Is Zidane the most overrated old generation footballer ever?

Hagi was only superior in long range efforts(and arguably he was a better overall finisher although his goal tally is overinflated )
Maradona was a demonstrably superior and more effective dribbler, technically in a different dimension ,and more importantly as a playmaker there is no legitimate comparison to be made

Hagi was named the maradona of the east(not the other way round)

 

Great player he was, but he seemed more suited to excel for his NT because for the big league club sides outside of Romania he was mostly a bust.

In a way, and it was not only for him, but the 1994 WC was a breakout tournament because in previous competitions, where rules favored more the defensive sides, I’m not sure if he gets to shine as much as he did in the heat of USA ‘94.

In any event, a brilliant player on his day and a joy to watch.

 

My vote goes to Figo , not Zidane.

 

From 10 years in Serie A and La Liga, the number of consistently good seasons Zinedine Zidane had is 2 at the most, and quite possibly 0. https://t.co/kmO6NcinNA

— Michael Cox (@Zonal_Marking) July 30, 2018

My goodness.

 

What's wrong with it?

 

I saw him as consistently amazing

I recall hearing the newly selected French squad for the World Cup (many years ago) and I thought there was a mistake ... there was a guy called Zidane who I'd never heard of ...yet they'd left my hero David Ginola OUT along with Eric Cantana ( who I didn't care for ) ...

 

Well, it's an interesting thread and there are some good things in it but...

Is that number really 0? I think he was pretty reliable in 2002-03 (except in the UCL). Also arguments for 1997-98, 2000-01 I'd say.

Although those aren't rated as high as Zidane, how many "consistently good seasons" had Baggio, Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Kaka?

 

Baggio was good, consistently from 1988-89 to 1993-94 and his 97-98 season at Bologna. Basically his last two seasons at Fiorentina all the way to his penultimate season at Juventus. 1990-91 is borderline. 5 seasons plus 1

Ronaldinho, 03-04 all the way to 06-07. His fitness and form dropped drastically in 06-07 but I feel it is exaggerated because of who he is and the quality he had shown in the previous 3 seasons. His 2009-10 season was also really good once Leonardo moved him back to the left wing. 5 seasons

Ronaldo, 1993-94 was great. 1996-1998 are well known. Beyond that I'd say his first two seasons at Madrid were definitely stellar. His 03-04 season is somewhat underrated. 5 seasons

Kaka, I'd go with 03-04 all the way to 06-07. 4 seasons

Zidane himself seems to have been overrated initially and is now being severely underrated IMO. In Juventus he has three world class seasons certainly, 1996-97, 97-98 and 2000-01. He struggled briefly at the start of 1996-97 but looked at as a whole he was great. At Madrid I'd personally go with his first three seasons being good seasons with 02-03 being the standout. And of course his last season at Bordeaux is quite underappreciated too. That gives him 2 or 3 at Juve, 2 or 3 at Madrid and one at Bordeaux. 7 consistently good seasons at most but also 2 could be argued otherwise, leaving him with 5.
He has come under some serious negative revisionism in recent years compared to other greats.

 

We SHOULD have a thread comparing the Italian number 10's / playmakers ..

Baggio
Del Piero
Pirlo
Totti

 

I don't think Cox meant Zidane had very few 'good' seasons, but only a few 'consistent' seasons.

So someone can be clutch and have a good season, without being consistent. That's probably the type of seasons Cox was suggesting Zidane had for most of his career.

 

I agree Maradona was a better dribbler.
As for playmaking, it is up to debate. Maradona was probably better playmaker of the two, with not that much difference. Still, I will not be surprised if Hagi is better.

Maradona was more famous and came before Hagi. As such, he could not have been called "Hagi of Argentina" though of course there are some Galatasaray fans who call Maradona "Hagi of Argentina." (And Fenerbahche fans used to call Pele "Black Zico.")

 

Hagi was a great player but why could he never replicate his form in Spain or italy .He was very inconsistent there (I agree technically he was one of the best just not maradona esque)

As a playmaker I would put him only behind laudrup for the 90s(he was better than zidane for sure,but the latter arguably had his best play making days in the early 2000s)
As a scorer he is the best or top 3 for his position (better than platini,lothar mattaeus and lampard)his left foot was a weapon of mass destruction

(His most famous but he had many similar strikes in his career)
He is also one of the most underrated free kick specialists ever (he is by my estimation top 10 ever in this category)

IMO any top 50 list that doesn't include him is inadequate and lacking

 

In no way it is retarded.
Mainstream hype imposed on us makes us react in that way: "Maradona. How could he be questioned?" While I was a 'Diegorian' I also used to act in that way. Because, Maradona's status was somehow imposed on us as something like divine revelation that can in no way be questioned.

But reality is different, Hagi is no worse than Maradona. He may even be better but not lower.

 

Because he clashed with teammates due to having a poor workrate that was required to match the intensity of others. He was a luxury player, that when on his game was brilliant, but you’d only get that once in five games or so. He was not profitable in Madrid, despite being a fan favorite, that’s why he was released and ended in Serie B in Italy. After the WC it was dejavú again, only this time he was transferred to Turkey.

 

I still can't believe that Maradona's playmaking is underrated with so many video evidence on YouTube. He was maybe the most inventive and creative passer. Definitely one of the best ever in creativity and vision. He tried the most difficult balls, but because he was so marked he didn't hiy his target with the accuracy as say Platini. He's better then Hagi in everything except shooting.

 

As with the best playmakers maradonas best passes were not converted by his teammates into goals but Diego remains the most inventive passer of all time.he could create a goal scoring opportunity out of a nothing situation,cornered by 2 defenders etc
Maradona at his very best remains unmatched only problem is he was never at that level for long enough in Europe (i also don't think he ever combined his goat level dribbling and passing for the duration of a whole season,maybe 84/85 but that's it.messi for instance did it in 2010/11 and 2014/15)

 

iniesta as well

 

This is a man who has coached Real Madrid to three successive Champions League victories and who as a player led three different teams to six major finals, of which he won four, two with the distinction of being MOTM. He's anything but overrated.

He was a player made for the biggest occasions in football; not to mention a real joy to watch.

The only reason it can be said Zidane at times struggled for form has more to do with the fatigue he suffered as a result of his thalassemia, a genetic disorder that affect blood cell production. Even in games where he didn't register assists or goals, he was still a joy to watch.

Also I completely disagree that he was not as important a player for France as has been claimed. It was quite obvious that France without their talismanic playmaker were a hollow shell of themselves. The best evidence of this was at 2002, which he nearly missed due to injury as France crashed out. He was so important to the team that they fielded him in the final group match with only one working leg. And once he retired for good, France were a mess. They finished bottom of their group at Euro 2008 and they were a joke at the 2010 World Cup. Without him, France were at a complete loss.

Another case in point was he returned from retirement in 2005 and lead France to the 2006 World Cup final. France again were in danger of missing out and it was his return that inspired their qualification. His performance at the finals was a real testament to his quality as player. And I think the reason he did so well in his return was that he took a much needed international break and the fact he saved his best form for the knock-out stages.

As for his quality as a player, anyone who has seen his goal against Spain in the 2006 World Cup, to cap off France's 3-1 win, will understand exactly why Zidane was such a highly rated and spectacular player. He initiates the play by winning back possession and then he darts forward into space, timing his run to avoid the offside, before coolly playing the ball off his thigh and into stride (in a manner only he could), breaking past Puyol with the deftest of cuts inside the penalty area, skipping past him in fact, and then unleashing a low shot beyond Casillas, who was completely wrong footed and made a fool as the ball went in. The brilliance of how he wrong footed Casillas is the true testament of the man's quality. Most other players would have tried to score by sending the ball across the goal to the far corner, which is exactly what Casillas had been anticipating, but not Zidane. He sold Casillas on thinking that's where he was going to shoot and all Zidane had to do was put the ball little out of Casillas reach, who would helpless to stop it, even if the ball was only inches away from him because Casillas had already committed himself to the wrong direction.

Not for the first time did Zidane score such a brilliant goal. He arguably did one better in 1997, with his goal for Juventus in a 4-1 win he masterminded against Ajax, when he once again forced a defender and goalkeeper the wrong way, this time leaving them to collide into one another.

The man was brilliant. He brought a form of elegance to the game that left the viewer mesmerized by his every touch and turn of the ball. His majesty over the pirouette especially, as best evidenced with his chest-turn against Portugal in the Euro 2000 semi-final; flipping the ball from a long and heavy searching cross over his chest, before wrong footing the defender, and then sending in a cross that barely misses the head of a diving French attacker. It was a piece of skill so original and so spectacular that I can't imagine anyone else at the very least inspiring it. Only Zidane could dream up a touch of the ball like that. The man personified genius.

 

wait he won 1 world cup final 1 euro final 1 ucl final. so that is 3, not 4. he was motm at 1998 final and ucl 2002 though the latter was not really impressive. his day at juventus, just a shadow of del piero pre injury.
talking about elegance, berbatov actually had more, didn't he?

 

I stand corrected on that he won three, not four major finals. Perhaps Berbatov was more elegant (although I would argue he was more nonchalant than elegant). Del Piero was a superior player in those earlier days at Juventus (he certainly was not once Zidane found his stride and we could well debate what may have been if not for Del Piero's injury). But the fact remains that Zidane is one of the game's most accomplished players (more so than these two you have named) and few could claim to play the game more audaciously and as elegantly than Zidane had. As for consistency, again Zidane's illness affected him. And although like Xavi may have been far more consistent, he may have even have completed 30 passes more per match on average, it doesn't change the fact Zidane made extraordinary things a simple facet of his game, whereas Xavi kept it simple an extraordinary number of times. I think proper football fan appreciates both players for the beauty and grace they played with, even if they did so in radically different ways. I see no reason to argue Zidane is overrated. If anything, he is correctly regarded as one of the game's true greats.

 

France without Zidane won 2-1 vs. Denmark at World Cup 1998. That game was a crucial group game, because if France had lost that game, then Denmark would have topped the group, which means that France would have had to play against Brazil in the Quarter Final, and Ronaldo was not sick for the Quarter Final, which probably means elimination for France. A lot of Zidane fans tend to forget this fact but, France was not exactly a devastating side in any of its KO games... France was only great in the final itself, and that greatness in the final was greatly assisted by whatever really happened to Ronaldo; Brazil's body language showed that something fundamental was missing on that evening/night.

And so Denmark 1998 reached the Quarter Finals... Michael Laudrup and Brian Laudrup were included into the team of the tournament of World Cup 1998... In other words: France - without Zidane - was good enough to win 2-1 vs. a very competitive Denmark team. Which compares well against Brazil... because Brazil - with prime Ronaldo and prime Rivaldo - won 3-2 vs. Denmark. In simpler terms: France without Zidane, won by a difference of one goal vs. Denmark. Brazil with prime Ronaldo and prime Rivaldo, won by a difference of one goal vs. Denmark.

Question: France with Zidane was beaten 2-0 vs. Denmark 2002. How did France without Zidane won 2-1 vs. Denmark 1998, but then France with Zidane were beaten 2-0 vs. Denmark 2002?? I mean you cannot have it both ways... If France is absolutely at a loss without Zidane, then how did France - without Zidane - achieved a very good result vs. a competitive Denmark 1998, and how did France with a half-fit Zidane were beaten 2-0 by Denmark 2002??

Surely if Zidane was anywhere near as great and as important as you claim he is, even if he was half-injured he should have been influential enough to have elevated France so as to win a game against a Denmark team that was beaten 3-0 by England in the Round of 16 (by the way, an England team that was playing with a half-injured version of David Beckham).

Question: France was beaten 1-0 vs. Senegal 2002, but Senegal was a surprise team at World Cup 2002, that is, Senegal also won vs. a competitive Sweden in the Round of 16, and then Senegal vs. Turkey was a 1-0 Quarter Final where the only goal of the game was scored as late as in minute 94 of added time. Brazil vs. Turkey was also a 1-0 Semi Final. Long story short: Senegal was a competitive team, and in hindsight, France getting beaten by Senegal was not totally inexplicable... After all, Senegal did win the Round of 16 vs. a very competitive Sweden, and Henrik Larsson's Sweden actually finished first place in the same group as David Beckham's England, and England won 3-0 against the same Denmark team that won 2-0 against France with a half-fit Zidane. So why did France without Zidane was beaten 1-0 by Senegal, but then France with Zidane was beaten 2-0 by Denmark??

England with a half-fit David Beckham won 3-0 against Denmark. France with a half-fit Zidane was beaten 2-0 by Denmark. I mean you could argue that Zidane was more injured than Beckham was, but that argument doesn't really work because you rate Zidane so highly that even a half-fit version of Zidane should definitely be enough of a positive influence in his own right, enough to achieve a slight win against the same Denmark team that lost 3-0 vs. England in the Round of 16.

Moreover, another greatly ignored fact that is grossly disregarded because it doesn't fit into the Zidane myth, is the fact that Thierry Henry only played 115 minutes out of the 270 minutes that France played at World Cup 2002. France played 155 minutes without Henry, 115 minutes with Henry, but the truly damaging thing is that Henry was also red carded in the 25th minute of the second group game, which means that France had to play with a one-man-less-disadvantage during 65 minutes of the second group game after having lost the first group game... France had to survive 65 minutes vs. Uruguay, to then try to win the final group game without Henry. (At any rate, some fans could criticize Henry for getting red carded, but Zidane fans don't have a leg to stand on because Zidane also was red carded in the second game at World Cup 1998, Zidane was red carded in the World Cup Final 2006, and Zidane's accumulation of yellow cards also precluded him from the final group game at World Cup 2006.)

Question: When talking about Zidane's importance to France... Zidane was more or less pointless in the group stage at World Cup 1998. Zidane was arguably even more pointless in the group stage at World Cup 2006. So when France 2002 was eliminated in the group stage, why did Zidane fans suddenly acted as though Zidane was the difference between getting eliminated in the group or making it out of the group??

World Cup 1998: France got a 2-1 win without Zidane (in the only group game that mattered against a competitive Denmark that reached the quarter finals), a 1-0 win without Zidane (against a difficult and defensive Paraguay team in the Round of 16), a 0-0 draw with Zidane, and a 2-1 win with Zidane, which means that with the exclusion of the final, France with or without Zidane achieved virtually identical results; 3 goals scored and 1 goal conceded in the 2 games that Zidane did not played; 2 goals scored and 1 goal conceded in the 2 games that Zidane did played... The final is the one thing that makes or breaks Zidane's entire myth.

World Cup 2002: France got a 1-0 defeat without Zidane, a 0-0 draw without Zidane, and a 2-0 defeat with Zidane, which means that France's worst result was with Zidane actually on the pitch. ​

World Cup 2006: France got a 0-0 draw with Zidane, a 1-1 draw with Zidane, and a 2-0 win without Zidane, which means that France's best result in the group stage was the one game that Zidane didn't played.

Not only was Zidane never actually a factor in any World Cup Group Stage that he played in, but actually, France literally achieved better group stage results without Zidane on the pitch, than with Zidane on the pitch. In other words: Zidane was more or less totally pointless in terms of group stage impact in 1998, 2002, and 2006... but Zidane's legacy of doing nothing in the group stage was still not enough to curve the dark impulses of the Zidane fans who, when and ever since France was eliminated in the group stage of 2002, used said unlikely outcome as yet another excuse to further inflate Zidane's myth.

Euro 1996: Lama, Blanc, Desailly, Thuram, Lizarazu, Deschamps, Karembeu, Guerin, Djorkaeff, Zidane, Loko. (Team of the tournament: Blanc, Desailly, Deschamps, and Djorkaeff.)

World Cup 1998: Barthez, Blanc, Desailly, Thuram, Lizarazu, Deschamps, Karembeu, Petit, Djorkaeff, Zidane, Guivarch. (Team of the tournament: Barthez, Desailly, Thuram, and Zidane.)

Euro 2000: Barthez, Blanc, Desailly, Thuram, Lizarazu, Deschamps, Vieira, Petit or Djorkaeff, Zidane, Henry, Dugarry or Anelka. (Team of the tournament: Barthez, Blanc, Desailly, Thuram, Vieira, Zidane, and Henry.)

World Cup 2002: Barthez, Desailly, Leboeuf, Thuram, Lizarazu, Vieira, Petit, Djorkaeff, Wiltord, Henry or , Trezeguet. (Team of the tournament did not included any French players.)

Another obvious reference to consider is Euro 1996... France reached the Semi Finals and the team of the tournament contained 4 French players, and the telling thing about that is that Zidane was not included into the team of the tournament, which says a lot because France's attacking player Youri Djorkaeff was included into the team of the tournament. Apparently the talismanic Zidane was important enough that Youri Djorkaeff was regarded as France's most important attacking player.

As for the catastrophic World Cup 2002... The first thing one might notice is the fact that Deschamps and Blanc are not in the team that played World Cup 2002. Desailly was 33 years old. Djorkaeff was 34 years old. Henry only played 115 minutes out of 270 minutes. Pires was one of the best attacking midfielders in the world, an amazing attacking talent at any point between 2002 and 2004, but he was - like Zidane - injured for World Cup 2002, except of course Pires was not even included in the team because - unlike Zidane - Pires was actually injured enough that he couldn't play any minutes. Zidane was I assume fit enough to be included in the team, but coincidence or not France's worst result actually happened in the one game that Zidane played, a statistic that is made worse by virtue of the fact that England - an unconvincing England that had finished second in their group - England almost casually dominated Denmark in the Round of 16, which added insult to the injury that was the half-fit Zidane who definitely was a mere passenger against that same exact Denmark team.

Zidane led France 2006 to the World Cup Final, but again he was pointless in the actual group stage that required a Zidane-less win by France, which coincidentally or not was France's only win in the group stage. On the other hand... France 2002 was eliminated in the group stage because Zidane was not there to do what he also didn't do in 2006 or 1998... I mean Zidane was an inventive player but you are kidding yourself if you cannot identify just how many contradictions you have to agree with before coming to the conclusion that France 2002 failed in the group stage because Zidane - a pointless group stage player in 2006 and 1998 - was not there to replicate his lack of impact in the group stage of the World Cup.

You forgot to mention that Puyol and Casillas and the rest of the Spanish team were extremely desperate as the game was already technically over, I mean Zidane did scored his goal in minute 92 of the game, and that game was not going to last anything longer than 95 minutes. So Spain had 3 minutes left to try to score a goal, which is why Spain's defensive shape was as poor as it was when Zidane scored that brilliant goal. To his credit, Zidane deserves credit for having exploited said desperation and ergo said poor defensive shape, but to act as though Zidane scored that goal in normal game circumstances... I mean that's just another textbook example of the whole Zidane myth: Zidane scored a brilliant goal in circumstances that were considerably easier, and yet Zidane fans at times - most of the time, all of the time - talk about that goal as if that goal had been the one goal that decided the game (when in truth, even without that goal, France's strong defence would have survived for another 3 minutes, after which the game would have ended).

When you look at the actual game, Vieira, Makelele, and Puyol, were all consistently better and more influential players than Zidane was for 91 minutes of that game (prior to his 3-1 goal in minute 92 of the game), but that goal in minute 92 against a disorganized and desperate Spain is used to elevate Zidane's performance level in that game. It wasn't a great performance by Zidane and without that goal not even the most fervent Zidane fans would dare include that game as one of those games that reinforce Zidane's big game value.

​

Zidane was original, elegant, and genius at what he was truly great at... The problem is, if you go out right now, and you find 10 random football fans, and you ask them: Who are the 5 greatest football players of all time?? I guarantee you that 6 out of every 10 random fans will mention Zidane's name as one of those top 5 names, and as magical as Zidane was, Zidane was always a player - especially when he was better and younger - who wasn't clearly better than Luis Figo, or Rivaldo, or Francesco Totti, or Rui Costa, or Pavel Nedved, or even Sebastian Veron (whom I've actually watched outclass Zidane in direct games or indirectly by comparing Serie A consistency), so how could Zidane possibly deserve that high a place almost purely on the basis of just 2 games against Brazil??

If Ronaldo 1998 doesn't get sick shortly before the World Cup Final was played... France probably doesn't even win World Cup 1998, or even if France wins, it's difficult to imagine Brazil looking as miserable and as disorganized as they looked, which was a big part of why Zidane looked so much more impressive against that Brazil team, than he had looked against Croatia or against Italy.

If Ronaldo 2006 when he was fat and lacking match fitness is not included into World Cup 2006... Zidane probably cannot show off, because Ronaldinho would've had an actual moving target to pass the ball to, which means that France and Zidane would've seen less of the ball. The inclusion of fat Ronaldo was detrimental to Brazil, detrimental to both Ronaldinho and Kaka, and I do not consider it a coincidence that Zidane was only truly spectacular against Brazil, but not in the group stage, not against Spain, not against Portugal, and not against Italy.

I'm always surprised as to how much of Zidane's myth is directly assisted by the fact that Ronaldo Nazario had bad knees... Without Ronaldo's knee problems, Brazil probably wins those 2 games that make around 90% of Zidane's legend. At any rate, a lot of fans - especially fans that are not casual fans - seem to agree on Zidane being overrated. I actually think that him being overrated is just plainly and immediately evident to most fans with a good eye, but then, I also tend to think that Zidane is underrated when we consider just how inflated Cristiano Ronaldo is these days... If Zidane delivered match-winning performances against clubs such as Wolfsburg 2016 or the considerably incomplete Juventus 2018; I think that Zidane had the playing style to steal the spotlight at the right spell of the calendar year; I think that a lot of fans underrate Zidane's ability to consistently do that if given a platform similar to Real Madrid... But in terms of historical rankings, I see a lot of fans mention Zidane's name as a top 5 all timer, and I think that that's unequivocally fukin crazy.

 

With respect to the 2002 World Cup, Zidane was practically playing with one leg in the 2-0 loss to Denmark. It was obvious he was playing injured, but France played him anyways because they needed him that badly. It's preposterous to suggest France would have enjoyed the success they did without Zidane. There were a number of players who were important to France's success, but none more important than Zidane. He was their talisman and with him in the team, France were a much more confident side. That's why they had beaten Denmark 3-0 at Euro 2000.

And he was brilliant, not just against Brazil, but in the whole of the knock-out stages of the 2006 World Cup. Zidane, you forget, made the assist that gave France the 2-1 lead over Spain. That goal he scored against Spain was just the cherry on the cake of a great performance. The man had a real presence and quality that elevated the team to another level.

Also, it's not unusual for players to peak at the latter stages of major tournaments and save their best for later in the tougher stages of tournaments so that they avoid burning out early on. You have to remember that Zidane was a player in his mid-30s, playing in the sweltering summer heat after a long club season, playing 90 minutes of football against the world's best players in a total of 7 games in between every 2-4 days over the course of a month. He paced himself and he delivered when it mattered most, not least.

With respect to Ronaldo "Fenomeno," he was arguably the finest player of his generation. Better than Zidane arguably, but at a certain point Zidane delivered while Ronaldo had problems. Zidane was, for a time, the best footballer on the planet. We can speculate what may have been in the 1998 final if Ronaldo hadn't suffered unconsciousness, but in the end Zidane handled the pressure where Ronaldo couldn't.

People forget how much pressure physically and mentally players undergo when the whole world is watching and the weight of nation's expectations rest on their shoulders. Zidane took it in stride while other players struggled. Zidane made it look easy, like he didn't even sweat it. And yet Zidane too lost his cool, went berserk, and got sent off in the final of the 2006 final. We could just as easily sit here and say Ronaldo might not have lifted the 2002 World Cup if not for Kahn's mistakes in the final. But again, one player rose to the occasion, while the other was crushed by the weight of occasion. Ronaldo proved his quality that day, while Kahn fell short. It's not easy playing at that level and delivering quality performances.

Finally, with further respect to Ronaldo, the only other player who could perhaps stake a claim of having been a better than Zidane in his era, it must be said that Ronaldo's body developed in a very unnatural, freakish way, and that's why his knees couldn't handle the physical stresses he put himself under at such a young age.

It may have been because of steroid abuse or because he has freakish genetics. Whatever the case, he went from a light-weight, skinny 17 year-old to a 20-year old who had beefed up enough to compete in the Series A. He went from looking like a normal 17 year old to someone in a year's time who had a chest that nearly doubled in size. That's not normal. Ronaldo "Fenomeno" reached his physical peak at 20-21 years of age, which again is abnormal. Most players reach their peak in their mid-to-late twenties. He never looked better in his career than he did in 1997/98.

Contrast that to Cristiano Ronaldo who reached a physical peak well into this 20s. At 20-21 years of age, Ronaldo "Fenomeno" looked like Cristiano did at 28-33. Cristiano Ronaldo's peak was natural, Ronaldo "Fenomeno" peaked well before he should have, at least relative to most men. He developed in an unnatural, freakish way. That's what set him apart, along with his incredible talent, and in the end it was not humanly possible to attain that kind of physical prowess at the age he did. This is why he had knee problems and this is why his career ultimately didn't pan out as it potentially could have.

 

With all due respect CR7 was imho already the complete athletic package at 22 years old in 2007/08

Do you have anything conclusive (performances for example)that would point towards prime r9(ie the one that peaked in his first season for Inter Milan)was in any way athletically more capable then c.ronaldo was in 2008 or even the 2007 calendar year for that matter (ronaldo was 21 years old at the start of 2007 the same age r9 was in 97/98)

At 21 years old vs Fulham


At 22 years old in 2008 vs Middlesbrough


In late 2006 vs Aston villa

There are way to many examples to prove my point that Cristiano reached the same athletic peak that r9 did in 96-98(with roughly the same skillset)
Difference is ronaldo maintained his till at least early 2015 some may even argue till his injury at the end of the 13/14 season after which he lost half a yard and was no longer as explosive