Greatest Modern Player ??

[kingkong1]

due to the impossibility to establish "levels of aestheticism", using this as a criterion makes the respective ranking way too arbitrary.
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.Sorry, Tribune,

But nobody ever did that in this thread.

It was just Teso dos Bichos who started, out of thin air, with the idea that aesthetics was being used as a criterion to judge players.

And you as a faithful squire followed him.

Teso and you are illusorilly fighting windmills.

You're ingloriously kicking a dead dog :D ...

[Tribune]

Sorry, Tribune,
But Nobody ever did that in this thread: it was just Teso dos Bichos who started, out of thin air, with the idea that aestheticas was being used as a criterion to judge players.

And you as a faithful squire followed him.

You and Teso are illusorilly fighting windmills.

If that is the case, why do you make such a fuss ? It ain't bit too much trouble for some "illusorily windmills" ?

[kingkong1]

If that is the case, why do you make such a fuss ? It ain't bit too much trouble for some "illusorily windmills" ?But who's 'bearing the flag' and making the fuss is you...

You agree or not with our conception, when GT and I talk about the aesthetics of an efficient play we're talking about something which is embedded in the structure itself - in the essence - in the own nature of an efficient play or move, and, logically, a necessary consequence of it.

Not its 'cause', 'origin' or 'inspiration'...

So, in that conception, it cannot be mistakenly labeled as a 'criterion', because a criterion is a pre-datum, a pre-conception, a direction established 'beforehand' by someone in order to judge something.

Aesthetics in our conception is the irreplaceable diamond of the crown.

Without which a crown is just a tinfoil ornament - and not a symbol of authority.

As I said before, and you don't want to see:

It's the essential and indispensable cherry of the cake....

Without which a cake is not a cake - but only a flour and sugar shapeless mass...

[Tribune]

But who's 'bearing the flag' and making the fuss is you...

You agree or not with our conception, when GT and I talk about the aesthetics of an efficient play we're talking about something which is embedded in the structure itself - in the essence - in the own nature of an efficient play or move, and, logically, a necessary consequence of it.

Not its 'cause' or 'origin'.

So, aesthetics, in that conception, cannot be mistakenly labeled as a 'criterion', because a criterion is a pre-datum, a pre-conception, a direction established 'beforehand' by someone in order to judge something.

But in our conception is the diamond of the crown.

The essential and indispensable cherry of the cake....

Without which a cake is not a cake - but just a flour and sugar shapeless mass...

Man, we aren't reading from the same page, which makes the entire argument a logical loop.

[kingkong1]

But who's 'bearing the flag' and making the fuss is you...

You agree or not with our conception, when GT and I talk about the aesthetics of an efficient play we're talking about something which is embedded in the structure itself - in the essence - in the own nature of an efficient play or move, and, logically, a necessary consequence of it.

Not its 'cause', 'origin' or 'inspiration'...

So, in that conception, it cannot be mistakenly labeled as a 'criterion', because a criterion is a pre-datum, a pre-conception, a direction established 'beforehand' by someone in order to judge something.

Aesthetics in our conception is the irreplaceable diamond of the crown.

Without which a crown is just a tinfoil ornament - and not a symbol of authority.

As I said before, and you don't want to see:

It's the essential and indispensable cherry of the cake....

Without which a cake is not a cake - but only a flour and sugar shapeless mass...
we aren't reading from the same page, which makes the entire argument a logical loop.Tribune,

What's so hard to understand about that?...

You want by force to put aesthetics as the 'motor' of GT and mine conception(s)...

When it's much more: it's its end product (and very important too, don't you think so?)

I know: you don't think so :o ...

[kingkong1]

And, without Zidane, France in the late 90s/early 2000s wouldn't be more than a shapeless mass of sugar and flour...

[babaorum]

IZidane'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).



You made a solid point so I tried to examine again Zidane's stats as I did earlier but this time only considering games that really mattered ie no friendlies but only WC games (12), EC games (14), WC qualifiers games (4) and EC qualifiers games (19).

It makes a total of 49 games in which France scored 112 goals.

In those, Zidane scored 18 times, made 10 assists and set up at least 12 goals.

It makes a total of 40 goals Zidane directly or undirectly set up ie approximately 0.80 per game and around 35 % of all the goals France scored. He 'peaked' during EC96 qualifiers (he scored once, made 3 assists, and set up 3 goals in 6 games), EC2004 qualifiers (he scored 3 times, made 4 assists and set up 1 goal in 7 games) and EC2000 (he scored twice and set up 2 goals in 5 games).

It appears from this that Zidane was overall very influencual in big games. Even though as you pointed out France was able to win games without him (with such a iron defense and such a depth it is not a surprising fact) it is clear that Zidane was THE catalyst of the French game - when he was not in the team France played completely differentely (however not necessarilly less effectively as Pirès and Djorkaeff could fill the gaps and Henry was more than happy because the ball would arrive more quickly up-front... That's why I think France might have won the WC without him).

One 'problem' remains - if you look in detail and as Tribune pointed out his WC record is not as good as the other greats' - he scored 5 times, made 2 assists and set up 2 goals in 12 games... though to be honest with better strikers in front of him he would have delivered a couple more assists in 98. Basically this is what separates him from the other greats of the game (Maradona, Cruyff, Pele, Zico, Platini, Ronaldo) in my mind.

[Tribune]

You made a solid point so I tried to examine again Zidane's stats as I did earlier but this time only considering games that really mattered ie no friendlies but only WC games (12), EC games (14), WC qualifiers games (4) and EC qualifiers games (19).

It makes a total of 49 games in which France scored 112 goals.

In those, Zidane scored 18 times, made 10 assists and set up at least 12 goals.

It makes a total of 40 goals Zidane directly or undirectly set up ie approximately 0.80 per game and around 35 % of all the goals France scored. He 'peaked' during EC96 qualifiers (he scored once, made 3 assists, and set up 3 goals in 6 games), EC2004 qualifiers (he scored 3 times, made 4 assists and set up 1 goal in 7 games) and EC2000 (he scored twice and set up 2 goals in 5 games).

It appears from this that Zidane was overall very influencual in big games. Even though as you pointed out France was able to win games without him (with such a iron defense and such a depth it is not a surprising fact) it is clear that Zidane was THE catalyst of the French game - when he was not in the team France played completely differentely (however not necessarilly less effectively as Pirès and Djorkaeff could fill the gaps and Henry was more than happy because the ball would arrive more quickly up-front... That's why I think France might have won the WC without him).

One 'problem' remains - if you look in detail and as Tribune pointed out his WC record is not as good as the other greats' - he scored 5 times, made 2 assists and set up 2 goals in 12 games... though to be honest with better strikers in front of him he would have delivered a couple more assists in 98. Basically this is what separates him from the other greats of the game (Maradona, Cruyff, Pele, Zico, Platini, Ronaldo) in my mind.

Babaorum, I don't think we disagree as much as it seems at first sight. My main beef with Zidane is that he is given status usually reserved for players who were truly phenomenal, the heartbeat of their teams and the key reason for all the trophies they won.

Problem is, when I refer to Zidane's lack of efficiency, I always have in mind an all-time context because this is the context in which Zidane is usually placed by his admirers - among the all-time greats, meaning the best 10-20 players which have ever played the game.
So, every one of my statements must be understand in such a context because Zidane is not proclaimed to be just one of the best attacking midfielders of the last 15 years - but much more than that. See, Zidane's numbers and influence are not to be measured (at least for me) against the numbers/influence of Djorkaeff or Deco.

Now that I specified that (in order to avoid any confusions), Zidane's numbers and influence are not superior to anything a player like Rivaldo (for instance) has achieved at international level. The brazilian scored more even having to share his number with a striker like Ronaldo, while Zidane never managed to be an important goalscorer although he never had to share his chances with a striker of such level (Ronaldo).
Being involved in 35% of your team goals is not very impressive, in my opinion. You have to remember that Zidane is not a defensive midfielder, in which case the figure you presented would be awesome. Zidane is a number 10, in other words he occupies the position which always was the lynchpin of the offensive game of any team, a position which gave players who scored and assisted on a massive scale. This figures includes both goals, assists and indirect setups and to find Zidane involved in only 35% is definetely not oustanding.
Point is, a 35% involvement represents only the basic requirement which a very good number 10 should meet. All what Zidane has done, the trophies he won, goals+assists, his goals in the finals represent only what we should expect to get from the playmaker of some of the most dominant teams of the last 15 years, but it never goes beyond that.

To use an analogy, a soldier does not get his Medal of Honor only for taking part in combat and just doing his job. You get the Medal for heroism beyond the call of duty. But Zidane is receiving his "medal of honor" only for doing what was expected of a player in his situation. As I said, he is getting credit which was given to players who did much more than what was required of them.

Just recently, in a discussion about attacking midfielders, someone admitted that he has never seen almost anything from pre-Zidane era, but, in the same post, only two paragraph below, the same guys claims with a straight face that players like Zico, Platini or Michael Laudrup do not even come close to Zidane. This is where all the beef about Zidane comes from.

Any serious football historian would raise an eyebrow at such a statement and it could easily be pointed out that Zico, Platini and Zidane all had a similar problem, lack of an exceptional striker to make use of their assisting abilities (Zico and Platini had this problem at club level as well, Zidane did not). But Zico and Platini were able to compensate this by providing the main firepower for their teams. Zidane, although the platform was set for him to do the same for France, who often really needed him to do that because their striking force fell short in the major tournaments (bar Euro 2000), never managed to do that.

Anyway, that is a digression, but I think you get the point.

BTW, I don't remember well the group stages, but Zidane could have had only one more assist in the knock-out games from 1998 if he had a better striker to work with : a pass for Guivarch, which the latter missed. So it's not like he was creating golden chances left and right.

The only way Zidane could claim to be the best of his generation is by his longevity in the spotlight. In this regard, Zidane has been quite lucky because his main competitors have been seriously hindered by circumstances beyond their control (I refer to Ronaldo and Rivaldo), avoiding any serious injuries and never having any problems with the environment (coaches, fans, etc) in which he found himself during his career. But, at their peak, both Ronaldo (in 1996-1998) and Rivaldo (in 1998-1999) have displayed a level of form superior to anything which Zidane has ever done.

[phil80]

. My main beef with Zidane is that he is given status usually reserved for players who were truly phenomenal, the heartbeat of their teams and the key reason for all the trophies they won.

Point is, a 35% involvement represents only the basic requirement which a very good number 10 should meet. All what Zidane has done, the trophies he won, goals+assists, his goals in the finals represent only what we should expect to get from the playmaker of some of the most dominant teams of the last 15 years, but it never goes beyond that.


One major point that is being ignored is the influence zidane had on the game that never shows up on the stats sheet. I have not seen a player dictate the pace of the game, get everyone on the team involved, and keep possession of the ball to the extent zidane did.
The closest players to have done this in recent times are pirlo, riquelme, and glimpses in Iniesta. These things dont show up on the stat sheet and are not included in the '35%' involvement requirements that you point out.

[jpick]

One major point that is being ignored is the influence zidane had on the game that never shows up on the stats sheet. I have not seen a player dictate the pace of the game, get everyone on the team involved, and keep possession of the ball to the extent zidane did.


yep, I agree. :)

[kingkong1]

One major point that is being ignored is the influence zidane had on the game that never shows up on the stats sheet. I have not seen a player dictate the pace of the game, get everyone on the team involved, and keep possession of the ball to the extent zidane did.
Agreed too :) .

If we insert there of course the necessary amendment:

...within the last 15 years (what's not much in an all-time appreciation).

[comme]

One major point that is being ignored is the influence zidane had on the game that never shows up on the stats sheet. I have not seen a player dictate the pace of the game, get everyone on the team involved, and keep possession of the ball to the extent zidane did.


I'm not taking the piss, but seriously how long have you been watching the game for?

In the last 20 years alone players like Hagi, Scifo, Stoijkovic, Veron, Rui Costa all were far more adept at dictating a game that Zidane.

Zidane's failure to really dictate a game is what holds him back from being a top 10 player.

[phil80]

I'm not taking the piss, but seriously how long have you been watching the game for?

In the last 20 years alone players like Hagi, Scifo, Stoijkovic, Veron, Rui Costa all were far more adept at dictating a game that Zidane.

Zidane's failure to really dictate a game is what holds him back from being a top 10 player.
i have been watching for a while and although there were glimpses in hagi, veron, rui costa they did not have the consistency, influence, nor impact zidane had. In what way did he fail to dictate the game? He was adept at slowing and speeding up the attack, getting all the players involved, and kept possession as good as anyone ive seen. How many times did you watch him and how often did you feel he gave the ball away?

[kingkong1]

Nobody in this thread who came with alternatives to Zidane has clearly pronouced yet the name of ONE player.

The closest we got was Tribune who brought Ronaldo - a striker, and not so essential to his teams as Zizou - and Rivaldo, who most here will agree was a great player but a step below Zidane in achievements and leadership power.

We have the impression that, although polemically, Zidane polarizes positive and negative opinions.

All you hear is Zidane yes, Zidane no...

Therefore - so far as the participants of this Forum are concerned (+ media consensus) and since we haven't achieved a clearcut opposition ...

Zidane! :o ...

[comme]

i have been watching for a while and although there were glimpses in hagi, veron, rui costa they did not have the consistency, influence, nor impact zidane had. In what way did he fail to dictate the game? He was adept at slowing and speeding up the attack, getting all the players involved, and kept possession as good as anyone ive seen. How many times did you watch him and how often did you feel he gave the ball away?

I've probably seen Zidane play something around 100 times.

A real dictator has the entire game run through him, he will touch the ball far more than any other player. Zidane did not. He did great things at times when he had the ball, but it didn't feel that he was really running a team.

The fact that he actually moved to the left side of midfield showed that he was not as central, both literally and metaphorically, as is made out.

[babaorum]

I've probably seen Zidane play something around 100 times.

A real dictator has the entire game run through him, he will touch the ball far more than any other player. Zidane did not. He did great things at times when he had the ball, but it didn't feel that he was really running a team.

The fact that he actually moved to the left side of midfield showed that he was not as central, both literally and metaphorically, as is made out.

I've seen Zidane play probably as much as you and I feel quite the opposite :rolleyes:. I fail to see in which aspects Veron and Rui Costa between others were far better than Zidane at controling the game.

[comme]

I've seen Zidane play probably as much as you and I feel quite the opposite :rolleyes:. I fail to see in which aspects Veron and Rui Costa between others were far better than Zidane at controling the game.

When Rui Costa was at Fiorentina the entire game went through him. When Veron was at Lazio and Estudiantes the same was true of him. The same is true of Riquelme at Villareal and Boca and for Argentina.

I cannot say that the same is true for Zidane. Maybe it was when he was at Bordeaux, I didn't see enough of him there, but for France, Juve and Real Madrid it was not true.

It's not a specific attribute that he lacked. It's an overall sort of generalship quality.

[babaorum]

When Rui Costa was at Fiorentina the entire game went through him. When Veron was at Lazio and Estudiantes the same was true of him. The same is true of Riquelme at Villareal and Boca and for Argentina.

I cannot say that the same is true for Zidane. Maybe it was when he was at Bordeaux, I didn't see enough of him there, but for France, Juve and Real Madrid it was not true.

It's not a specific attribute that he lacked. It's an overall sort of generalship quality.

That's a subjective point of view based on generalizations and not facts.

[comme]

One major point that is being ignored is the influence zidane had on the game that never shows up on the stats sheet. I have not seen a player dictate the pace of the game, get everyone on the team involved, and keep possession of the ball to the extent zidane did.


That's a subjective point of view based on generalizations and not facts.

So in responding to a post that spoke about influence which doesn't show up on the stat sheet, I made a point not based on facts?

And that is meant to be a criticism?

If you want to call on supposed merits which cannot be measured (or at least which we do not have available statistics for) then you should expect that many people will not share that point of view.

[babaorum]

Babaorum, I don't think we disagree as much as it seems at first sight. My main beef with Zidane is that he is given status usually reserved for players who were truly phenomenal, the heartbeat of their teams and the key reason for all the trophies they won.

Problem is, when I refer to Zidane's lack of efficiency, I always have in mind an all-time context because this is the context in which Zidane is usually placed by his admirers - among the all-time greats, meaning the best 10-20 players which have ever played the game.
So, every one of my statements must be understand in such a context because Zidane is not proclaimed to be just one of the best attacking midfielders of the last 15 years - but much more than that. See, Zidane's numbers and influence are not to be measured (at least for me) against the numbers/influence of Djorkaeff or Deco.

Now that I specified that (in order to avoid any confusions), Zidane's numbers and influence are not superior to anything a player like Rivaldo (for instance) has achieved at international level. The brazilian scored more even having to share his number with a striker like Ronaldo, while Zidane never managed to be an important goalscorer although he never had to share his chances with a striker of such level (Ronaldo).
Being involved in 35% of your team goals is not very impressive, in my opinion. You have to remember that Zidane is not a defensive midfielder, in which case the figure you presented would be awesome. Zidane is a number 10, in other words he occupies the position which always was the lynchpin of the offensive game of any team, a position which gave players who scored and assisted on a massive scale. This figures includes both goals, assists and indirect setups and to find Zidane involved in only 35% is definetely not oustanding.
Point is, a 35% involvement represents only the basic requirement which a very good number 10 should meet. All what Zidane has done, the trophies he won, goals+assists, his goals in the finals represent only what we should expect to get from the playmaker of some of the most dominant teams of the last 15 years, but it never goes beyond that.

To use an analogy, a soldier does not get his Medal of Honor only for taking part in combat and just doing his job. You get the Medal for heroism beyond the call of duty. But Zidane is receiving his "medal of honor" only for doing what was expected of a player in his situation. As I said, he is getting credit which was given to players who did much more than what was required of them.

Just recently, in a discussion about attacking midfielders, someone admitted that he has never seen almost anything from pre-Zidane era, but, in the same post, only two paragraph below, the same guys claims with a straight face that players like Zico, Platini or Michael Laudrup do not even come close to Zidane. This is where all the beef about Zidane comes from.

Any serious football historian would raise an eyebrow at such a statement and it could easily be pointed out that Zico, Platini and Zidane all had a similar problem, lack of an exceptional striker to make use of their assisting abilities (Zico and Platini had this problem at club level as well, Zidane did not). But Zico and Platini were able to compensate this by providing the main firepower for their teams. Zidane, although the platform was set for him to do the same for France, who often really needed him to do that because their striking force fell short in the major tournaments (bar Euro 2000), never managed to do that.

Anyway, that is a digression, but I think you get the point.

BTW, I don't remember well the group stages, but Zidane could have had only one more assist in the knock-out games from 1998 if he had a better striker to work with : a pass for Guivarch, which the latter missed. So it's not like he was creating golden chances left and right.

The only way Zidane could claim to be the best of his generation is by his longevity in the spotlight. In this regard, Zidane has been quite lucky because his main competitors have been seriously hindered by circumstances beyond their control (I refer to Ronaldo and Rivaldo), avoiding any serious injuries and never having any problems with the environment (coaches, fans, etc) in which he found himself during his career. But, at their peak, both Ronaldo (in 1996-1998) and Rivaldo (in 1998-1999) have displayed a level of form superior to anything which Zidane has ever done.

We agree on most points Tribune.
However I think you underestimate a bit Zidane's involvement in the French game - the figure I provided (35%) is by no mean 'outstanding' but is to say the least very good or excellent. Zidane actually had to share his numbers with prolific goalscorers (Henry, Trezeguet, Djorkaeff, Wiltord, to a lesser extent Pirès, Blanc and Anelka) and world-class passers (Pirès and above all Djorkaeff). Imagine Platini instead of Zidane playing alongside such players - I bet his numbers would be slightly higher because he was a superior player but I doubt he would be involved in 50 or 60 % of the team goals as he actually was.