Does Retirement overhypes?

Excellent article, thanks for that.

Regarding the article... I would say that the underlying problem is, not merely that the big clubs don't want to defend, but that they are already forgetting how to adequately defend, which will become increasingly obvious over the years. Practice makes perfect, and with a severe lack of practice, the art has declined greatly, and will continue to decline, and not literally because the big clubs don't want to adequately defend, but specifically because no human can be great at an art that he does not consistently practices. And it's actually worse than that, because Sergio Ramos, being the type of player that he is, and playing on the right club, gets away with penalty kicks all the time, which makes him look better than he actually would be if all those penalty kicks were rightfully awarded to the lesser clubs.

This is one of my primary concerns with the 32-33 year old Cristiano Ronaldo circus. Ignorant fans who have been (misguided) led to believe that Ronaldo's ability at positioning, is the primary reason why he gets that many clear-cut chances per big game. When the real factors comprehensively are: (a) big clubs have forgotten how to defend adequately and their defensive competence relies heavily on the midfield battle, not necessarily on how competent their actual defenders are; (b) the accumulation of wealth and talent has created super attacking clubs whom are very difficult to defend, in part because they are truly great at attacking, but also in part because super-clubs generally enjoy super-referee bias, so for example, slightly touching Isco is an automatic foul in this day and age, when less than a decade ago that was just a normal amount of contact that didn't merited the game being stopped, and at the same time, Real Madrid's Sergio Ramos can give away penalty kicks without getting rightfully punished for it, because Real Madrid has the super-club license to give penalty kicks without the historically negative cost, so Ramos ends up looking like a relatively amazing defender in a game where he really gave away a very very reckless and stupid penalty kick.

I'm especially concerned about the absence of the VAR in an era in which super-clubs have too much power over the referees, that relationship is especially catastrophic because super-clubs are hyper-attack and then the peasant-clubs are expected to somehow defend (competently enough so as to have a chance of winning) against stacked clubs and also against a referee who will predictably assist the bigger clubs.

And about Ronaldo... I'm not actually trying to argue that Ronaldo is not great or most probably extraordinary at positioning, my point is that that ability, at its best, in the past, created far less value than it currently seemingly creates for Real Madrid. Having Romario or Gerd Muller on your team, could create perhaps just one or maybe at most two situations, in a big game, where you could clearly tell that positioning was the primary factor behind the goal. What we see today is that Ronaldo gets 2 to 3 routine chances in the big games, routine being the key word here... it's just not a normal thing in the history of big game dynamics, in fact, it's plainly abnormal that the man who everybody knows is the scorer of the tap ins and/or the headers, is arguably and consistently helped out by big clubs who either don't or (most probably) can't defend inside the box. Shevchenko would look a lot better in that context, especially Shevchenko's ability to score a good header, which in my opinion is underrated in that player.

In other words: bad defending is simply bad defending, especially in the Semi Finals of the most prestigious club tournament, and I don't think that Ronaldo's positioning, even after assuming that he is the best of all time in that category -- I don't think that Ronaldo's ability at poisoning could ever create that surplus of chances or that disparity in chances, that you will invariably get if you ever directly compare Ronaldo to the great "positioners" of past eras; Gerd Muller, Romario, Batistuta, Shevchenko, Raul, etc. Not one of those players played the Champions League Quarter Finals and the Semi Finals, getting 2 to 3 tap ins per game. Not one of those players benefitted from at least one tap in per big game, even in the worst case scenario.

 

I will get back to it tomorrow but here a similar point and argument, also mentioning what the midfield and forwards do (cf. 4-4-2 of old)

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2018/apr/11/barcelona-defending-champions-league

 

Sorry for the delay;

Yeah, but I remember you also saying - from your own perspective - very few 'old school' defenders stood out. You might get 'better' defending but does one end up with better individual defenders? Paolo Maldini, in your own words, looked as 'just' a world class cog among a handful other world class players. When Maldini was at his very peak, Desailly was brought in to provide extra solidity. If he doesn't stand out, who does?

As said above, many of the greatest defenders (Maldini is one of the rare exceptions) are great for other reasons than defending. Many of the world's most expensive defenders since the late 1970s, with the arguable exception of Kohler, Stam and Thuram, combined perceived reliability with class on the ball.

I have always been a Pique>Ramos guy. Sergio Ramos comes very often across as the defensive incarnation of Steven Gerrard (his negative stereotype). Big presence, big goals, but no brains in a position where occasional thoughts are required and no (pre-rehearsed) instincts.

I'm not in 100% agreement but this makes some sense. Though, it is very much the question whether this is something new. When Buffon lost his cool recently, many were keen to point out he was the team captain and unofficial team leader when Juventus was in court convicted for fixing games and other types of cheatery and cover-ups.
Although even that Juventus had weaker seasons, most notable the one where Del Piero was absent (1998-99 - ADP's injury not the only 'change' though) and the one where Davids caused troubles and Appiah proved to be a sub-standard replacement (2003-04).

If Ronaldo et al. get overrated then it has no start and end when going further back in history. Just read Declan Hill's work and his collection of specific incidents. It's naive to think it is a novelty.

It's 'funny' you mention Romario and Gerd Muller because both of them have been subjected to upward evaluation too as time has progressed. Raul has lost some of his shine, in part because he isn't the greatest highlight reel, in part because he was superseded by the batch after him (Xavi is only two years younger than him...) and ditching him for the national team proved to be an overwhelming success. Something comparable, but not similar, also applies to his later Real Madrid years, and the first year after he was gone.

Your point reflects I think that some skills are seen as 1) aesthetically more pleasing and 2) as rarer. Some skills are just 'rarer' in nature and/or require rarer athletic gifts. A necessary - but not sufficient - part of why David Beckham often gets the 'overrated' label, is because set piece delivery and crossing capability isn't the rarest skill. Many teams have multiple players who can provide an adequate, decent and effective set piece pass.

There was a podcast called 'Set Piece Menu' where for an hour it was discussed: "What’s the most important position? Spoiler alert - it’s not left back". It was also not 'scoring goals'.

In some ways this can be seen better when you travel back 15-20 years in time, which was an era where the talent (or rather: 'level of development') was more evenly spread across a number of teams and even some clubs outside the big five were still competitive (with their 'own' players, not externally owned players).

Many of these teams had multiple players who could score 'a goal', but far fewer who could control matches (if fit and good shape), dribble or provide the killer ball through the congested middle. Totti, Del Piero etc. could score goals themselves but it was often not set up that way. Take their penalties out and often you don't get impressive numbers in many seasons (ADP has two seasons with 10+ non-penalty goals in the league). Del Piero was, I believe, in many seasons a lot better as when he scored a lot in 2007-08 and nicked the topscorer title away from team mate Trezeguet.

That is no to say all strikers were below average footballers. Rio Ferdinand has said many times that Van Nistelrooij (pretty skilled, but not the bluster and electricity of a Henry or Ronaldo) was one of the best players in five-a-side sessions, if not the best (one source: the "Premier League legends" episode). Up there or around Scholes and - remarkably - better than Cristiano.
Yet, ask Van Nistelrooij himself about the better players of the teams he played in, and he'll name non-strikers with the occasional exception of Ronaldo Luis (which has a certain irony, since RvN took his place at Real Madrid, while Ronaldo was younger than him). Because Ronaldo had that special and one-of-a-kind gametype.
Similarly, one might flip through Thierry Henry's biography written by Auclair (a Frenchman).
Even though Henry was quite possibly the world's best player between 2002 and 2004, there at various places - including the preface - the explicit call is made Bergkamp was the better player (with various phrased as "first among equals"), and he's given a lot of credit for Henry's first title at the London club (2001-02) when they jumped from 4th-6th in the table to 1st. "I [Auclair] would argue it was no coincidence that the 2001-02 double was achieved when Arsenal's number ten resumed his precedence in the forward line ahead of his competitors.". The fact that he scored 36% of his Arsenal goals with his weaker left foot tells a story too.

So scoring goals is often not the rarest skill or athletic gift, and that becomes even more obvious when descending down to less technical strikers as Vieri, Inzaghi, Pauleta, Trezeguet... Individual awards have always been by nature imperfect (this cannot be prevented) but the most applauded strikers had something 'extra'. Very often that 'extra' did not only mean more goals for themselves, but also their team, which became painfully visible when they didn't play (even if their team, like Milan, like Real Madrid, had many expensive replacements).

 

I don't remember saying those exact words, "very few old school defenders stood out." But to be clear: maybe I did actually write those exact words, I've been working so much over he past 15 or so months, that I might just have said something like that. But the reason why I would, in most cases and with a rested mind, refrain from such a profound statement, is because I didn't grew up watching football in that era. It would be quite difficult for me to watch all the great defenders of the 1990s, to then reasonably assert that none of them truly stood out.

But yes, I was not and I'm still largely not impressed by Maldini, whom I compared to the handful of great defenders that I have watched extensively; Nesta, Puyol, Koeman, Hierro, Desailly (whom is especially relevant here, because I think he was as good or better than Maldini, playing in the same team as 26-27 year old Maldini), Costacurta (whom consistently looked like the better tackler of the two, and also a more spectacular defender at his wide role), Thuram, Pique (whom is legitimately great in my opinion, especially between 2008 and 2012, and even if there have been some lapses at certain stations of his career), etc.

After watching around 15-20 games from Maldini at 26-27 years of age, I did expected to find what was that made him a more "marketable" defender than his rivals in that position, and the only thing that I have managed to rationalize thus far, is that Maldini was extraordinary at man-to-man defending using his upper body far more than his legs, which makes him a rather unique defender from an aesthetic point of view, because he makes upper-body-defending look stylish and even elegant and definitely unique in signature... but other than that, his lower limbs weren't the most accurate from a defender (e.g. Costacurta was a more precise tackler, as was Carles Puyol, as was Fernando Hierro, as was Ronald Koeman, and it isn't even remotely close), and his reading of the game does not appear to be consistently better than that of Hierro (MOTM in the Champions League Final 1998), Nesta, Koeman, Puyol, etc.

I'm still in due process of finishing an analysis of defenders, what they do, where they do it, how they do it, how many times they do it, etc., and so far, the two defenders that have impressed me the most are probably Carles Puyol 2004-2008 and John Terry 2005-2008, and maybe also Nesta 2003-2006 (albeit I've noticed that Nesta fans basically always say that Nesta was better before 2003, in his Lazio days). Before I committed to this project about defensive ability, my impression was that Carles Puyol was overrated (spectacular but overrated, basically a defender who spectacularly corrected his own reckless mistakes) and that John Terry was even more overrated (him belonging to an overrated English 'Golden Generation' and his absence at Euro 2008 where England's captain wasn't even in the tournament because England didn't even qualified for the tournament). Needless to say, my findings so far are absolutely not what I expected to find this far into the analysis. And to be clear: maybe my impressions are just not accurate, but I think it is a good sign when your impressions about any analysis align against your pre-conceived guidelines, which I think is especially accurate when said pre-conceived notions are largely based on distant and nostalgic memories, rather than the accurate still-fresh-in-the-mind memories of those players.

Overall, my general impression is that the mistakes that are being made today, are the type of mistakes that don't define a "star defender." In other words: any world class defender or probably any average defender, should be competent enough to correct mistakes like the ones we witnessed in the CL Semi Finals this season. So Maldini being unimpressive relative to his mythical status, is somewhat largely irrelevant, because AC Milan had other lesser rated defenders who knew how to make an easy backwards-pass without perfectly assisting the one player that they aren't supposed to assist, or how to man-mark Ronaldo not all of the time but at least in those few instances when it's obvious that Real Madrid is looking to assist Ronaldo with a cross, etc.

Even when AC Milan 1996-98 conceded a lot of goals (which is somewhat shocking to watch relative to the many great defenders that AC Milan had on paper), the goals were largely assisted by normal defensive mistakes, not by abnormal defensive mistakes comparable to the ones that were far too common at Champions League 2018.

I agree about that, and I think that the majority of the fans do not quite understand that fact -- a lot of the time the sign of a great defender relative to the system that he plays for/in, is not found by looking at how many goals were conceded by the system, instead, it is found by looking at how many risks that club could invest in when attacking, but without suffering proportionally on the defensive end, because they had a great defender (or a pair of them) at the back who could reduce the amount of goals conceded, even when the goals that were actually conceded is not an impressive number compared to "average defenders" who play for lesser clubs.

Hahaha. The defensive incarnation of Gerrard... Yeah, I think you're selling Ramos quite short there, but it is true that Ramos is reckless in situations that don't merit the risk. Interesting analogy and comparison, to say the least. Might actually be dead accurate.​

I mentioned Gerd Muller more out of the historic cliché that he is, more than because I've actually watched a lot of his games. But Romario is one whom I think would be relatively "impossible to defend" in a Champions League context such as the Quarter Finals of 2018, or the Semi Finals of 2018 for that matter.

I mean, defenders just don't seem to know when to man-mark and when to readjust back into the zonal-marking standard... A recent example is Chiellini in Ronaldo's 1-0 goal, absolutely terrible and slow defending already in minute 3 of the game; Chiellini was not marking anybody (read: zonal discipline inside the box) and when he finally reacted it was already one second too late, yet another goal where Benzema technically takes out the 2 central defenders, and where Ronaldo arrives between-the-lines to score a one-touch-goal almost from point-blank range. How many times must Real Madrid score that exact goal or some minute variation of that goal, before defenders learn how to react to it? If just one of the central defenders had practiced man-marking in that one instance, not all of the time, that 1-0 goal never happens, let alone as early as in minute 3 of the game. Chiellini then also assisted Ronaldo for the 2-0 goal, after making a complete mess of what should've been an easy pass to Buffon.

With the above sentiment in mind: How would 33 year old Chiellini have dealt with Romario, a short-and-stocky player whom in the first 2 yards can change both direction and speed as quickly as anyone in the history of the game? Romario would physically -- not even mentally -- absolutely exploit Chiellini's slow reaction inside of the box. And this wouldn't prove much of anything if Chiellini's slow reaction time inside the box was just an isolated event, but it isn't an isolated event... The huge investment in attacking football very much seems to have created a context wherein stupid defensive mistakes inside of the box are the new normal, seemingly or probably because there are too many bodies now in the box (because both teams attack with so many players now), which still does not explain how Benzema is allowed to continue to take the 2 central defenders out.

The premise itself is not a novelty, and it would be naïve to think of it as a novelty. On the other hand, there was always a threshold to the degree of "big favorite bias" that could be practiced without simultaneously severely undoing the balance of the league itself and/or the cup itself. That threshold is a thing of the past now, clearly. A thin line between being past that threshold or just within its limits, but the difference is self-evidently clear after fact, in my opinion.

And Ronaldo gets overrated, not all of the great players of the past or present or future, because Ronaldo has basically only scored goals ever since 2013, maybe even since 2012. Take away that unprecedented systematic disparity, and you suddenly have a severe decline in statistics from the most statistical player in the history of the game.​

That is all very interesting, and it does appear to align more or less perfectly with my own findings.

Figo or Xavi, one known as a pin-point crosser and the other one known as a pin-point passer, but the skill that truly sets them apart is their ball retention ability, which allows them to create passing-spaces seemingly at will, they can pass the ball at will or hold the ball at will, compared to David Beckham, whom is a perfect passer who cannot create space for himself, who cannot hold the ball at will, and who cannot pass the ball at will because he can't shake off his marker, which is what happened to him in most of every big Champions League game or World Cup game or Euro game.

Innate mobility is probably the most important ability in football, many fans see that as "innate talent" but in reality, it is for the most part mobility, and how that unique mobility allows special players to practice special skills that players with "normal" mobility cannot practice. Intelligence is also hugely important but perhaps not quite as essential as the innate mobility, for example, Zidane had the intelligence for ball retention, but in stationary situations his body could not do what his mind intended to do: Zidane's feet looked slow and unmeasured when in stationary situations, and he did the right thing theory-wise when in stationary situations, his mind did the right thing, it's just that his body couldn't carry out what the mind intended to do. (See how natural Carlos Valderrama looks in comparison, in stationary situations, because his physique is innately built for the stationary context.) On the other hand, in non-stationary situations, Zidane's body and mind flowed perfectly, and there are many youtube videos to prove that. So overall, I would argue that innate mobility is slightly more important than innate intelligence. (And for the record: I think that Bergkamp had an abundance of both innate intelligence and innate mobility, in any situation, which is why I rate him so highly in terms of what he could've done with a bit more luck in his career. Unfortunately, his physical peak was over shortly after he arrived in England.)

On the other hand: I honestly do not know what was the "extra" that Ronaldo 2013-2018 has offered to Real Madrid... I mean, obviously there is something extra there, but is there enough extra there to merit having an entire team built around that player? To merit having Benzema score a few goals because CR7 scores a lot of goals? Ronaldo has only won 2 out of 9 La Liga titles, in 2012 it was his second highest scoring campaign, and in 2017 it was literally his worst scoring campaign, which yet again demonstrates that scoring goals is overrated across the board, which is something that will logically present itself as an unmistakable and discernible pattern when you look at the 1990s for example, or as you mentioned, a pattern that becomes increasingly discernable when you look further away into the distance. But as to my underlying point: I don't think it's a coincidence that Ronaldo has only won 2 out of 9 La Liga titles, I don't think it's a coincidence that Real Madrid finished 3rd in 2014 and probably 3rd again in 2018. Real Madrid invested too much, both tactically and media-wise, in a player who mostly only offers just goals.

 

*Raise my hand* I was not an enormous Nesta fan, although I rated him high in some years. I grew more of a fan later. Also picked him in the draft

I think in his earlier days he was faster and stronger, but also more reckless. A number of his tackles on the 'original' Ronaldo are plain awful. He hadn't that, or wasn't allowed, later. When Lazio became champion, they scored 64 and conceded 33 which isn't that impressive.

I like him in his version after around ~2000.





Maybe he declined too much after around ~2007 (was like Maldini mostly injured in the 2006-07 season). Still, he'd get in my 1995 - 2005 team.

Puyol did have some clear weaknesses and could look poor if exposed, but is unlucky that his prime and peak doesn't align with his greatest achievements.

For his position and for his time I can see that. He did play in a time where midfield was more compressed than in the same league 10 years earlier (under the 'old' sweeper style systems, old offside rules, no pressing, man marking the strikers). So that skillset you describe comes in handy.

Many of his contemporaries struggled to achieve consistency.

Yeah, I had already seen that by you:

"Season 2000-01 doesn't fit into the criteria of this thread, but as of late, I've watched Zidane 2000-01 and Bergkamp 2000-01 & 2001-02, and I've found myself thinking that Bergkamp 2000-02 was actually better in a good number of the available games. Bergkamp even at that stage of his career, offered more work-rate than Zidane, better shot accuracy (which was always the case), better pass efficiency (which also was always the case), and better pass variety (again: always the case) - seems to be better than prime Zidane in all the important areas except for participation and ball retention, and to be fair, ball retention is debatable e.g. an ageing Bergkamp was still excellent at hunting down long balls and drawing plenty of fouls, which when added to his superior work-rate makes "ball retention" a debatable issue.

Bergkamp is in my opinion a good example of a demonstrably more talented player than Thierry Henry, but that unlike Henry, didn't benefited from always playing for a Top 3 league team. Bergkamp's career in the early 1990s was miles better than Henry's career pre-2002. Bergkamp's NT career is overall better than Henry's NT career. And Bergkamp's later years are arguably better than Henry's later years. In fact, I'm currently under the impression that Bergkamp 2001-02 (when fit) is not markedly inferior, if at all, when directly compared vs. Henry in his 2002-06 prime. The big difference is, in my opinion, that Bergkamp played in an era in which English clubs were not (besides Manchester United) the force that they became in the early 2000s."

Well, Real Madrid has only won 10 league titles the past 30 years, with some of them won very marginally (on goal difference, even). That's a sub-standard return, in what is otherwise a demarcated duopoly. Ronaldo has done exceptionally well by that standard.

 

I think he got appreciated more when he aged. By 2014-15 he wasn't that visible, clear-cut shirt grabbing defender any more. With other traits diminished, they saw his positioning.

Ten years earlier he had a 'blood, guts and thunder' style that isn't always appreciated.

They had also a goalkeeper who could make saves, and did it relatively often. Just recently De Gea equaled the single game saves record by VdS, in the Champions League. In the very same season also the best saves-to-shots ratio.

 

Zidane called Gerrard the best player in the world in 2008/09(the season he won the pfa writers award )
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....r/13/zinedine-zidane-steven-gerrard-liverpool

 

Magnifique
This guy was an artist.its amazing how similar zidane and Di stefano look in their running style.
The roulette may of been invented by maradona but no does it as graceful as zidane.

I think it’s actually disgraceful how some posters try to denigrate him by overanalysing his club record(even his lack of consistentcy is over exaggerated-a player like iniesta hasn’t been a top 10 player in the world In 5 years .zidane never went through a similar patch from 97-03)

I think zidane on his day was comparable to the greats (maradona,cruyff,Messi,Cristiano etc)I just don’t think players who were arguably more consistent at club level (Xavi for example)ever reached that level of performance)

 

Zidane never had to share his spotlight, his freedom, with players of the calibre of prime Messi and prime (or near prime) Neymar. In other words: it is in fact a lot more difficult to look great when the spotlight is not yours, which is also why Henry looked a shell of himself almost every single time that he played in the same team as Zidane.

And no: There is no over-analyzing going on when you simply admit the verifiable fact that Zidane was hardly any better than Veron or Rui Costa or Nedved or Totti in the Serie A, even when Zidane himself was playing for one of top 2 clubs in Italy, unlike Veron or Rui Costa or Nedved or Totti, who played a considerable chunk of their Serie A careers for lesser clubs such as Fiorentina or Lazio.

Nedved 2002/03 Champions League > Zidane 2001/02 Champions League.

In fact, it's not even close really... Zidane was good in 2 or 3 games, while Nedved was good in 6 or 7 games. Nedved also played against better opponents; a highly rated Manchester United, a highly rated Real Madrid, and a deceptively competitive Barcelona side. On the other hand, Zidane's opponents in 2001/02 were decidedly weak or weaker compared to most of the other years/seasons of that era.

Nedved 2002/03 Serie A = Zidane 2000/01 Serie A.

A player who cannot clearly and consistently outclass Figo, Nedved, Totti, Rui Costa, Veron, etc., does not deserve being mentioned in the same breath as Maradona or Cruyff or Messi, which is done with Zidane all the time.

Zidane on his day, happened very inconsistently at club level, where Zidane did not significantly benefitted from the 'superclub edge' that was France's national side at any point between 1998 and 2004 (in fact 1998 with the additional bonus of home court advantage). At any rate, Xavi's performance level on his day was exactly as high as Zidane's, the only tangible difference is that Zidane made it an elegantly entertaining evening compared to the relatively subtle (and to some eyes 'boring') Xavi. In conclusion: you are falsely equating substance with style as if they came hand-in-hand.

 

I have gone over many of these things so often (both nuanced + long and less nuanced + shorter) that I'm getting tired and *sigh* a bit. Also the thing in the other thread (ADS vs CR7) on JC14 his club/Barcelona career that I can dig up the Marca/DonBalon/MundoDeportivo ratings, the Sports Illustrated article, the El Clasico ratings and such again (the results, and results in the ~40 games without the player) but it's quite a bit tiresome.

In general I think Zidane is such a polarizing player (similar to CR7) that depending on my mood I become defending him or on other occassions I end up agreeing with leadleader that some media grades look highly suspicious. He gets however more scrutiny than most. How often is it said that Zico and Maradona have combined only two continental semi finals? (and yes, also then club football mattered, as evidenced by various 1970s/1980s all-time lists). I have no doubt that even in mainstream media (i.e. Rio Ferdinand on BTSport, ESPN with their "his World Cup legacy is grounded on three games") he gets a tad more scrutiny than other greats. Absolutely.

 

This is a lie.
Xavi was less talented than falcao let alone didi who outshone the likes of pele in 58.
Xavi is a system player effective at what he does but boring with no ingenuity.if xavi was a master at 3 yard passes than didi was a master of 50 yard passes (while also being a great dribbler and scorer)
The so called greatest central midfielder Xavi has very weak assist and chance creation stats in all of his international tournament victories.

Even his 90% pass completion rate confused a lot fans (most of them were side way passes to buquests or forward to messi)
he is completely overrated imo as a long ball passing specialist.inferior to pirlo and Paul scholes(and probably if not definitely Rui Costa)

http://xtraimmortal.blogspot.com/2013/07/Central-Midfielder.html?m=1

He can not tie the shoe laces of didi let alone zidane(at his best was comparable to the greats-xavi was always a clear 3rd in this generation and only for the duration of peps tenure as Barcelona coach.
Before 08 he was nobody (relatively speaking) and after 2013 was never top 10 material in the world

 

Hahahaha. The above is just pure gold, a microcosm of your infantile rhetoric where everything you disagree with inherently constitutes fiction to your truth. Xavi was a guaranteed starter in Barcelona 2004/05 and Barcelona 2005/06, very stacked Barcelona teams, very different systems to Guardiola's tiki-taka, and Xavi was very young at the time, especially for his era. And keep in mind: Guardiola's system has not dominated any Champions League where Xavi was not the one dictating the tiki-taka rhythm, why is that? What happened to Spain when Xavi lost more than a step?

The biggest irony probably is that you confidently take a shit on 'overrated' Xavi, at the same time that you inflate 'not overrated' Paul Scholes LMAO. At any rate, you've proven my point probably better than I ever could in my own words: you unequivocally do falsely equate style and substance, so Xavi is overrated as fuk, and suddenly Zidane is much better, as is Pirlo, Rui Costa, and even Paul Scholes LMAO. In reality, Xavi - the system player - could actually play in the same systems as Maradona (and by 'systems' I mean plural, be that Ronaldinho's Barcelona or Messi's Barcelona or else), while still offering something that Maradona cannot, that Zidane cannot, etc. At any rate, the irony is strong in you when you demonstrate an unwillingness or simply an incapacity to understand how much of a system player Zidane actually was, or Pirlo for that matter who probably was the very essence of what a 'system player' is, etc.

It is explicitly self-defeating in your rhetoric that a system player in your (uneducated but loud) opinion, is not a player who is actually dominant only at one system, but rather a player who is dominant in several different systems, ergo not a system player, but still a system player in your eyes because you don't define 'system players' on the basis of how many systems they can be dominant at, but rather on the basis of how much you enjoy watching them play... Boring player? System player because he lacks the talent to make himself heard in the absence of a system that makes him look great. Fun to watch like Zidane or Rui Costa? Not a system player, because apparently the entertainment aspect is what allows them to be dominant at the only role that they really only played for the entirety of their careers, which somehow makes them the opposite of a system player, which is as laughable as it is self-evidently stupid.

 

This doesn’t sound right and should be clarified, since you brought up their names.

Zico only featured in 3 continental club competitions and Maradona in 7. Zidane featured in 14 and over 100 games. More importantly he established himself on championship caliber squads and only obtained a meagre 1 title, which is equal to 1 title of Zico and Maradona.

I think if you put Maradona or even Zico on the teams Zidane played for and the titles obtained would have been duplicated. That’s my theory.

I really think Zidane could have won more with what was at his disposal.

 

Zico featured in four, right?

Zidane had four of his 14 after he was 30. He had 10 seasons before he was 30, which narrows the gap with the other two. In those ten campaigns he played in four finals and won one of them, plus another semi final.

He has also four campaigns (of the 14, and four of the ten) with Cannes and Bordeaux. To qualify for European football with these teams is in itself an achievement, but in your presentation it becomes a negative, and it becomes a positive to not qualify outright for European football.

That Zidane should have won more with these teams is a sensible view, but he gets a lot more scrutiny as others.

 

I think he deserves more scrutiny under the circumstances.

I’m also of the opinion that it was harder in the Brazilian and Argentinian era to excel and succeed. I think the game in Zidane’s era already favored offensive players and he played on some of the greatest sides of his generation.

I also don’t think it really justifiably balances itself out as you say in regards to Zidane featuring in 4 after he was 30 years old for several reasons: how healthy was his match fitness in comparison to half of Maradona’s campaigns ? According to my information half of Maradona’s were either coming back from being sidelined for months after a broken ankle and hepatitis or several others battling infiltrations of cortisone pain killer injections at Napoli or simply at the last hurdle of his stint at the club when he was coming off the bench in 1991. How healthy was Zidane in all elimination matches during his career ? This is important because half of 7 of Maradona’s campaigns were when he was not at 100% optimal physical condition.

I think context here is not properly addressed on your part. Things are not like for like and are simply conveniently ignored or loosely glossed over.

In Zico’s case we have 3 under his control and another one just with 1 appearance at the end of his career. How’s this a knock on him ?

In regards to qualifying to European competitions, I really don’t know how much that comes down to how well Zidane played in the French league. He certainly wasn’t a massive cornerstone at Juventus or Madrid in my view since the wealth of their attacks lay on the shoulders of various architects, some of which were the top players of his generation and perhaps all-time. I think he gets too much credit for what any top star could have achieved in his shoes.

 

Is the art of defending really dying?

“Defending is a dying art,” proclaimed Sean Dyche last year. “You can ask coaches across the country, the one thing they are struggling for is defenders who can defend and want to defend.”

He isn’t the only one to fear that this noblest of footballing arts is taking its final, rasping breaths. “Premier League football is witnessing the death of defending as I knew it – and it’s not coming back,” announced the headline of a Gary Neville Telegraph column in 2014.

And that’s not to mention all the other pundits who have joined him in the refrain.

https://www.footballwhispers.com/blog/is-the-art-of-defending-really-dying


@PDG1978 @comme @poetgooner @leadleader @msioux75

This is a quite decent article, and relates back to the thing at post #176

 

Somewhat of a retro, but still...

How often Zidane's team qualified for continental competitions was also down to him though in the earlier part of his career when he was not playing for title contending teams.

His breakout season performances with Cannes helped them reach 4th place and their first ever continental competition. While his goalscoring exploits (top scorer for his team with 10 goals) and performances with Bordeaux in his first season with them (which was the team's first season too after it had been promoted back to Ligue 1) helped Bordeaux qualify for continental football the next year.

3 years after that, Zidane reached the UEFA Cup final (ending up suspended for the 1st leg) with Bordeaux and a relatively weak cast, beating a Milan with Baggio and Weah along the way (inflicting their worst continental defeat in almost 20 years).

Point is, Zidane could have continued playing with teams of a similar stature and he would still have a decent continental record and definitely a better individual record than what he ended up having (since he would be the clear protagonist of such teams, taking all freekicks, pks, etc. and always being the center of action since he would always be the player his teammates looked towards when moving forward).

On the other hand, mitigating circumstances in his stints with title contending teams are not considered when leveling criticism against him for not winning enough with these teams. This is because when one does some digging around and compares the sporting decisions of Juventus/Real Madrid with those of their competitors, during the time that Zidane was playing for these teams, one can notice that Juventus lacked the commitment to invest in building a strong team to continue their title winning legacy, while Real Madrid focused on money matters more so than sporting aspects and paid for it, both of which are policy decisions that impacted Zidane's legacy with these teams and yet were mostly outside his sphere of control. However, there is another aspect which is more difficult to identify. That being that in joining such title contenders, Zidane sacrificed the option to be the protagonist for his teams. Since, while performance-wise he was still rated above most of his teammates during his years with title contending teams, however, within these teams' hierarchies, he did not enjoy the kind of primacy that the likes of Zico, Maradona and many other greats enjoyed within their respective club teams. This is an aspect which is rarely talked about but has a major bearing on how the story gets written later on, when the dust has settled.

 

A remarkable XI of players who retired in 2019

https://www.givemesport.com/1512200...tired-in-2019-including-xavi-and-arjen-robben

Petr Cech

Andrea Barzagli
Patrice Evra
Ashley Cole
Juan

Bastian Schweinsteiger
Xavi
Wesley Sneijder
Arjen Robben

Samuel Eto'o
Fernando Torres

Which of these players will become overhyped with time?

 

Schweini already is. Juan will probably get the Aldair treatment one day.

I think short peak players like Sneijder and Torres will actually get shafted.

 

It depends on how the international scene continuous to be rated. You can say about Torres what you want but he scored the winning goal in the 2008 final, and managed to become 2012 topscorer as bit-part player. He even had his useful cameo for the 2012 Champions League title. If that sticks in the mind, which is even not entirely unfair, it helps him.

The narrative of the British media and sponsor machine is already shifting. From "the international level is nowadays supplanted by the league and Champions League" to more nuanced versions, with "friendlies against rivals are not friendlies".

 

I have a feeling that Schweinsteiger will definitely get overhyped with time.

He has some great big game performances at international level, namely against Argentina in both 2010 and 2018.
He has some big game performances at club level, like when he torched Barcelona's midfield in 2013.
His international career is undeniably great.
He's a legend for the biggest and most iconic German club.

All the perfect ingredients for him to become overhyped over time. He was an excellent midfielder, but his reputation will go from Ballack level to Matthaus-lite.