Is Zidane the most overrated old generation footballer ever?

Discussion in 'Players & Legends' started by JoCryuff98, Mar 30, 2018.

  1. carlito86

    carlito86 Member+

    Jan 11, 2016
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    @SF19

    just briefly here is a very rare comp that was posted recently of ronaldo vs Celtic in the 06/07 cl groupstage
    The end product (in terms of final ball isn’t quite there in this specific match)but the dribbling is unstoppable even the commentators describing ronaldo as beating players at will with nutmegs,incisive runs and dribbles vs 1,2 even 3 players
    which brings me back to my original point cronaldo is an athletic freak who peaked physically at a very young age (early 20s) and maintained it for the best part of a decade
    @ko242
     
    ko242 repped this.
  2. carlito86

    carlito86 Member+

    Jan 11, 2016
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    #52 carlito86, Sep 27, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2018
    Back on topic
    Zidane isn’t the most overrated old generation legend
    Better candidates imo would be

    Romario
    A player who was only amongst the top 3 players in the World in one year (ie 1994 maybe 1993 but that is doubtful)
    Scored most of his goals in questionable leagues
    His legacy is overrated by Brazilians because he “led” them to a World Cup trophy after 24 years
    But as has been shown his was nothing more than a typical strikers performance with considerably less dribbles and chances created than Eusebio 66(yet some people say it is the closest to maradona 86 lmfao)
    Was he even better than Stoichkov (golden boot with Bulgaria a mediocre team)
    Was he better than hagi or baggio (probably if not certainly not)
    Yet he supposedly qualifies as a all time striker
    From recent times I would certainly put prime Henry and luis suarez above him and zlatan has a case if emphasis is placed on longevity (and his prime wasn’t to far behind )

    Placing Romario in the same hemisphere as Marco Van Basten is actually an insult
    Mvb challenged peak maradona in the best league in Europe and was in certain years regarded a better footballer (certainly in 88 and arguably in 89)
    http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/wsoc88.html
    http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/wsoc89.html

    Other worthy contenders would be Michael Laudrup (a fantastically gifted player with eagle eye vision but never the best player in any single year arguably also never top 3 with many inconsistent periods spread across his career)but nonetheless was a very enjoyable player to watch when he was on his game)

    Garrincha (a supremely gifted dribbler with a very limited footballing brain/IQ) yet he makes top 10 all time lists for a 7 game tournament and great performances for botafogo that nobody here has seemed to watch (but I’ll guess we’ll have to take the word of old timers)

    And last but by no means least Ronaldinho
    A player who was unanimously the best player in the world in 2 years
    (2004 and 2005)In a transition era
    Zidane,Figo,el fenomeno,nedved,Shevchenko,Raul,had already declined with Henry being the only legitimate superstar
    And guess what Henry had played for a unfashionable club side with no footballing history worth mentioning,a relatively small fan base etc
    Plus Ronaldinho was a Brazilian which is already an advantage in itself
    That’s not to say r10 wasn’t the better player (he probably was)but the gap wasn’t so big during their playing careers
    https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/henry-vs-ronaldinho.100005/
    And of course r10 has his several inflated big game performances vs an unimpressive/declining Real Madrid side (parallels between him and Romarios hat trick vs a forgettable Madrid side in 93/94)and his games vs Chelsea in 04/05(a match were he wasn’t even the best player)
    So we are essentially left with one great performance in the cl vs dominant champions league club side (ac Milan)
    Which is of course much less than the number offered by many Barcelona conspiracy theorists that claim r10 had anywhere between 5-7 big game performances vs so called great teams in 1-2 years.
    LMFAO
     
  3. Ozora

    Ozora Member+

    Barcelona
    Spain
    Aug 5, 2014
    Club:
    Chelsea LFC
    romario had a better world cup performance than any player you have mentioned:whistling:
    and that comment come from an anti barcelona and south america players so who in this forum would care;)
     
  4. Ozora

    Ozora Member+

    Barcelona
    Spain
    Aug 5, 2014
    Club:
    Chelsea LFC
    miss the day he just pushed the ball and ran. and when he was in ashley cole pocket as well
     
  5. carlito86

    carlito86 Member+

    Jan 11, 2016
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    The day you are able to articulate yourself better than a mentally challenged 9 year old..well what a day that will be for big soccer users who really can’t wait to hear your views (but haven’t been able to understand them ever since you’ve been a member)
     
  6. Breitner'sWig

    Breitner'sWig Member

    Apr 24, 2012
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Certainly a top 20 all-time player for me but to consider him anywhere near the top 5 seems daft.
     
    leadleader repped this.
  7. TitoTata

    TitoTata Member+

    Jun 26, 2014
    Really .... years ago his name came up so often after Pele and Maradonna ... since then Messi and maybe Cronaldo have appeared.

    He's certainly my favourite player of all time followed closely by Zico
     
  8. SF19

    SF19 Member+

    Jun 8, 2013
    One would fall to the ground at the slightest touch, the other couldn't even be bulldozed to the ground. And if you look at Cristiano now, he doesn't go to the ground as much as he used. That's because he's much stronger and more mature now than he was then. But Ronaldo "Fenomeno" was a mountain of a man by 20. He had to be manhandled to the ground, otherwise he was nearly unstoppable.
     
  9. Vegan10

    Vegan10 Member+

    Aug 4, 2011
    #59 Vegan10, Oct 6, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2018
    Better footballer? I don’t think so, but definitely more successful in those years.

    In regards to that WS poll, I still can’t believe some people take it as an undeniable reference as proof. It was a local English readers poll that had no professional credentials with no players, managers or journalists involved in the voting.

    The fact that it even had Maradona behind Elkjear in 1985 speaks volumes of its worthiness. No one could challenge Maradona other than Platini in those years and it’s evidenced by GS world player of the year, Italian and foreign managers/players, and by several local Italian polls. Even Rummenigge was still seen as stronger on Italian fields.

    All of this can be substantiated in the Guerin Sportivo Serie A thread of player ratings.

    Edit: it’s like if we used Gazzetta dello Sport as reference in December of 1985 with their polls and no Elkjear is in the top 10

    5530FD38-09B4-41AB-95BA-1D4C8760D0B8.jpeg
     
  10. TitoTata

    TitoTata Member+

    Jun 26, 2014
    It's so difficult to compare players from different generations...
    Messi and Maradona have so many similarities yet Diego gets the nod with some as he had to cope with savage tackling .. that's fair enough but Messi has to cope with the opponents being so much fitter , faster and stronger ..

    Look back to Maradona's opponents ..they were tough and filthy tackling but movement-wise compared to Diego they were like training dummies
     
  11. Einstein_Newton_Maxwell

    Arsenal FC
    Brazil
    Nov 20, 2019
    First off, I agree with your thesis: Zidane is overrated. When you get granular about the facts underlying the mythology it's impossible not to conclude that so much of his achievements have been exaggerated. His performance in the KO Stages in the 2006 WC, however, did convert me into a fan. I marveled at how a man in his mid-30s could still be the talisman on a team that had Henry (my fave player of all time, and at his peak the best striker of his generation imho), a host of other stars.

    Secondly, Zidane at Juventus and Madrid wasn't even as good as the Zidane at Bordeaux where he was a true stud. Peak Del Piero was arguably better. In fact, we could make a very cogent argument that Zidane isn't even the best 10 of the late 90s early 2000 era. Laudrup, Rivaldo, Totti, Del Piero, Baggio, Pirlo, Guti, Ronaldinho, Kaka, Raul, Dennis Iceman Bergkamp (my choice as fave 10 - and a man with unparalleled vision).

    As a CM Scholes and Xavi were better ball distributors. As a PURE passer Pirlo was superior. Makalele was arguably more important to Madrid UCL title run than even Zidane - as he conceded.

    As for the shade thrown at Cristiano Ronaldo, that was unnecessary. You say Wolfsburg, but fail to mention how Lionel Messi decided to play 90 minutes vs Eibar, score 4 goals, then play 3 days later vs Roma and score ZERO goals resulting in one of the most embarrassing exits from the UCL in history. The media didn't pronounce him overrated even though when people speak of you like a deity you had better not squander a 3-0 lead to Roma. He has only one-upped himself with a second embarrassing exit vs Liverpool. (Not to turn this into a CR-Messi debate, but I find any assertion that Ronaldo is "overrated" to be the height of stupidity given the unprecedented nature of these feats; I'd argue, cogently too, that he has more clutch, 'big game' performances than his Argentine counterpart on top of rivaling him for week in-week out consistency.)

    Look up how many times teams have over come deficits of two goals or more (while not scoring in the away leg) under the current format. The % is VERY small and Ronaldo has been the architect of more than one statistically improbably comeback. But I get it, you dont like the guy.

    Apropos Zidane, how many UCLs did he win on those stacked, albeit unbalanced, Madrid teams? ONE. He had one legendary goal in a ho hum performance. How many league titles did he win with Madrid? How many UCLs did he win with Juventus? How many league titles?

    Zidane's club resume, imho, is not GOAT worthy. His international record is exaggerated by mesmerizing final performances that mask pedestrian group stage and KO stage performances. The annoying part of hte Zidane mythos is that so much of it is couch in mystical, "he was sooooo elegant" aesethetic considerations that don't necessary comport with empirical data. Zidane was never an assists machine the way Bergkamp and Henry were, nor was he a textbook pass master like Raul or Guti or Pirlo.

    In fact, what was ONE thing Zidane did that was transcendent? Ball control. I'd argue Bergkamps and Ronaldinho's control were JUST as amazing.

    P.S. Sorry but the notion that Maradona is overrated is nonsense. He was a genius, a true, true, genius who carried a nobody Napoli team to glory. Messi has had talented Argentina teams but the excuse-making machine seems to work for Messi anytime he chooses to not show up (it's about to be 2020 and Messi still has an empty trophy bin for Argentina), but for Maradona, we're now trivializing what he did in 86? Ok, yes, Argentina were not bums, that's a myth that I'm glad has been put to rest. They were good DEFENSIVELY. Attacking-wise? They were ok, but it was Maradona or bust. Hagi was brilliant, but never as great as Maradona, who as far as I'm concerned, isn't the goalscorer Messi is, but is, by some margin, the BEST playmaker in football history. Maradona as a 10 is unrivalled....Let me repeat, Maradona as a pure 10 is UNRIVALED.

    His vision was immaculate, dribbling (on inferior pitches with REAL tackling that broke his bones in the 80s) unparalleled, and ridiculous passing - dude is playing rabonas with the same passing accuracy Paul Scholes achieves with conventional by-the-book passing techniques. The degree of difficult of some of the moves Maradona pulled off? Madness. Maradona, like R9, Ronaldinho, Cr7, was a showman - it wasn't enough for him to play a simple pass, he had to pull of a rabona just to show you that he was skilled enough to pull off against the best pros in the world. Flair players are always the most confident in their technical abilities.

    Maradona is arguably the GOAT. Zidane? Overrated. Those French teams were also stacked; I still think peak Henry was better than peak Zidane, sorry, but I saw both play and one looked more dominant than the other.
     
    carlito86 repped this.
  12. Einstein_Newton_Maxwell

    Arsenal FC
    Brazil
    Nov 20, 2019

    Henry at the PEAK of his powers (when he was BOTH EPLs leading scorer and also setting the record for most ASSISTS in a single season - outrageous for a 9) was better than Ronaldinho.

    I can name 10, TEN, big game performances off the top of my head, including talismanic showings vs United, Tottenham, Liverpool, Inter, Madrid, and many others. Thierry Henry at the peak of his powers could make a claim as the GREATEST 9 ever. Yes, I said it. No hyperbole, at all.

    He consistently played with less talent than R9 did but was the more consistent player although you could argue R9'S Peak was as great as any player ever. But week in, week out, Henry was easily the best player in the EPL for a 3 year stretch 2002/2003 to 2005/2006 and imho the best player in the World for at least 2 of those years (Nedved and Cannavaro won awards that should be in Henry's home).

    Henry played for Arsenal, Ronaldinho played for Barcelona. One was French, the other Brazilian. The biases were already there for Dinho, Henry would've won the Ballon D'or twice if he played for Barcelona in his prime instead of Arsenal.
     
  13. Einstein_Newton_Maxwell

    Arsenal FC
    Brazil
    Nov 20, 2019
    I miss the days he was leading the EPL in Dribble Completed AND leading the EPL in assists (#1 in 2006), beating "playmakers" like Fabregas and Scholes.

    Oh and he placed second in Ballon D'or voting in 2006/2007.

    As a winger...Oh and he was breaking Ashley Coles ankles enough times that I think that joke has lost its luster. Wasn't Messi drawing consistent blanks vs Ashley Cole and Chelsea too? Yeah, prior to last season it was 0 goals vs Chelsea, including a choke job from the penalty spot to send them to the finals (ouch, i forgot about that choke job, he has quite a few since then).
     
    carlito86 repped this.
  14. Einstein_Newton_Maxwell

    Arsenal FC
    Brazil
    Nov 20, 2019
    Yeah he used to be, but time will not be favorable to Zizuo. Neymar is coming up, Mbappe is coming up. Modric will be remembered VERY fondly and is a Youtube gem btw (his trivela passes are magisterial). I also think that, fair or unfair, today's generation is more statistically inclined that previous generations which emphasized football aesthetics rather than raw output.

    Was Zidane really better than Cruyff?

    P.S. My father had the great honor of seeing both Pele and Zico, at different times play. He alleges that Pele was, and still is, the best player he's ever seen. And it's not as close people think. (Again, the old timers can be nostalgic but he was adamant about how unplayable Pele was - Beckenbauer seems to share his opinion on the Brazilian number 10 too). For what that's worth.
     
  15. Einstein_Newton_Maxwell

    Arsenal FC
    Brazil
    Nov 20, 2019
    R9 was a freak. He had the athleticism of a grown man at 18/19. R9 pre-knee injury is the most talented player ever.

    But CR7 was an athletic freak at 18, 19, 20:



    R9 at 17/18/19/20 was something that can only be compared to Pele. But don't sleep on young CR7. I still think peak CR7 is the best combination of athleticism and technical ability the game has ever seen.

    Athleticism is a huge part of the GOAT conversation. Maradona and Pele are not Maradona and Pele without their inimitable acceleration. Ditto for Cristiano, Messi, R9.

    Not coincidentally my top 5 players ever.
     
  16. Einstein_Newton_Maxwell

    Arsenal FC
    Brazil
    Nov 20, 2019
    Thanks for posting this. Brings new perspective to the discussion. Fan polling is a tricky subject. Hard to derive any legitimacy from such polls, but its good for historical purposes.
     
  17. Einstein_Newton_Maxwell

    Arsenal FC
    Brazil
    Nov 20, 2019
    Fair point.

    Maradona was more skillful (well more flair, which is the same thing) than even Messi. Some readers make think this is a trivial point, but it isn't. Maradon was audacious, he would pull of a 20 yard rabona pass while dribbling at full speed - unheard of. Ive never seen Messi pull off a rabona from a stand still position let alone while dribbling.

    The era may chance, the rules and tackling ethos may be amended, but the criteria is the same: Win.

    Maradona won in multiple places including with his national team. For all of Messi's greatness, his fans continue to make excuses for his plethora of international disappointments. It's annoying really because no other great player gets the benefit of the doubt that Messi gets. Even other goats are annoyed by this double standard hypocrisy:
    https://en.as.com/en/2019/05/10/football/1557477940_263859.html

    No UCLs without Xavi and Iniesta.
    No World Cups.
    No Copa America (even though they play it every other year so Messi can win it).

    At some point the excuses are, excuse my french, absolute bull$&%@.

    Winning is the same in any era. Zidane is a legend? Because he won. The end.
     
  18. Edhardy

    Edhardy Member+

    Sep 4, 2013
    Nairobi, Kenya
    Club:
    Juventus FC
    He must be quite rubbish.
     
  19. TitoTata

    TitoTata Member+

    Jun 26, 2014
    Zidane is easily the best I’ve ever seen .. and I go back to the time of Eusébio who I still argue was better than Pele..
     
  20. TitoTata

    TitoTata Member+

    Jun 26, 2014
    #70 TitoTata, Nov 20, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2019
    Cruyff was amazing and ground breaking but he did have the advantage of being super fast and athletic ( but like Cronaldo with his strength / size / standing jump qualities) ..

    I saw Eusebio play loads on telly and once LIVE ( charity match only though ) but I’ve always felt he was a fair bit better than Pele .

    I still think Pele benefits from playing for THE Brazilian dream team and all the fantasy surrounding it . I also have Zico over Pele ... Zidane above everyone else


    PS.

    I wouldn’t have Modric on the same pitch as any of the others mentioned .


    Cronaldo... dreadful personality aside I just regard him as a modern day Kevin Keegan .. meaning someone who achieved well beyond his natural ability .. Cronaldo is a fabulous natural ATHLETE who is super strong and fast and a great trainer who practices relentlessly .. I’ve never regarded him as a naturally gifted player though .

    I heard an old ManU backroom guy recently say that Cronaldo was the HARDEST trainer there even when he was just 17 !!
     
  21. Estel

    Estel Member+

    May 5, 2010
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    I typically don't have time for getting involved in these discussions these days, but I was able to pen down this one response at least.

    Henry fans are typically unappreciative of Zidane, so my mind is full of grains of salt when I read this opening paragraph.

    What were Zidane's 5 best performances for Bordeaux in your opinion, considering what you state about his time there?

    Depends on your definition of a 10, on whether those players were better as 10s. Most of those you listed had inferior playmaking skills when compared to Zidane, since they mostly played as withdrawn forwards and didn't have as much involvement in buildup.


    And Nesta was a better defender than Zidane. Doesn't make him the greater player though.

    As for Makelele, while he definitely provided excellent and necessary support when the UCL was won in 2002, that does not take away Zidane's contributions. If Makelele alone was good enough, he would have been able to replicate that success the season prior to Zidane's joining.


    How many CLs did Henry win? How many League titles?
    By that token Pedro is better than Henry.


    At club level, Zidane has more ESM monthly appearances than any player from his era outside of Roberto Carlos. To compare, the players with the most ESM monthly appearances in the current era are, Messi followed by CRonaldo.

    Internationally, Zidane has a Euro, a World Cup along with a Euro tournament best player award and a World Cup tournament best player award, all while having injury affect the one major international tournament that coincided with his peak (WC 02). No other player in history can look back on his international career and say that.

    Lastly, as per the French wiki, over his career Zidane has 194 assists in 797 games at an apg of 0.243. Henry has 187 assists in 782 games (excluding his time at the MLS) at an apg of 0.239. But sure, Zidane was never an assist machine like Henry.


    I'd argue that this whole premise is flawed.

    I can equally state that Pele wasn't unarguably better at any specific skill than every other player in history. Doesn't make Pele any less great.


    The French generations coinciding with Zidane had big name players who played in tournaments starting from Euro 92 upto World Cup 2010. Let's see their results with and without Zidane in all major international tournaments,

    Without Zidane (or with Zidane injured)
    Euro 92 - Group Stage
    World Cup 94 - Did not qualify
    World Cup 02 - Group Stage
    Euro 08 - Group Stage
    World Cup 10 - Group Stage (post dubious qualification)

    With Zidane available and fit
    Euro 96 - SF
    World Cup 98 - Champions
    Euro 00 - Champions
    Euro 04 - QF
    World Cup 06 - Finalists


    In addition to the above, let me also share a few older posts with information that you might not be privy to:


    Zidane had substantial involvement in France's goals scored, which actually went up when he played for them in major international tournaments -

    Zidane had a better win/draw % with the French team than any other French player which played during his era -

    France without Zidane struggled to qualify for Euro 00, when all those other players were at or near their peaks -

    Taking into account all of the above, I am unable to categorize Zidane for France, as anything but an absolute stud.
     
  22. wm442433

    wm442433 Member+

    Sep 19, 2014
    Club:
    FC Nantes
    Hum, it was not a walk in the park with or without him. The only defeat was without him it is true (Russia in France 2-3) but he was in the same state as the others in this post World Cup period with a sort of decompression, club careers to manage (abroad in big clubs), presence in the medias to manage... and they were the team to beat. The likes of Ukraine or Iceland were not the easisest teams to play against moreover if you don't put the extra spark to cause the difference and Russia played well his card on this one match... but in the end France topped the group anyway with 6 wins, 3 draws and 1 los, the 3rd defense far behind Ukraine and behind Iceland (10 against France, 4 against Ukraine and 7 against Iceland) and the second attack behind Russia (22 for Russia, 17 for France...14 for Ukraine). Anyway, the mission was complete and when the Euro arrived they all (all these new stars and subs wich included a few stars too) considerably raised their level in order to win those more appealing games and this competition. The immediate post World Cup '98 win and everything that goes with was digested. They knew how to find a new appetite with that objective of realisiing the double. Then, in 2002, they did not with another time the same problem, i.e dealing with their club careers + the medias and were definitively less hungry. The sponsor already printed a second star prior to the tournament too for the adverts. A core of players was past his prime or even really old and playing in Korea was not the best context too with not a big preparation, that is physically, tactically or mentally.

    France always plays the qualifications games in the difficulty, especially since this era that starts in the mid-90s, calculating much, even against the supposed inferior nations with as a lone objective to have a good balance sheet in the end, not to propose a beautiful football. And they always qualify for the finals since, so why change? Obviously I mean it is really boring but it works so far, in terms of results (at least they played well at the Euro 2000... but it's long ago now).
    France became more "Italian" than the Italian themselves who have just qualified to the Euro 2020 making a grand-slam, scoring plenty of goals. It's what they say since '98.

    On the contrary, especially in the 90s and early 2000's if I remember correctly, since it's the period we're talking about, Spain thrashed all the teams in the qualifying phase, were often unbeaten duirng long streaks, even breaking some records in that matter, before to collapse at one point during the finals or at least never were able to reach a tournament's last-4.
    So that was the example to not follow in some way.

    So who was/ is right? It's two different approaches and France at point, with all its players playing abroad, especially in Italy (with Platini being the pioneer = the Euro 84 win and WC 86 semis with a defense wich casually was very performant, it's often forgotten... Platini gave them advices and a winning mentality).
    It's choosing the party of the cold efficiency, focusing on the results as in France they don't consider that the games against "little nations" are the occasion to try to develop some good football but that it's real trap games (and before all the occasion to cement a defensive system for the tournaments, wich is important ofc, is for sure the base but well... in terms of creativity, of attacking phase there's little to no work, except on set-pieces... all about being coldly efficient in tournaments).
    Zidane's game, the nature of his game, was certainly impacted by these 'politics' and finally his value was most of all to be able to make the difference in the finals but Zidane in the qualifiers it's most of all for the Euro '96 and his come-back for the World Cup 2006, not much in between. For it was not made for him to shine and also because he had many things to deal with starting with many games to play for his two big clubs, the CL etc.
    It was always better to have him for these qualifiers for sure but it did not make a big difference at this stage of the competitions.

    Then about Spain (who were the "eternal strugglers"), I'd say that they adopted the Tiki-Taka-Anaconda approach wich was still a good mix in 2008 but became more and more negative football as well in my view afterwards (the 2018 French team reached highs in that domain). Another way to adhere to the party of the cold efficiency (I'd say that the red shirts and the individual skills of some players made it looked hotter that it truely was). But when winning is the objective, perhaps there's no other choice since some time, even a long time finally. Always been in fact.

    Professional football is crap.

    No, I like/ am interested in those international tournaments wich are very "tactical" but I just meant that ZZ or no ZZ, it doesn't change many things during the Euro 2000 qualifying phase. It's my analysis/ view of it and in the end my opinion, in any case. Surely he brang some oxygen to the team (at midfield and all) when he was here but the results were the same. He was part of the team that "struggled" in Iceland at the very beginning of the qualifiers too btw (1-1). When he was not playing, it's that he could not play or could not bring much.
    This "little hole" in '99 was certainly a good for he was present and well at the Euro 2000 in the end.
     
  23. Estel

    Estel Member+

    May 5, 2010
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    I hold a different opinion obviously, so let me elaborate.

    Zidane did not feature against only Iceland in the Euro qualifiers in 1998, prior to his knee surgery at the end of that season. He also played in the away game against Russia barely a month after the game vs Iceland i.e. in Oct 1998, and in that game he was arguably the man of the match, with involvement in all three goals including an excellent throughball assist for Anelka, while also winning a penalty after some great footwork, which ultimately Blanc was unable to convert. So while he did undergo the post WC drop in form, he was obviously able to recover it quickly, albeit having an injury marred 98-99 season impact his output.

    As for France's qualification strategy, I am not convinced that it involved home results like a draw against Ukraine and a loss to Russia, since those left France in 3rd place in the table, 3 points behind Ukraine and 1 point behind Iceland, with the away game vs the group leaders Ukraine yet to come. Furthermore, it resulted in France, on the last day of the qualifiers, needing to depend on the Russia-Ukraine game to end favourably (which it did with a draw), while they had to win against Iceland, to achieve the top position in the group and avoid the playoffs.

    Lastly, when you give the example of how Spain seemed to do well during the qualifiers but then not reach the last 4 of a tournament, I think you are selling the French team short. That French team had already shown the mental fortitude required to beat the incumbent World Champions in the World Cup final in 1998, so I doubt they were looking at Spain's results and thinking that something similar might happen to them. And also, why would France only compare themselves to Spain, instead of comparing themselves to a team like Germany who topped their qualifying group with 8 wins out of 10 and still won the tournament in 1996?

    The above penned along with the information I shared in my earlier post lead me to conclude that, the circumstantial evidence is too overwhelming in favour of Zidane's inclusion being the key reason which made that French team as successful as they turned out to be, however stacked it might have looked otherwise.
     
  24. Estel

    Estel Member+

    May 5, 2010
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Below are the instances that I was referring to when I mentioned the bolded.

    The assist -
    [​IMG]

    The PK won -
    [​IMG]
     
    carlito86 repped this.
  25. wm442433

    wm442433 Member+

    Sep 19, 2014
    Club:
    FC Nantes
    #75 wm442433, Nov 21, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2019
    No, that's what said, it's different factors combined (+ the qualities of the opponents and their will to do something against the WC winners, as said too btw).

    But it all starts before '98 and continues since then.
    Well, France '98 played like Germany/ Italy + some French thing obviously, let's call it a bit of French flair, wich leads to :
    That's what I said, saying that he made the difference in the finals. The extra-thing, the flair or whatever, it was Zidane obviously.

    But you don't want to hear that his influence was less important in the qualifiers.
    In the finals, his influence was huge. So there's a difference of performance wich has to do with the context.
    Then I agree that it was always better to have him than not.

    People who think he was not that great obviously don't know what they're talking about but then let's not exaggerate what he actually did, it's already huge and great as it is. Btw there's not a single player in History of football that is "Mr. Perfect", we might agree on this at least. And well, I already wrote what I think about these qualifiers. It was more of a team effort and finding again that solidarity and hunger, and physical form, and focus on football. Zidane included.

    Yes, France has that one loss to Russia in Paris without Zidane but the fact remains that he was not there in that match that was held in the month of June '99, period. If he was not there, it's because he could not play. If he had been there, would the result have been different? If not totally fit, probably not because Russia did a good job on the stand, even playing very well and if at 100%, who knows? Perhaps it would have not changed anything, perhaps France would have won, perhaps it would have been a draw-game, we'll never know.
    On the other hand what we know is that he made the difference in the finals. Against Iceland, Ukraine... with or without him it's the same in terms of results.

    Deschamps always says, the qualifiers are a "long battle", especially against the "little nations" (Russia had some players and did not categorically refuse the game as the other opponents could do, they had technical arguments too, again see goals for and against of the different teams).
    I agree (with him) that the qualifiers are not an easy thing to play, against teams that are just waiting - because they can't propose much more and play with their weapons. Then I'm not sure to agree with the image he uses that shows what is the "philosophy" (so to speak) of the French staffs during these qualifiers since 20 years rather than a real "strategy" btw : It's not even obligatory about real defensive tactics, it is more about chilliness and not working on offensive combinations and automatisms during this time... hoping for the best players will make the difference in the finals with a gesture coming from nowhere or from set-pieces (look at the goals of france in '98 and 2018, the goals are rarely coming from a collective action as opposed to what was practiced in the Platini years...+ well, his free-kicks).

    Btw, Zidane would have love to play more with Anelka. He told it, was saying it already at the time that he liked to play with him. It worked in two occasions : in this match against Russia and in this friendly at Wembley. Two big nations historically but not the most impregnable defensively. Because they were playing the game too : 2-3, 3-2 against Russia I recall... clearly, it could go either way... and the novelty in the 3-2 win was Anelka too.

    At the Euro, Anelka was globally not at the level (after a season in a new club for him prior to the tourney to be fair, wich is never easy, at Real) and then it's history(ies). He's putted aside by Santini and then, when he's back, it's the after-Zidane, Anelka thinks he's more a #10 and is not that striker that he was as a young player anymore (do not want to be it anymore in any case). It's the "Domenech years", not helped with a generation of players "rebel", themselves not helped by a coach who's not open to discussion, it's Knysna... well, sorry for this digression.
     

Share This Page