I have bought a few things from him before and I'm pretty sure it hasn't had the pre-match analysis, half-time stuff or the post-match. Just to make you aware.
Having said that, I think the stuff I got from him was older, Euros stuff from the 1960s and early 70s and not in English, so it might have some relevant stuff.
Every side that wins the champion needs a bit of luck. Even for a side as dominating as the golden generation Spain it was not an exception. In Euro 2008, Spain faced Penalty with Italy. In 2010WC, Spain had many nervous moments in quarter final game Vs Paraguay and in round 16th vs Portugal. And in the final vs Holland, nobody knew what would have happened if one of Robben's one on ones went past Casillas to goal just like he did in WC 2014. Even in Euro 2012, Spain went to Penalty with Portugal.
Talking about lucky, riquelme can be considered one of the most unluckiest suscessful player in all time. Despite been boca's & villarreal's best player in all time, won some trophies in national jersey, he had a potential to achieve more in world cup & copa america (mostly failed due to lucky aspect, for example, always ignored by coach when it come to selection)
In broad terms I agree of course that Gerrard had a more error-prone game than Pirlo, but he also created so much. In the 2005 final he created a lot as well (more than Pirlo in 2007). Pirlo wasn't Milan's best midfielder in the 2007 Champions League. That were by wide acclamation Kaká and Seedorf (with goals and assists against Bayern in the quarters and Manchester in the semis). This is of course an 'argument' in favor of Gerrard. Pirlo had once that luck (not in the poor 2004, 2008 and 2010 campaigns) and Gerrard didn't. I tend to think Pirlo was doing more positive things when Italy was unsuccessful, which is one of the reasons why I'm leaning to place him an inch ahead of Gerrard. Both players have large fan groups and are not particularly underrated.
This piece is touching upon that phenomenon as well: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04rhb69 If you listen carefully you get a sense how that works.
Kaka was barely a midfielder anymore in 2007. With Sheva gone and Ambrosini in the starting XI, Kaka was basically a second striker. Pirlo played a deeper role than Seedorf and Gerrard, and played much deeper than Kaka, so it's not difficult to understand why he didn't create as much, and why it seems that he wasn't as important. But I can tell you with great confidence that Pirlo was definitely better and more important than Seedorf in 2006/07, significantly better in fact. Pirlo himself had a goal against Bayern in the quarters, an assist against Manchester in the semis, and another assist against Liverpool in the final. But more importantly, watch Serie A games where Pirlo was not there (Sampdoria away, Torino at home, Atlanta at home) and notice how badly his presence was being missed in the midfield. Watch how painfully average we were without Pirlo and how little we created without him. Pirlo was involved in 12 goals that season (3 goals and 9 assists), Seedorf was involved in 15 goals that season (10 goals and 5 assists). That's barely a difference when you take into consideration how much further up the pitch Seedorf played. However, Pirlo was much better than Seedorf at doing things not captured by stats. It's more than just luck. Both Pirlo's 2006 and 2012 campaigns are far better than anything Gerrard ever did at international level. Pirlo's game in the group stage against Spain is better than any individual game Gerrard has ever had in any international tournament against good opposition.
I think you misunderstand me but nevermind. I know that Gerrard was more error prone. I know that he did not sit deep, nor shouldn't he if he wanted to win matches with a scrapyard squad. But I merely pointed out too that he created a lot, that was my reply to his errors. He created a lot in the 2005 final. Relative to his team Gerrard was more important (not if you drop both of them into teams of similar quality). I don't like it to present opinions as facts, which some people here chose to do on a consistent level. Seedorf had more ESM team of the month selections than Pirlo in 2006-07 (who had zero). That is not 'significantly better'. Interestingly, Seedorf has even one more selection than Pirlo in his entire career. Seedorf was UEFA club midfielder of the year in 2007 while Pirlo wasn't nominated. He was also in the UEFA team of the year while Pirlo wasn't (together with Gerrard, Kaka and Cristiano). Seedorf wasn't in Gazzetta's ideal team of the Serie A, but Pirlo was also removed from that. In fact (and here the word 'fact' is appropriate) Pirlo had a lower average grade than Seedorf for Gazzetta, something that is also true for DBScalcio. In DBScalcio Pirlo has a lower grade as well. Seedorf won the silver ball at the club world cup behind Kaká, Pirlo wasn't on the podium. I can go on and on with examples. In return Pirlo was top 10 in the FIFA player of the year and in the Ballon d'Or. Because he was deserving of it, but also because of keen lobbying and the club highlighting him (not to mention sponsors and marketing-driven reasons). This is an hyperbole. Was he better in ball retention and shielding the ball with physique? In playing multiple tactical roles (watch the 2006 match against Juventus, a defensive tactical role)? Running up and down? Linking the midfield and attack seamlessly? In all those years it was him who was the link between the defensive block and the creative block. For that tactical versatility and piece in the puzzle - the acquisition of him and Nesta made the puzzle 'click' - he got a few ESM team of the month selections in 2002-03. What is the source of those stats? Anyway, I placed Seedorf as 'HM' and Pirlo and Gerrard as 'top' (for 2000 - 2010). I can copy what was once posted on 'Zonalmarking' 1. Few players have the football intelligence and ability of Pirlo. Most playmakers are very attack oriented and are inclined to dribble, take on players, shoot. In a deep lying position one needs patience, the ability to read the game early and an all around game, a full package that is very rare in the modern game. Xavi and Scholes are the only two I can think of that would even fit into this discussion. 2. You need the right support system, just as important as the deep lying playmaker himself. Gattuso at his peak was playing like two players and while he was known for his robust and tenacious style, he was actually a quite capable footballer who was on the same wavelength as his team mates. Seedorf had plenty of experience to fit into just about any system and was one of the most versatile midfielders of his generation. Both complimented Pirlo’s role perfectly. Steven Gerrard was a machine on his own (albeit with faults).
Also, If you have watched 06/07 UCL Semi-Final AC Milan 3-0 Man United. The way how Pirlo at his prime controlled the tempo was just insane. Nobody in the same position in the last generation except maybe a prime Xavi could have done it in a similar fashion. Pirlo also had many memorable moments at Euro 2008 and WC 2010 as well. At Euro 2008 he was the MVP in the game vs France. In WC 2010 where he was injured throughout majority of the group campaign that he was only able to make his prescence in the last 45 minutes in the game vs Slovakia. However, in that 45 minutes, is prescence completely changed the way Italy was playing.
Consistent with what I cited above; I found an English version of Gazzetta dello Sport about this match: http://www.gazzetta.it/Calcio/SerieA/Squadre/Milan/Primo_Piano/2007/05_Maggio/03/milanmanutd.shtml Italian version: http://www.gazzetta.it/Calcio/Primo_Piano/2007/05_Maggio/02/milanmanchesterpartita.shtml Just to back up my case. Gazzetta is historically certainly not 'anti Milan' or afraid to showcase homerism. If anything it is a 'least likely case' and therefore telling. But now, the passage of time is placing another shining layer on top (compared to his less-fancied team mates). Pirlo had 'many' other capable team mates to take the chestnuts out of the fire. According to OPTA Pirlo had in all league seasons 4 assists or less for Milan. That was his role. Anyway, now it seems again that I rate all-action Gerrard higher than Pirlo, while I do not. Merely that it isn't another category (or level). edit: included Italian version of the report.
I'm going to watch the full version of Milan 3-0 United again sometime later. I'm not trusting these papers and their player ratings, not least because Pirlo got a 6 for his final against Liverpool when he should have at least got a 7,5 or 8. I know for a fact that he stole the ball from Heinze, then crossed it into the box, from which Seedorf scored the 2-0.
You count it as an assist above (your previous reply) - that was not the case. Not even by a wide definition. He did not 'steal' the ball from Heinze either.
My memory of that goal was way off, but Pirlo still played an important role in it. Anyway I will try to find the full match to see if Pirlo was actually poor, or whether he was "poor" by the same measure he was supposedly "poor" in the final.
6/10 is not poor. He and Gerrard received that. 6.40 over a full season is already fantastic. For a deflected/rebounded free kick, one other big chance and a dozen unsuccesful passes that is not a strange grade. Your own summary mentioned two creative moments unless I am mistaken.
Just as info (and I don't think it is accurate): Pirlo's best finishes are 5th, 7th and 9th. He was also nominated twice without getting votes (2004 and 2005; Gerrard was nominated in 2006 without getting votes). The mention of Sol Campbell made me check him again, and although a defender is very different leading to a different context, not to mention different clubs, both of them are born in the year 1974 so they can be somewhat compared. Scholes is born 16 november 1974 while Campbell is born 18 september 1974. But by these measurements; Paul Scholes was nominated for the Ballon d'Or in 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2007 without getting votes. Sol Campbell was nominated in 2003 without receiving votes. Scholes received 3 ESM of the month selections in his career (1999-00 and two in 2002-03). Campbell received two in his career, in 2004-05 and one in 2005-06. Campbell was twice Tottenham player of the year. Scholes never for Manchester United but it are also two different type of clubs ('type', not merely 'level'). Scholes was twice nominated for the PFA player of the year (2003 and 2007), Campbell never. Don't know for sure about FWA. This is not to say Campbell was a 'poor' or sub-standard player; I realize that impression might arise. What I instead mean to illustrate is that it is feasible to rate Scholes still as 'world class' (and overlooked at times; notice however The Independent rating him in the top 10 for 1997) just as others would do for Campbell, who seemingly has even fewer artifacts buried in the sands of history. Just as food for thought... On Lampard, I just noticed he was four times among the top three assisters of the league, per OPTA (the Premier League and OPTA only shows the top three and it matches with the old data). Naturally it doesn't differentiate between dead ball assists and open play, but still. Comparing this with his (semi-)contemporaries: 6 - Bergkamp (Arsenal) 5 - Fabregas (Arsenal & Chelsea) 4 - Beckham (Manchester United) 4 - Lampard (Chelsea) 3 - Giggs (Manchester United) 3 - Rooney (Manchester United) 3 - Thierry Henry (Arsenal) 2 - Di Canio (West Ham United & Charlton Athletic) 2 - Drogba (Chelsea) 2 - Gerrard (Liverpool) 2 - Hasselbaink (Leeds & Chelsea) 2 - Solano (Newcastle United)
That's a bit of an apples and pears comparison though as you are looking at a centre-back v. a central midfielder. All those awards are heavily weighted towards more attacking players.
Yes, I said that in my first sentence above. One can relate it to their position as well. I don't claim it is accurate (hence the raise as 'food for thought') but Campbell is actually further removed from the top center backs than Scholes is from the highest placed central midfielders in ESM. Roy Keane was five times PFA nominated (he's top for CMs if I'm not mistaken) and Scholes twice. Once in a different capacity but that is also true for Keane somewhat (when playing alongside Ince and then in his declining years). In terms of center backs I can see both Vidic and Terry having received two nominations each. If you look at the winners in the EPL era, center backs have won it more often than central midfielders (McGrath and Terry vs Keane). At any rate, both Scholes and Campbell are at similar distance from the top in their position. I haven't checked the Ballon d'Or (too much work) but I can imagine that since there has been restricted voting (since 1995), some defenders and central midfielders were more than once or five times nominated.
There are a lot of reasons behind this but I just don't regard it as a valid comparison. Campbell played for Spurs for a big chunk of his career and sadly the ESM don't seem to have watched a lot of Spurs in that era. For instance Ginola was double player of the year in 1998-9 and he didn't get a single nomination in that season which is pretty remarkable. That's not particularly surprising but it is going to have had a big impact, if you spend your peak years at a club who aren't the focus of ESM then it is going to have a pretty big difference. Campbell had 3 nominations for the PFA team of the season, two team of the tournament nominations and the ratings that PDG has posted show a remarkable consistency, even when at Portsmouth. He was rated number 1 in his position 4 times, 2nd another 3 times, and another 3 in the top 5. Overall, I don't think it is a valid comparison.
OK thanks. Fair enough. On PFA team of the season (2 vs 3) and team of the tournament longlist (1 vs 2) he scores better yes. Maybe he fits in some capacity (the capacity of playing for 'unpopular' clubs) also in the 'double handicap' theory (like a Modric). If I look at how other England defenders are remembered from ~ 1990 - 2010.
If someone wanted to make an argument that John Terry or Rio Ferdinand were better then I wouldn't have a particular problem with that. My real question with Scholes is that a lot of people have been shouting about him after the event (with lots of quotes) but he was surprisingly overlooked at the time. I don't think the same is true in the same way for Campbell for instance.
Let's be fair about the above: Inter was being cheated - there is no telling how the Serie A would've looked without the cheating that was helping Juventus and AC Milan. What Riquelme did over 2 legs vs. Inter Milan was absolutely remarkable, and criminally underrated by a majority of fans who do not understand just how difficult it is for one player in a vastly inferior team, to produce the end product (and overall charismatic performance) that Riquelme produced in that Quarter Final vs. Inter Milan. (Arsene Wenger made the intelligent tactical decision by dedicating most of his tactical preparation to the specific task of stopping Riquelme AND THEN thinking about Arsenal's own game. As a useful reference: Ronaldinho with far better support, didn't do much better, if at all better, versus Arsenal.) Gerrard was not surrounded by a super-team, and he deserves immense respect for that. But honestly, Riquelme's Villarreal team from 2004-05 and 2005-06 was demonstrably inferior to Liverpool at any point between 2004 and 2008.
Frank Lampard says here that Gerrard, Xavi and Iniesta were the best midfielders he faced in his career Some solid videos of peak Thierry Henry have surfaced recently