There's the well known legend of Claude Makelele; Fernando Hierro (without the benefit of hindsight at the time) described Makelele not only as the most important player, but also as the most special player of that pre-Beckham Real Madrid team. Hierro appeared to be correct to a significant degree, if Madrid's form post-Makelele was any indication of Makelele's actual value to that team. Not to mention that David Beckham was more or less a failure in his new role as a defensive midfielder: Beckham lacked the physical mobility (motor skills) to play a defensive role of that type, and it was only after Luis Figo was kicked out of the team, that David Beckham truly began to find his place in that team. Moreover, an offensive minded playmaker like Zidane would look more or less average or below-average, when compared to the much smaller-and-nimble Makelele and also when compared to the more agile Fernando Redondo. Zidane's physique is not suited for the role of a defensive midfielder (definitely not for what would be required of an above average defensive midfielder), that is, Zidane was a big player with not enough acceleration, not enough agility, and who was not a complete ball retention expert in that he was dispossessed quite a lot when he was caught in a specific-but-common type of situation where his physique became a clear limitation, far removed from the stylish technician he was in his ideal position/positions of playing as a 'false midfielder' essentially. Of course: If Messi is defined as a false nine, then why aren't so-called 'midfielders' like Zidane defined as false eights?? Nomenclature is funny like that. Furthermore, assuming that Zidane would 'correct' the referenced deficiency to his game if he ever was consistently played as a defensive midfielder---that's always a bad argument in my opinion. Physical mobility does not significantly change for the better depending on the role, on the contrary, it is the innate type of mobility of the player that largely defines which positions or roles the player can excel at---and Zidane was precisely not the type of athlete who was ever suited for the role of a defensive midfielder; not to mention the fact that Zidane never displayed the passing ability of a Xabi Alonso or an Andrea Pirlo (Zidane's passing ability was clearly of inferior quality, in my opinion). With that in mind: I think there is a self-evident difference between genius midfield players with an innate rare ability for ball retention, like Andrea Pirlo, Andres Iniesta, Xavi Hernandez, Fernando Redondo, Claude Makelele, Sergio Busquets, Carlos Valderrama, Michael Laudrup, etc., and less gifted midfielders like Clarence Seedorf or David Beckham, etc. For reference: David Beckham's BDO positions include 2nd place in 1999, 10th place in 2000, 4th place in 2001, 10th place in 2003. Meanwhile, Michael Laudrup's BDO positions include 18th place in 1990, 11th place in 1991, 7th place in 1992, 5th place in 1993, 13th place in 1994, 10th place in 1995. Furthermore, Andrea Pirlo's BDO positions include an absence in the 28 player shortlist of 2004, another absence in the 23 player shortlist of 2005, 9th place in 2006, 5th place in 2007, another absence in the 24 player shortlist of 2008, more absences in 2009 and 2010 and 2011, followed by a 7th place in 2012, 10th place in 2013, etc. It is patently obvious that the Ballon d'Or is a joke as far as its ability to accurately measure creative talent is concerned. Pirlo 2013 was not as great as Pirlo was in 2004, 2005, and 2006, let alone better. Beckham was nowhere near as great as his BDO ratings indicate---many times finishing above both Luis Figo and Pavel Nedved, which is plainly laughable to say the least. In conclusion: seemingly intelligent and generously witty fans like @benficafan3 might as well not even watch the games, given their belief that goals are the beginning and the end of the entire enterprise, and given their (asinine) belief that Pirlo struggled to get BDO mentions which therefore demonstrates how overrated Pirlo is when he gets exposed by the serious statistic that the Ballon d'Or clearly is---whereby David Beckham is better, much better in fact, than Andrea Pirlo or Alessandro Del Piero. (LMAO.) Honestly, why even bother with the 90 minutes?? Why even have professional scouts when a basic computer can easily crunch the numbers in less than a fraction of the time?? Just count the goals, count how many BDO mentions the player has registered in his career, and there you have it---the best players of all time. NOTE: Alessandro Del Piero's BDO positions include 4th place in 1995 (Zidane was not included in the 32 player shortlist), 4th place in 1996 (Zidane finished in 28th place), 19th place in 1997 (Zidane finished in 3rd place), 16th place in 1998 (Zidane won the BDO), not included in the 27 player shortlist in 2000 (Zidane finished in 2nd place), 28th place in 2001 (Zidane finished in 9th place), etc. In other words: Alessandro Del Piero's BDO ratings plummeted immediately after Zidane became a Juventus player, and Zidane's BDO ratings skyrocketed immediately after Zidane became a Juventus player---and most curious of all, I genuinely cannot see how Zidane immediately became a superior Juventus player when compared to Del Piero, as a matter of fact, more often than not I think Del Piero was the better Juventus player. Conclusively demonstrates (in my eyes at least) what a joke the BDO is as a metric for talent and for consistency. Moreover, it seems to be a skill that Zidane possessed throughout his career; players like Alessandro Del Piero and/or Thierry Henry suffered greatly one way of the other. Del Piero suffered on the basis of fabrication and deception, that is, Zidane was not actually better on a consistent basis at club level, but Del Piero's BDO ratings still plummeted as a result of politics---of course Zidane being French and the BDO being French is as obvious a policy as there could be in this sport. Meanwhile, Thierry Henry suffered on the basis of the tactics of Zidane as a player---perhaps this is not Zidane's fault entirely, if at all, but rather the consequence of two very different players who would never click (not well enough anyways) under any tactical system.
Nice said @leadleader. So summed up. There is this bias that, generally, attackers are put in front of everyone else. Plus, the bias within evaluation of every player itself. Some players get the upper hand, undersevely so... it's usually due to marketing and profit on FIFA's side. All in all, that makes ballon d'Or not a reliable source in comparisons.
And it's not even attacking players all the time: as I briefly mentioned about Zidane vs. Del Piero... When you play an excessively self-indulgent player like Zidane, who likes to make the ball his own private property but especially so in the big games, the inevitable result is that Zidane will probably create ZERO open-play chances or maybe just ONE open-play chance, at the expense of Zidane holding the ball at all times, and therefore at the expense of Del Piero not having anywhere near as much influence as he had pre-Zidane. Essentially the same thing happened to Thierry Henry, whom became another victim of Zidane's style of making the ball his own personal pleasure but without creating much of any actual chances from open play, therefore devastating the influence of attacking players like Del Piero and/or Thierry Henry and/or Lionel Messi (if Messi ever shared a pitch with Zinedine Zidane). The invariable result is that when the outcome is positive, it will be because, "Zidane carried the team, plus Del Piero was invisible for most of the match, so again, Juventus were extremely lucky that Zidane had a good game." So what happens to Del Piero's BDO reputation?? Del Piero's pre-Zidane 4th place immediately became a 20th place, on the other hand, Zidane's pre-Juventus 28th place immediately became a permanent spot in the Top 5 spot in the BDO metric---which conclusively demonstrates that consistency over the course of the calendar year has never really been a consistent factor for the BDO, that is, just one or two big games can completely alter the perception and reputation of any given player. With Zinedine Zidane the effect is that when he was memorable in one or two big games, in and of itself that was already enough merit to guarantee that Zidane would finish high on the BDO shortlist---regardless of how inconsistent Zidane might've been in the other 99% of the games of that calendar year. In contrast, Del Piero suffered because he no longer had the service (which Zidane could not single-handedly provide by means of his self-indulgent style of playmaking) to make himself heard in the big games, as he presumably used to pre-Zidane. The BDO is just completely inconsistent---most of the time it is completely attack-minded, but at the same time, I have witnessed how low-scoring players like Zidane and Iniesta have become in may ways 'untouchable' on the basis of fabrication and lies: Zidane probably more than Iniesta in that regard, by my estimate---but still, the underlying point is that the BDO is a complete mess as a metric to be used seriously.
I understand you completely. Certain players, regardless of their position, are picked by media and then overpraised. That's the additional bias on top of the bias considering attackers in general.
You have your manner of seeing things and I have mine. You can believe goals are not the end all be all, and that is your perogative. But at the end of the day, the GAME is not won until the ball crosses the line. It is paramount to all else, which is in turn tantamount to one another. Your belief otherwise does not change this. There is nothing new in each game played, everything you see in each play has been done before. There are no neverending configurations. Generously witty? I shall take that compliment pal.
CR7 has a goal to game ratio of 1.051 for Real Madrid, but only a ratio of 0.537 for Portugal How strange that they are so far apart. It's almost as if a football game is usually decided in midfield and not solely by the main goalscorer.
Not my fault that's how you interpret it. I stated in a prior post (should be on Page 6), the most important player is the one most important to goals. That can be the main goal scorer, or it could not be. Or do you believe that I count Inzaghi among the top players of all time?
Pirlo was one of the most important player to Milan's goals from 2003 to 2007 (when Milan won 2 CLs and lost another final on penalties). Pirlo was the most important player, bar none, to Italy's goals in the 2006 World Cup. Pirlo was more influential to Italy's attack than any other player. Pirlo was more influential for Italy than Zidane was for France. Pirlo was one of the most influential players for the best club side in the Champions League from 2003-2007, and the sole most influential player for the World Cup winning team in 2006. But you can use Ballon D'or standings as your measure to determine player greatness...
Fully agree with the part in bold. My only disagreement is that I think you go a bit too far in referencing the BDO as a serious measure (or metric) for all the players, including the midfield players that have historically been undermined by the BDO ideal. I think that's definitely on the unreasonable side, which is what I was commenting on. For example: I think you would definitely rate Del Piero 1999-00 as a better season than Zidane 1999-00, however, the BDO would have you believe that Zidane was ten times better. Haha, glad that you seem to see that it was a half-compliment, half-criticism (in that at times you're excessively or disproportionately snappy when responding to the criticism that is typically aimed at Ronaldo). Regards.
You seem to overlook where I stated Pirlo is a great in his time. He's just not a great across all times. And your point on Pirlo being more influential for Italy than Zidane was for France is patently false. I'm guessing you don't remember how abysmal France was prior to Zidane's performance against Brazil in 2006 (and Spain in the Round of 16), the performance that invigorated his team. Would you have said such a statement if the penalty shootout had gone France's way? Doubtful. Pirlo was indeed so great that Cannavaro was held in higher esteem. Weird, no? http://www.uefa.com/community/teamoftheyear/history/season=2006/index.html Pirlo was so amazing, beyond Zidane, yet couldn't crack into UEFA's Team of 2006? Either he isn't what you think he is or there is some massive agenda against him.
I took it as a compliment, and I don't disagree with your text in paranthese. Ain't none of us perfect, am I right ? Regards pal.
Goals (excluding penalties): Pirlo - 1 Zidane - 1 Assists: Pirlo - 3 Zidane - 1 Chances created (source): Pirlo - 24 Zidane - 12 Chances created per 90 minutes: Pirlo - 3.23 Zidane - 1.93 Man of the Match: Pirlo - 3 Zidane - 1 Pirlo creates more chances and has more assists than Zidane despite playing a deeper position... As for France being abysmal in the groupstage, who's fault was that exactly? Zidane's contribution in the first two games was 2 yellow cards, no goals and no assists. Then France won the final group game (must win) without him. In the game against Spain, Zidane was good, but no better than Ribery or Vieira for instance.
Nice work on compilation of those statistics, but it doesn't change the argument that Zidane was more influential for France than Pirlo was for Italy. France would not have gotten to the final without Zidane, who was at the heart of much of what France did in the final (as Pirlo was for Italy). That isn't to say Italy would have succeeded without Pirlo, because they wouldn't, but as a piece of the overall puzzle, his 'importance' in terms of the contribution to success was aided by others (Cannavaro, etc.) that Zidane did not equally have with France. But if what you believe is true, then why is it that, per the link below, Cannavaro is seen as the overwhelming best player in the tournament, with the only other Italian garnering some mention being Buffon? These were responses in that time, not 10+ years after. What did they not see then that you see now? https://www.theguardian.com/football/worldcup2006/comment/story/0,,1817543,00.html https://www.fourfourtwo.com/us/features/top-10-players-germany-2006?page=0,9 Even Four Four Two, which rates Pirlo as the best player of the tournament notes, "while Zidane may have bagged the Golden Ball, and may have been the better player, it was Pirlo who kept his head during the moments that really counted. Pirlo was a great player during that period (2005-2007), but the initial discussion regarded great players of all times. It is of my opinion, he does not serve in that pantheon of greats. @Bernardo_NFFC's comment in the below thread succinctly describes the elevation of Pirlo's hype. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/is-pirlo-overrated-in-recent-years.2022342/ Pirlo is great but not a great. That's my opinion, you're free to have yours.
Bringing this back after Ronaldinho has announced his retirement. What do you guys think will be his legacy? Obviously, there are already some who considers him the GOAT. Of course that is an exaggeration and belongs more in the youtube comment section. To me, at his peak, he was up there as one of the greatest ever. He was better than Zidane for sure. Just the complete attacking midfielder package. His lack of longevity means I can never really put him up there, especially since I rate consistency and longevity very highly. Having said that, I will argue that he must be considered for GOAT entertainer. I am not one for flair (almost all my favourites are defenders) but watching him was something else entirely. It oozes joy and excitement and entertainment.
I can never split Cristiano, Ronaldo Lima and Ronaldinho. At their peak, they were just as good as each other. There’s almost nothing to split them. Dinho obviously didn’t score at the same rate as the other two, but his playmaking and vision was on another level. Messi is a tier above the 3 mentioned above.
I was going to say that I see Messi as within the same tier, just of a higher level but I can agree with him being classified in another tier itself. I'd say it's arguable that peak Messi would actually potentially be alone in that tier. I think at his peak he is basically unmatched historically. I don't believe a peak Pele/Maradona would have the same impact. Messi's level of top play is savant-like.
I guess the question here is, what has retirement done to Ronaldinho's legacy? How do you think he will be remembered now? What about 20 years from now?
This article on Hristo Stoichkov is far less good as the one on Ibra + Laudrup but still worth a check (the introduction, conclusion etc.) http://www.academia.edu/3828522/Hri...ical_sketch_of_Bulgaria_s_most_famous_athlete
It's not necessarily overhyping, but what I find peculiar and interesting is how people started to equate Pirlo's playing style with the one of Xavi. A more interesting comparison/equation would be Albertini - and then probably not the one around ~1992. Pirlo at his best - the 2003-04 season - constructed his play in a very different way. The ball progression to further upfield was as much, or more, done by his colleagues. Pirlo then chipped in from deep - if he was in form this happened more frequently - to do something creative with the ball. It's the typical Italian style of spotting the moments and then slide in. It's not by definition worse as what Xavi did, and Pirlo had his qualities (both had also a strong engine), but Pirlo edged more on a literal interpretation of the term 'deep-lying playmaker'. For playing on possession Milan relied more on Rui Costa and Seedorf, and their speedier bursts over shorter distances to re-position themselves. Nice player, maybe Milan's best midfielder in 2003-04 (even better than Kaka), and his peak (in movement, in diversity, in short passing game) was certainly at Milan and not Juventus, but 'dominating' games was not his or the Italian style. When Milan needed to 'dominate', Rui Costa et al. helped a lot with circulating possession and keep the ball in the team. Simply because they were (for a midfielder) more agile and quicker over shorter distances, and physically stronger under pressure. Pirlo's counter-attacking passes to Kaka were very dangerous, and despite not a strong tackler a good defender on the backfoot.
This gives a pretty good look and feel from late in his championship season (2003-04). Was a good game by him. They turned around a defeat in a win.
As a variation on 'retirement overhypes', here the argument is made (in the article and the comments by author below the twitter dump) that Ferguson's taste for attacking football is grossly overinflated in memory. Why aren't Europe's superclubs able to defend like Atletico? Perhaps because it's not good for their 'brand' https://t.co/7U6t9IV7v1— Michael Cox (@Zonal_Marking) May 4, 2018 The point on the way the teams are set up feels valid - Godin wouldn't be as impressive in Pep's team. Then he starts to register a number of 'errors leading to goal' too (as Stones and Ottamendi do). That's also true if you look further back in history & many of the 'best dozen defenders ever' had actually a tendency to concede quite a few goals (at the peak of their applause, when they won accolades). Not so few goals as the reputation would suggest - if that reputation would purely lean on defending. At the same time, the defenders who can defend and also play football decently enough are always rare. That's how the top teams start bidding wars for the same players like Ferdinand and Nesta in the past. Right or wrong, few are perceived to combine both defending and playing the ball fine. From SkySports: "According to Opta, Van Dijk is one of only four centre-backs to play more than 60 Premier League games in the last three seasons without making a single error leading to a goal. [atm number is still 0, also in UCL for Celtic and Liverpool]. Despite making significantly more combined tackles and interceptions per 90 minutes than Liverpool's centre-backs last season, Van Dijk was beaten on remarkably few occasions. In fact, he was dribbled past only six times last term (2016-17) [...] His long-pass accuracy was the best by any defender in the Premier League last season and far superior to any of the other options at Klopp's disposal." The Zonal Marking article above might have a point in that top teams are reluctant nowadays, for reasons stated in the article, to be satisfied with Cannavaro or Vierchowod type of defenders. They rather have ball players who sometimes forget to defend, than defenders who sometimes forget to play football. The perceived defenders who can do both reliably (an in form Pique is one I'd personally say) are seen as scarce; scarce enough for giving each top 15-20 team at least one. Nice article by Michael Cox!
To come back to the starting post, with an article dealing with Gerrard and Scholes, I've to sharpen my earlier observations. Scholes has been discussed very often, and also the past weeks quotes like this have come out. Steven Gerrard. I didn't follow it that close but what I picked up were recollections of his faults now he enters management. It is well possible that those faults ("Slippy G") become as much part of his legacy as his Roy of the Rovers game winning strengths. Might not get the overhyping treatment, in particular if the Rangers chapter doesn't become a success (maybe he should call Zizou for a top class fitness coach). See also this The Guardian article from 2014: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/mar/13/steven-gerrard-liverpool
In fairness I think this Scholes quote is a parody, though a very believable one given all the made up quotes we have seen.
Yes I think you're right. Only checked whether his first son was indeed named Paul ("Paolo") and I know Rijkaard indeed did these sort of things (though most likely not for 3 hours without any on-field training). Tentatively this exaggerated description connected with Rijkaard's known strengths and weaknesses as a coach back then, but had a ??? with other aspects of the quote.