals (many of them also 'ugly', 'scrambled', a few even 'robbed'), he probably wouldn't have 'objective' elements to back up his fame, and he would have to survive out of absolutely personal and subjective opinions of the type:


True, but Zidane did not have 1000 goals. His goal scoring record is in fact on par with Koeman or Hierro (2 defenders). If I remember well, one of your main arguments in favor of Pele as the best ever was his enormous scoring record.
Rivaldo, for instance, has 243 goals in 512 appearances towards the 95 goals of Zidane in 505 appearances, and 35 goals in 74 caps towards the 31 goals in 108 caps for Zidane. As you can see, the difference isn't small : Rivaldo has around 2.5 more goals than Zidane.
This in addition to being at least just as important to Brazil's international performances in 1998, 1999 and 2002 and the team-carrier while he was at Barcelona.