It’s not what I think but what is known that matters. Marcotti’s information is wrong, either lousy journalism or an attempt to bump up the player.
Fantastic!!! A thread dedicated to your favourite European legends has already evolved into bulls*it debates about who was the best South American playmaker 30 years ago There are other threads suited for this kind of debate some I have started and others I haven’t https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/is-zico-the-greatest-attacking-midfielder-of-all-time.2087266/
Anyway, we all know that much of what is - and has always been - the sports journalism, is mostly about bump up some players to be a superstar or some kind of celebrity.
Well yes, that’s another situation, but in Marcotti’s case, the problem is the false retrospective information that he spreads. I understand him just like me, can’t remember well what was going on nearly 40 years ago, my memory is getting worse, but I do the detective work and he should have done the same instead of lousy journalism.
Pointing to the best every decade and half a decade for me: 1920-1929: Charlie Buchan 1925-1934: Dixie Dean 1930-1939: Matthias Sindelar/Giuseppe Meazza 1935-1944: György Sárosi 1940-1949: Valentino Mazzola 1945-1954: Ferenc Puskás (Stanley Matthews) 1950-1959: Ferenc Puskás 1955-1964: Lev Yashin/Raymond Kopa/Luis Suárez 1960-1969: Bobby Charlton/Eusébio 1965-1974: Franz Beckenbauer/Johan Cruyff (George Best) 1970-1979: Johan Cruyff 1975-1984: Michel Platini/Karl-Heinz Rummenigge 1980-1989: Michel Platini 1985-1994: Franco Baresi/Lothar Matthäus/Marco van Basten (Ruud Gullit) 1990-1999: Roberto Baggio/Paolo Maldini 1995-2004: Zinedine Zidane 2000-2009: Thierry Henry 2005-2014: Cristiano Ronaldo
No love for George best in the 65-74 period particularly in the 67-71 part He’s surely a better inclusion than franz Beckenbauer Zidane certainly had competition from Del Piero from 95-99 and Luis Figo In 2000 So he should share with at least one of these players Henry ruled between 02-06 while 07-09 belongs to Cristiano so he should be included as the 3rd best European legend of the 2000s decade possibly higher depending how high you value peak level Baggio for the early 90s is a solid choice but I’m not sure about maldini above laudrup 91-95 Did maldini really have such a high peak as a defender that would merit his inclusion (He had a 2nd place in the ballon dor but so did Roberto Carlos and he was a great player but crap defender) I think purely as a tackler maldini was inferior to baresi and even nesta However he looked better on the ball and was better going forward but as a defensive player I think his qualities are slightly overstated
My personal kings of Europe are: C. Ronaldo Puskas Platini Beckenbauer Cruyff I don't really care how they are ranked among each other, but they are the top 5 Europeans for me.
Yeah, it's probably hard to get a good idea for 1955-1965 as a whole, but his case does seem good, with his Barcelona and Inter peaks both in there. It would seem Yashin might have a reasonable chance to add the title of best European player of a decade to his Ballon d'Or as goalkeeper, for that period, but hard to get a full idea about his consistency etc. I'd say Baggio seems to have a better case for best player of just early 90s if anything, thinking about his own form and the fact that only his Bologna season in the 2nd half of the decade really stands out. That early 90s period would be Michael Laudrup's best one too though of course (actually the pattern for later 90s is not so different for that pair too - a decline in 95/96 although I think Laudrup with more glimpses of still showing great form, and a revival in that 97/98 season although Baggio with a more stand out-case there). Van Basten's final injury takes him out of the equation maybe. Over the whole decade, although with his own struggles at times, Bergkamp must have a good case at least - a better and more extended good late 90s period compared to Baggio, and maybe not so far behind for early 90s overall?
As usual, I strongly disagree with your typical biases and inclinations. It is obvious on which sides you are, with vested brainwashed interests into the cartel. Eusebio was clearly a step above Charlton at all international levels. Reached clearly a higher peak at all international levels. Charlton was known for his inconsistency while Eusebio had a few consecutive years where he was quite consistent. In his technique he was no worse, except for his weaker foot. Baresi and Matthaus at the same level as Van Basten is your usual anti Dutch bias. That is not how it was seen in their own time. Take a look at the early to mid 1990s lists - those are very clear. And no way Gullit was seen as a class lower as Matthaus, he was technically better and had world class seasons beyond 1990-91. This downward revisionism makes me mad, similar to your other knocking down double handicap hitjobs. Rummenigge at the same level as Platini is also laughable. What did KHR do in the latter stages and against the big teams in tournaments? Platini typically outshined him when they met in direct encounters. What did KHR do in the latter stages of European Cups? Even in the years he won the BdO he hardly impressed against the better teams, he himself indicated he wasn't a strong winner and he was never put high in all-time lists, not even in the 1980s.
Puskas was until ~1952 really not seen as the top player in Europe. For a large part because he acted in isolation. This changed when they finally started to play against other top sides with his club and country.
I am so glad to see such a post as this one. It is a very objective post that reflect how we should be (ideally) debate with integrity and honesty. Instead of the usual hooliganistic and bandwagon posts we see in Carlito, that more often than not, are based on misinterpreted, if not misrepresented stats and out of context endorsements from professionals, pundits, and pop magazines that bare no fact but mere popular opinion. Carlito hates Messi, because he roots for Cristiano. Carlito hates Romario because is roots for R9. Carlito hates Ronaldinho, Baggio, Iniesta, Xavi, Valderrama, and some others for reasons that these are direct equals to his personal idols. He doesn't appreciate these players because he thinks in absolute terms. In Carlito's world it is either all or nothing. You are with me or against me. In his mind he fears that if Messi was widely regarded as GOAT that this very notion would imply that CR7 is not GOAT. And this is Carlito's weakness. He thinks in black and white. He doesn't understand that in the real world there is grey as well. And that Messi and CR7 might as well in the end share the same spot and that many fans wouldn't object to this. It is the religious fanatics that will oppose this possibility. And he is one of them. There is nothing wrong being a fan of an idol. What is wrong though is to misrepresent the historical facts and stats to unfairly demote one player to a lower level in favour another player. He watches a few youtube clips and browses through a few fact sheets and popular rank list by commercial magazines and then draw conclusions as baring facts. Stats are useful tools, but not everything. And it takes someone who has actually witnessed these past players in real life to notice the misrepresentations and conclude that a poster like Carlito, in-spite of speaking with such an apparent authority and with great overconfidence in his judgement, is nothing but a charlatan.
Out of convenience the definition of GOAT status of the last 10 years has been reformulated as such to support these two great club players who have so far, with NTs, produced a level of game that is only but a shadow of their best at club level. I have posted this view long ago and there seems to have been two camps. Those die-hard fanatics of these two players dismiss the WC, Euro and Copa as sub par to UCL and European domestic leagues. And those who appreciate historical annals of the game who are well aware and appreciate how GOATs of the past were rated. Now, I am not saying that CR7 and Messi haven't had a successful career with their respective NTs. All I am saying is that it would be inconsistent a measure when today's players are pitched against past players whilst ignoring what qualities were valued in different eras. There is certainly an inconsistency in today's annals of what really constitute GOAT
Manchester United 1990/91 won the Cup Winners' Cup, which I think was an underrated achievement given the fact that Barcelona finished second (this is the same exact Barcelona side that would go on to win the European Cup in 1991/92). Paul Gascoigne was for many the best player of World Cup 1990, which I'd argue is another indicator that speaks positively about the quality of the Premier League at the time; certainly, neither the Serie A nor La Liga demonstrated any superiority at World Cup 1990. Furthermore, David Beckham and Paul Scholes if I'm not mistaken were already regular players in 1994/95, which is when Matt Le Tissier was at his best, and which I'd argue is another good indicator that the Premier League was of high enough quality at the time, that is, high enough quality that Matt Le Tissier's form shouldn't be discredited in any way. He would've been a spectacular player in any league in my opinion.
The main problem in my eyes is that, in the past, the dynamic of club football was virtually identical to the dynamic of the World Cup... In the present (and also the non-distant past), the dynamic of club football is fundamentally counter-intuitive to the dynamic at the World Cup, which I think is the main reason as to why the top players are finding it increasingly difficult to find their form at the World Cup. The super-club era that Messi and Ronaldo have dominated has created an environment where the lesser-clubs have all copied each other in terms of the tactics that they use when they play against the handful of super-clubs, and these tactics also work well at the World Cup, again, because of the benefit of the vast experiment that is having 17 out of the 20 clubs in the league copying each other, collectively perfecting the strategy to be used against the dominant super-clubs. The result is that a national side such as Iran can become fairly competitive (certainly much more competitive than in past eras) as a result of the collective experiment in the top leagues. On the other hand, super-clubs are built around their unique players, and unique tactics that are built around unique players cannot be copied universally, super-club tactics cannot be collectively copied and perfected by 17 different clubs that have joined together - consciously or not - to achieve the same common end. The tactics that have naturally arisen to oppose the super-club dominance, the peasant-club tactics for lack of a better term, can be copied and perfected by approximately 17 different clubs, which makes these tactics ideal for short cup tournaments such as the World Cup, because these tactics have been universally tested across the top leagues, by the vast majority of the peasant-clubs, etc. The average super-club can still dominate club football probably - more than for any other valid reason - because they can practice all the time, but of course national teams do not have anywhere near as much practice time as a super-club, which is I believe what is creating additional difficulty for Messi and Ronaldo at the World Cup. In conclusion: a modest national side such as Iran has a wealth of information on how to use 9 players to deny Messi, which would not have been possible in the more balanced eras of the past where the lesser-clubs were still competitive enough to not have to depend on a collectively perfected defensive tactical plan on how to stop super-clubs from totally destroying you. Iran in 1986 didn't necessarily knew how to stop Maradona, because - first of all - the video was not available to begin with, and because - secondly - Maradona's Napoli was not intimidating enough that all the other clubs would copy each other trying to stop Napoli from destroying them; and so Iran 1986 couldn't have benefited from an extensive socio-tactical experiment where the bad tactics get discarded, and the good tactics get recycled and further perfected, as documented by 17 clubs that are trying to perfect the same blue print. The result is as should be expected: better club performance than what was possible in the past, but at the same time, worse World Cup performances in general than what was normal in the past. Players who become naturalized to the highly unique sugary service of a super-club, will tend to significantly suffer the absence of it at the World Cup. Meanwhile, those same players are doing things at club level that were previously impossible or very close to impossible. So all things considered, I would argue that the World Cup should have less of an impact in terms of how it defines how great Messi or Ronaldo are, because it's arguably unrealistic to expect Messi or Ronaldo to single-handedly make the difference against so many modern factors that have made the World Cup even more difficult than it had been in the past... Therefore in this sense, club football is now the context where all time greatness is largely defined, when in past eras the World Cup was that context. Love it or hate it, that appears to be the trend of the ongoing evolution.
It might turn out to be like you said a unrealistic comparison when the changes that took place over time in the nature of international competitions with NTs vs club football are taken into consideration. But I do remember how underwhelming both Messi and CR7 on a individual level were, at times, on pitch in many of the WCs and Euros/Copas they contested in. And I do admit that Pele and Maradona did also have their moments were they were sub par of themselves in the WC/Copas they contested in, but at least in their case I think what made their performances work in their favour when rating them was that often those performances made the difference in the most critical of times in the tournaments. And even though you have highlighted a very plausible phenomenon in the ever changing character of the international vs domestic competitions over the course of time, I still think it that the apparent fact that Messi's and CR7's respective NTs might have been lesser in quality on a collectively level to their historic past NTs, lacking the quality of team players Pele and Maradona had to support them. I am not familiar with the level of managers of historic Argie and Brazil NTs to compare with current ones to make a case on this category, so i leave it others. Perhaps it might be a combination of both factors. NT competitions being not the same as it used to be, smaller nations copying a blue print that works in leagues, all in conjunction with having the dominant traditional nations lacking talented managers nowadays?
Your arguments are more or less reasonable, but your conclusion is quite contradictory. You really fail to explain why a player should be now better rated/considered by his club carrer than by his NTs carrer, when they are playing for superclubs with unique world-class players around - and with a much large gap regarding most aspects compared to "other teams" - than formerly, where the top quality players surely hadn't the same environment to stand out at club level. If something, it should be the opposite, the weight should be higher, regarding the evaluation of the players, in the clubs before, and today in the selections. In resume, where things were and are more democratic. Using your example, Maradona with Napoli and Messi with Argentina.
I thought no literal explanation was necessary as it was self-explanatory in my view, given everything I had stated... But for the sake of clarifying and defending my argument: club football is still relatively balanced in terms of its accuracy to measure individual ability, the super-club era is a context where the super-clubs play against each other and also where the collectively improved upon defensive tactics that are being used against the super-clubs, help increase the performance level of the players who play for the super-clubs, etc. Many of the best players are likely to end up at one or another super-club, which in turn will allow them to measure themselves (for the most part rather accurately) against other great players who also play for one or another of the super-clubs. The World Cup today is inherently disparate in its ability to measure the individual ability of any given player, due to the fact that Iran and Russia benefit - directly benefit - from the collectively perfected defensive tactics that are today used by most of clubs in the top leagues, when those clubs (the majority) play against the handful of super-clubs. On the other hand, Argentina and Brazil really do not benefit from the super-club dynamic at all, in part because most of the players have become 'naturalized' to the highly unique tactics used by each specific super-club (therefore making their ability to adapt to severely different situations, more difficult than it ever was in the past), and in part because even though Argentina or Brazil can play defensively (like Argentina 2014 did for example), playing defensively will probably have a negative impact on most of the creative players on the team. You are missing or misunderstanding the crux of the argument, which is precisely that the weight should probably be higher where the things are currently more democratic... but things have not recently been 'democratic' at the World Cup, that is, the World Cup is arguably more democratic today than it was at many points in the past in terms of the team versus team sense (i.e. the collective sense), but the World Cup is arguably less accurate than it ever was in the past in terms of its ability to accurately measure the individual ability of the players (i.e. the individual sense). Maradona with Napoli and Maradona with Argentina, played virtually the same exact role, it was more or less the same identical dynamic; so naturally, because the World Cup was the most viewed event at the time, the World Cup was the thing that could make or break the legend of Maradona. People forget this fact, but in the 1980s club football was not watched by a global audience, it was by and large a local isolated event with only a few games being shown on television, and therefore, the World Cup became the one global event that was widely viewed every four years. Messi with Barcelona and Messi with Argentina, plays the same role but the context is fundamentally different... Argentina does not enjoy the practice time that should be required for the team - the collective unit - to adapt to Messi's heightened sense of positioning which itself is a consequence of the super-club phenomenon; in different terms, players who enjoy the long term benefits of playing for these super-clubs, by and large tend to develop a heightened sense of positioning, more or less the same way that people who abuse alcohol for long enough tend to develop a heightened resistance to the effects of alcohol abuse therefore increasing their ratio of abuse, etc. In other words: it is virtually impossible for Argentina to adapt to Messi's heightened intelligence, and at the same time, it is also virtually impossible for Messi's heightened intelligence to be used efficiently by a disorganized illiterate tactical system. On the other hand, modest footballing nations directly benefit from the collectively perfected defensive tactics that the lesser clubs have collectively copied and perfected after the better part of a decade of playing against super-clubs. This makes the World Cup more 'democratic' in the collective sense compared to past eras, but at the same time, less 'democratic' in the individual sense compared to past eras, due to the fact that you expect that Messi should be directly compared to the World Cup performance of past players, even when Messi is playing against incapacitating disadvantages that didn't existed at any point before the super-club era. A recent example of that is the Copa America... a footballing nation such as Chile was capable of achieving unprecedented consistency and success, because Argentina and Brazil are both incapacitated (certainly more than Chile) by the super-club phenomenon. Chile can copy and paste the defensive tactics of modernity, but without suffering the consequences of having a majority of players who have become 'naturalized' or 'addicted' to the super-club tactics of their unique super-club environments. Furthermore, Neymar (who plays for the super-clubs) so far has been plainly disappointing at the Copa America; James Rodriguez (who plays for the super-clubs) so far has been another demonstrable disappointment at the Copa America; Arturo Vidal's form with Chile has arguably declined over the years more than anything else as a result of Vidal's long term exposure to the heightened tactics of super-clubs Bayern Munich and Juventus; etc. The above tendency is simply not normal in the history of South American football, and the fact that Messi has been good (but not as great as he is with Barcelona) at the Copa America is more indicative of how great Messi is that he can still be good even when understated systematic disadvantages are actively working against him, than it is indicative of Messi lacking the "winning mentality" and the "creative talent" to do what Maradona did with Argentina. Which brings me to the closing argument: Maradona was doing virtually the same exact thing for both Argentina and Napoli, because Argentina and Napoli were virtually the same context, that is, Maradona was going to be man-marked and the ability of the man-marker was individual, which means that South Korea could not benefit from a collectively perfected tactical blue print, again, because defensive ability was individual as opposed to tactical, ergo largely defined by the quality of the individual defender himself, and insignificantly or not at all defined by the quality of the tactical system itself. Conversely, Iran 2014 could simply copy the anti-Messi tactics used by all the clubs in La Liga, and it works surprisingly well because the quality of the system is largely defined by the actual system itself (as has been collectively perfected through the art of repetition and elimination, trial and error, and so forth), and not necessarily by the individual ability of the defenders themselves as the primary factor that drives the tactic. This makes defending easier within the context of the World Cup, which is arguably why Messi 2014 didn't destroyed Iran anywhere near as thoroughly as would be expected in past eras, and also arguably why Ronaldo 2018 didn't scored 3 goals vs. Iran as would also be expected in past eras (especially after the 3 goals that Ronaldo scored against a highly rated - highly overrated - Spain), etc. On the other hand, Batistuta 1998 vs. Iran would probably routinely score between 2 or 3 goals, because Iran had no super-club phenomenon to benefit from at the time. In conclusion: how is it logical, how is it balanced, how is it consistent, to think that Batistuta 1998 and that Ronaldo 2018 should be rated on the basis of the same historic metric that is the world cup, as if the world cup context itself had remained identical - largely unaffected by the massive changes at club level - over the years, even when it's plainly obvious that Batistuta vs. Iran 1998 would very likely be far easier than Ronaldo vs. Iran 2018? In different terms: Does modern football actually lack "players with big personalities and big winning mentalities" like Diego Maradona or Franz Beckenbauer, or is it simply that the evolution of tactics has made it unrealistic, and perhaps even impossible, for players like Maradona to have that big of an impact at the World Cup? Using my example, Maradona with Napoli or Argentina - it's basically the same thing, except for the argument that Napoli probably offers a better picture of Maradona's consistency, and even then, Maradona's inconsistency at the Copa America makes him look inconsistent, which is also what you get with Napoli at club level: an extremely talented but significantly inconsistent player - and so it's essentially the same outcome with Napoli or Argentina isn't it? Argentina 1986 was watched by the entire world, whereas Napoli 1984/85 was watched only by the locals, but other than that difference in perception it is the same player doing the same things, etc. On the other hand, Messi with Barcelona or Messi with Argentina are fundamentally different contexts, and relative to the time I have to say that club football is a more accurate measurement of individual ability than the World Cup is. Luka Modric was the best player at the World Cup, but against who? Looking good against a dysfunctional and overrated Argentina side is not an accurate measurement for Modric's individual ability nor for Messi's individual ability nor for Mbappe's individual ability, as far as I can tell.
I named Best between parentheses because I think that certainly at his highest peak it's a candidate for par in this period, but his lack of consistency (his early decline in the 1970's) leaves him one step behind for the whole period in front of models of enormous level and consistency as Cruyff and Beckenbauer. It's the same reason why I think both of them are some steps above Best in an all-time ranking (applied to the best of their careers). In the list I proposed I took as reference every full period (in this case 1995-2004), not fractions of it. That's the reason because I don't think so, especially about Del Piero, due to a difference that is not huge, but remarkable. In this period, apart of them, I think in the periphery could be Beckham, Davids, Giggs, Kahn, Keane, Maldini, Nedved, Nesta, Raúl, Shevchenko, Thuram, Totti or Vieira. I believe Henry completely unfolds all the best of his career on this decade, including part of his last shine with Barcelona (especially in the 2008-09 season), while Cristiano Ronaldo only his first peak in Manchester United and something focused on the 2006-07 and 2007-08 seasons, something minor in 2008-09. Anyway, Cristiano Ronaldo surely would have to be an escort in my opinion, alongside Ballack, Buffon, Cannavaro, Deco, Gerrard, Lampard, Nesta, Shevchenko, Totti, van Nistelrooy, Xavi or Zidane. I think he did it, especially between 1994 and 1996. In any case, I think Laudrup was a more sensational player, probably thinking of creativity and offensiveness, so the comparison is complicated, but in terms of regularity I think Maldini put a power hit with what I would say all the 1990's seasons on a world-class level (even in the lowest for AC Milan in 1996-97 and 1997-98). The Danish declined in the second half of the 1990's near the end of his career, beyond his brushstrokes at the 1998 World Cup. Apart of him, in the periphery for me: Baresi, Bergkamp, Cantona, Del Piero, Desailly, Figo, Giggs, Hässler, Klinsmann, Litmanen, Matthäus, Rijkaard, Sammer, Savicevic, Shearer, Stoichkov, Suker or Zidane.
I don’t think any defender warrants a mention as a top 2 player over a 5-6 year stretch unless that defender was a worthy ballon dor candidate in any given year The early 90s was completely stacked with top tier creative players like bergkamp,savecevic,Micheal laudrup,van basten (although his injury in 92 should disqualify him),hagi,cantona etc Which international tournament or European Cup was maldini arguably one of the standout players like Facchetti in 70,baresi in 94 or Cannavaro in 06 Maldini was consistent at a World class level but did not have standout legendary seasons (even when compared to a player like vidic in 2008/09) As for Henry he was relatively consistent at a World class level between 2000-2010 I agree Although Not in 09/10 for sure and I’m also unsure about 00/01.in 06/07 his season was marred by injuries CR7 was ranked amongst the top 15 players in the world in 2004 with a strong performance in the euros In 2005/06 he made epl team of the season as the best winger and was a strong Contender for young player of World Cup 2006 This is before he was 21 years old From 2007-2009 his was the highest peak level of the entire 2000s decade with 3 consecutive inclusions as a top 2 player in the Europe and being the most dominant player in the best league in the world Henry although a more consistent performer had a lower peak and did not dominate nowhere near to the same extent(plus the EPL of 2002-2006 was not comparable to the EPL of 2007-2009) English sides consistently underperformed in the champions league during Henry’s peak (Including arsenal except their one final appearance in 06) In 2006/07 3 of the 4 champions league semifinalist were English teams In 2007/08 the same again In 2008/09 the same also Out of a possible 12 champions semifinal places between 07-09 English teams occupied 9 (4 different teams including Manchester United,Chelsea,Arsenal and Liverpool) Barcelona made up the numbers in 2008 and 2009 and Milan in 2007 no league has ever dominated the champions league like the premiership did in those years And Cristiano Ronaldo was its undisputed king (no contest) https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....ers-ranked-jack-pitt-brooke-a7886646.html?amp
While I agree Maldini was not infallible nor impregnable (sometimes it looked as if refs were easy on him, and around his pinnacle in 1994 he had a few moments where he could have been sent off, in particular a few awkward moments at the 1994 World Cup), he is one of the very few 1990s players to have reached a high level in both halves, as evidenced by him playing in finals at both halves of that decade (who else can say that? Which creative players?). Because only a handful Europeans can say they were world class at both halves, when a lot was changing, he automatically qualifies as an option for the top. This is Maldini at his very peak in 1993-94: Or against Nigeria at the World Cup, the same 'skill' (lucky not to break his arm, Yekini). (if I want to think cynical: it is in 1994 that Milan teamed up with Juve and the Calciopoli scheme started...) "Maldini didn't get a yellow card for this and for many other tackles and fouls he committed, refs were easy on him in Serie A" - at least it can be thought so, and it is sometimes even said by journalists. Leadleader, wm and co have observed how he had a tendency to get physical with his upper body, and not every defender got the same leniency perhaps. For above reasons he should be in the top 5 of this decade, maybe #1 or #2. For his football skills he wouldn't be close (his distribution improved further when he was after his prime, which is commendable), but others might see that different. For his all-around defending skills, anticipation and those things, few/none were markedly better.
Maldini was a master of the so called dark arts of defending (how to consistently foul a player and get away with it) I even noticed this in encounters with inter and Milan Maldini could not disposses R9 without using his upper body strength(never clean tackles) In fact Lillian thuram In Lazio looked much more well equipped when he faced R9 Maldini gets extra points for 3 things 1.)His insane consistency as a world class defender over a twenty year stretch (zanetti also managed to do this) 2.)his trophy cabinet including a record 5 champions league titles 3.)his elegance on the ball and the fact he was comfortable going forward,was great at link play and was an adept passer In terms of interceptions and tackles he is in my opinion not to be compared to nesta or even prime vidic (or recently Diego Godin) Let alone baresi who was a god of defending(90% of the time baresi at the top of his game would disposess his man) Only few elite players managed to comfortably get the better of him and NOT OFTEN Baggio,Stojkovic,Romario(for psv but was then cancelled out in the 94 World Cup final), If Cannavaro was the wall of Berlin ,baresi was the Great Wall of china in comparison in the 94 World Cup final One of the best World Cup final performances of all time
Maldini is obviously one of the GOAT defenders, but honestly - and I say this as a person who genuinely appreciates the style and the elegance that Maldini contributed to the dark arts - I think he does seem to consistently be almost too flawed given his reputation as a seemingly flawless defender with machine-like consistency. I'll give you an example that I watched recently: AC Milan vs. Inter Milan Champions League Semi Finals... I thought that both Cannavaro and Nesta were better than Maldini, moreover, I thought that Cannavaro was - by a clear margin - the best and most consistent defender overall in a semi final fixture where he directly played against Nesta and Maldini, which is very impressive in my book. Furthermore, Maldini really wasn't required to do a lot, and there was one play at the end of leg two where Maldini fuked up royally, Inter should have scored the goal to qualify to the final, and that goal - had it happened - was basically created out of nothing by Maldini's atrocious defending in that specific play. On the other hand, Cannavaro had to defend considerably more than Maldini, because AC Milan attacked a lot more consistently than Inter did... And so Cannavaro had to do more defending than Maldini, and yet Cannavaro didn't make any mistakes anywhere near as potentially match-deciding as Maldini's mistake. I was very surprised when I watched the two legs a few months ago. Maldini was arguably better at attacking, than he was at defending, which is not what you normally get with Maldini. What are your thoughts on Fabio Cannavaro?