PLATINI vs ZIDANE

Platini is top ten, or top dozen at least. I would say Zidane is top 20 but towards the end of it, so Platini must rank higher. Zidane has the advantage in dribbling, but Platini wins in passing and scoring.

 

-Kopa, Platini and Zidane are the 3 greatest players ever from, and for France.
-Platini was the best French player 1976-1986 and Zidane was the best French player 1996-2006 (Henry was a great striker but never carried the team).
-Platini would have very possibly struggled in the 90s while Zidane would have been at least as fantastic as he was at his own time "transplanted" in the 80s. But him in the 2010s, I have some doubts. While I can imagine Platini like a "Xavi who would score his good share of goals" in the 2000-2010s.
-Zidane was a 10-8, Platini was a 10-9 and Kopa a 10-10.

That's how I see things.

 

In my opinion they are not similar players (^precedent post).
But if we have to keep only one, it would be Platini because French football was in the doldrums before him and he revolutionized everything technically and from the point of view of the mentality - the French NT was in the doldrums before Zidane too, but it was not exactly like at Platini's time when it was about starting everything from a fiery void.
Then this is true that there is also the goals but it is not exactly the same interpretation of the number 10 role than Zidane (Zidane was a CM at his very beginnings in Cannes btw, but that is just an anecdot).
In the World Cups they have 5 goals each...Zidane has pks...Platini has one goal against Koweit...Zidane scored in the big matches to finally win them into that competition...Platini has his record of goals scored in one single Euro...Zidane at the Euro 2000 was as much influential than Platini in 1984 but a different way...that's two #10 but two different #10s. That's two different footballs that were played in their respective times too. Platini would have needed more speed and physical power to score in the 90s as much goals as he scored in his time. In the 2000s too. I mean in the open-play. I doubt he would have had the same records of goals if he had been a contemporary of Zidane, even if he would have still scored more on free-kick and would have been more attracted by the goals than the new Real Madrid's coach. That's not the same personality. That's two maneer to be ambitious too. I think that Zidane is more altruist and inspire a team this way - scoring when it matters the most, now as a coach, maybe speaking just a few words but important ones, and for the good of everybody. Platini, is more of a "killer". Now it doesn't go without some paradox since Zidane went crazy on the pitches several times, putting some opposing players down, and thus penalizing his teammates (by dint of internalizing too much maybe, I hope he will not headbutt anybody in Real's locker room). Platini "the killer" him, has been shotted down recently as a direcor of football but that is not a paradox, it was the risk. On the pitches he always had self-control. Well, he was more at yelling at the referee (to influence him too, to why not obtain a free-kick also), but was not known to be physically violent showing some cold-blood. And yes was a cold-killer in front of the goals. And I agree that scoring goals is what makes the difference in football.
For the psychological part, Platini was an only son, Zidane is the member of a large family...
...all in all, maybe Platini is the Greatest French player ever because he was an only son... (lolz)

But I think that both of them gave the same extraordinary quantity of confidence to their teammates that transforms a good team into a team that wins. And it doesn't matter who scores the goals finally. The msot important is the technical leadership in the game and some important goals at the highest international level (NT + European Cup), not the totals on each year in the league games wich are important and denote some consistancy, but it is not a bit ridiculous to go down to consider league seasons stats and international friendlies to compare two great players? Then there is the crucial games in qualifiers that count much too and it is true that Platini here greatly helped France to qualify thanks to his ... goals. Zidane, I can't remember any in qualifiers but once again it is not the same context, France was hosting the World Cup '98, then was directly qualified as Champion. There is the qualifiers for the Euro '96 (Zidane without scoring brang inspiration into the team wich knew here its rebirth thanks to him and to his partnership with Djorkaeff), the Qualifiers for...the Euro 2000...well that consisted in beating "little footballing" nations that did not exist at Platini's time and Zidane did not went in the trouble of scoring goals into those games. Same for the Euro 2004 (Malta, Cyprus...Slovenia, well). For the World Cup 2006 he was older, did not play much in the qualifications, only scored against Malta, but well. When Platini has also this for him : the decisive goals in the qualifiers. And against important nations in Football's history. His goal in '81 against the Netherlands, on free-kick...before that, very imortant, Bulgaria in '77 to make France find the way of a World Cup again, after 12 years (and in '66 that was 8 years that France had not play a World Cup). Platini qualifies France for The 1986 World Cup too, scoring twice against Yugoslavia, including a free-kick. Maybe a difference can be found here, in the qualfiers for the great tournament. But, once again it was not the same context, and that simply from a geopolitical point of view.

Platini...because it has coincided with the modernization of French football, because it is the first big win, then the centres of formations etc. etc.
Now, let see what will happen at the Euro 2016. I fear no revolution will happen if the French team does quite well, wheras French football needs it since some years now, yet.

 

Platini was a better passer than Zidane as I see it, overall, short distance, medium, long distance passing. For me, I would not debate that. Platini was more of a goal scorer, thats also undebatable. where I give Zidane the edge over Platini is Zidane's ability to playmake with his own dribbling skills and the use of his teammates when facing numbers in defense. I believe Zidane was much more lethal in this aspect. As to who's better, i must do some more thinking and/or research.
Its so sad to hear people disrespect players of the past by saying zidane is the greatest because they never saw anything else before zidane. in any case, true students of the game understand that zidane is either in the 3rd tier or 2nd tier at best of the greatest players of all time.

 

Can you explain?

 

In my opinion, Zidane is very slightly greater. It doesn't mean Zizou is better footballer, just 'greatness'.

though Platini is superior finisher, but Zidane is better playmaker, and there is a really smal gap between them (repeatedly, my opinion). so their achievement, especially WC make difference. Platini was really great footballer, but he had suffred injuries, and couldn't show himself in WC. contariwise, Zidane was one of best WC player.

I think Zico almost equals Maradona, but he collapsed when he can gain the summit. K-H.Rummenigge was really superb player who is compared to Maradona&Zico, but he also disappointed in WC due to injury, nowadays nobody Rummenigge compared with them. likewise, unlucky Platini has disadvantage, so I prefer Zidane.

actually my idol was Ronaldo, so I don't like Zidane till 06WC.

 

I can't imagine him playing in a 4-3-3, most of all today (given the three players of midfield must be always in movement and able to defend often, quickly and... neatly, or it is directly a yellow card. Given that the best teams are playing in 4-3-3 in the 2010s.

///
(Certainly Zidane would play in a 2nd or third tier team then.../joke)
///

Or they should play in a different system of play with him. It would be a pity, because at Zidane's time it was good, but it is also good today as it is.

But after all maybe he could play in a 4-3-3. It is just that I'm unable to imagine that it could work well, only finding reasons against, that are maybe wrong furthermore.

 

I don't think so. With the old rules in which defenders can rape offensive players legally, ZZ would not survive. Why? If you know he got 17 red cards from mostly retaliation while playing with the softer rules, you will never expect him to do better in the 80's.

 

Would just like to comment on one of the points i.e. regarding Platini vs Zidane scoring. Now I don't deny that Platini was a great finisher, however, the difference between the goal tallies is not something that I would hold as a great example of Platini being an undisputably better finisher since a few things really need to be considered before comparing the goal tallies,
1) Considering that Zidane rarely took PKs for his clubs, how many of Platini's goals were club PKs?
2) How often did Platini play as a forward rather than a midfielder since I have read that he played more often as a forward for France in 84 and that helped him put up the numbers that he did in that tournament.
3) Zidane wasn't always the first choice FK taker for his clubs post Bordeaux.

I personally think that rather than lacking the technique for finishing, Zidane simply didn't get into the kind of positions which lead to goals as often enough as a player like Platini did (or if you want a more recent example, Lampard). This, along with the PKs and FKs (wherein Zidane became 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice after his time at Bordeaux, a club wherein he had racked up 13 FK goals in 4 seasons comparable to Platini's 13 FK goals in 4 seasons at Juventus) made the goal scoring gap much wider than it should have been, had it only been left to finishing technique.
Source FK Goals - http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/top-free-kick-takers-of-all-time.1980801/page-2

Zidane's playing style was developed in the early 90's French league, which did not exactly have softer rules than any league from the 80's. It can be seen from the way that Zidane played during his time in France, that he would more often pass than dribble if he knew that a really aggressive opposition player was coming at him (can be seen really well in the UEFA cup game vs Milan in 96'). The rules really changed only post Van Basten's retirement in 95', while tackling from behind (for any kind of tackle) became a red cardable offense only from the 98 WC onwards as per FIFA.
Source for rule change 1 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world_cup_98/meet_the_bbc_team/84767.stm
Source for rule change 2 - http://www.fifa.com/development/news/y=1998/m=3/news=fifa-crack-down-tackle-from-behind-70380.html
Source for rule changes 3 - http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/who-we-are/the-laws/1990-2000.html

 

Beautifully put. Players like ZZ didn't really existed before 1995. The reason why is exactly the logic that you explained above: holding the ball, the way Zidane did, would get you an early retirement every single time.

From the pre-1995 players, Michael Laudrup had some fair similarities with Zidane -- but Laudrup didn't hold on to the ball as much as Zidane did. Laudrup clearly had the ability to do so, but the era made it impractical, because it would guarantee getting fouled/kicked out of the game, or getting injured, etc. This is another strong point in favor of Platini -- in Zidane's era, Platini would've been better at "ball retention" as a result of the vastly improved referee protection. Of course, that's not to say that Platini would've been better than Zidane was at it, but Platini in the early 2000s would've certainly been better (at ball retention) than Platini was in the 1980s.

The French League in 1990-91 was very physical, as far as I've watched. That being said, prime Zidane played post-Basten, and fully enjoyed the "softer" nature of the modern game.

 

in Juventus
Season - League / UEFA competition (I don't know Coppa Italia results)
82/83 - 16 goals (0 PK) / 5 goals (1 PK)
83/84 - 20 goals (2 PKs) / 2 goals (0 PK)
84/85 - 18 goals (4 PKs) / 7 goals (3 PK)
85/86 - 12 goals (2 PKs) / 3 goals (1 PK)
86/87 - 2 goals (0 PK) / 2 goals (0 PK)

 

Thanks, but I actually got the tally here later -
http://people.ufpr.br/~mmsabino/sstatistics/platini.html
Its around 44 club pk goals as per my count for Platini (Zidane has around 7 for his club teams). It was only a rough count, so numbers might vary slightly.

 

Just saw this, great insights. Would like to add my 2 cents on the qualifying aspect regarding Zidane's case, as I think you are missing some important information,

Euro 96 Qualifiers - France had 5W and 5D during qualifying. Zidane featured in 4 of those 5 wins and 2 of those 5 draws. His greatest contribution was probably in the away game vs Romania (a team which ended up winning the group), wherein he assisted the opening goal and scored the 3rd one (great finish), to put the match to bed. He also scored and assisted in the 10-0 drubbing of Azerbaijan. Note that before Zidane started playing regularly for France in the qualifiers, they had 7 points after 5 games and were joint third alongside Poland, behind Romania and Israel in their qualification group.

Euro 00 Qualifiers - I have shared this earlier as well on this forum (so I will just copy paste here), but I do think that this tournament's qualifying campaign surely helps underline the Zidane dependency claim for the French NT of that era (in terms of his presence). France played 10 games in this qualifying campaign and Zidane was unavailable for 4 out of these 10 games, during the middle of the campaign, due to a knee injury which required him to undergo surgery. In the 6 games that Zidane played in during that qualifying campaign (3 before injury and 3 after injury), France only dropped 4/18 points, with Zidane having 1 Goal, 1 Assist and 3 Pre-Assists among the 10 goals scored by France in these games. In the 4 games that he missed, France dropped 5/12 points (scoring 5 goals). This inspite of the fact that 3 of those 4 games which Zidane missed were home games for France. As you can see, Zidane did again score during this qualifying campaign (2nd goal in 3-2 away victory vs Armenia) and France were in danger of not qualifying after losing their way and falling to 3rd place in the group, post his injury (source - http://www.theguardian.com/football/1999/jun/07/newsstory.sport4).

Euro 04 Qualifiers - The French team were in amazing form, and although Zidane did score 3 goals (2 vs Malta yes but also the winner vs Israel) and I believe also had 3 assists, I think it was his overall play that was important for the team more so than his direct contributions to goals. He ended up featuring in 7 of the 8 qualifying games while France ended up winning all 8 games.

WC 06 Qualifiers - In case of this qualification campaign, while much has been made of his and Makelele/Thuram's presence in contributing to the French team qualifying for the WC, post these players' return to playing, Zidane also did have an important goal to contribute. He scored the opening goal in the 4-0 win over Cyprus which was a must win game in which the French had to score as many goals as possible (since if Switzerland were to beat Ireland then France needed to win by 4 more goals to qualify, source - http://www.espnfc.com/story/345459/goalshy-france-need-cyprus-strikes).

So in his own way, one can see that Zidane too was important for the French team when it came to them qualifying for major international tournaments. Overall source for Zidane goals and international appearances - http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/zidane-intl.html

 

It's sad he ruined his reputation as a football director and joined the dark side (he was a pretty decent national team manager too, with a high win % although that's not nearly the same as coaching a club imho). But if I look at the top opponents he played against in Europe he delivered against all of them (top 10 ClubElo at start or end of season as a guide here): PSV, Borussia Monchengladbach, Hamburg (1980), Aston Villa, Manchester United, Bordeaux, Liverpool (twice), Barcelona. Plus other top 20 opponents (in a less oligopolistic era) as PSG, Widzew Lodz, Hellas Verona, Standard Liege, Ipswich Town. I always found that quite impressive and strong.

Only times he didn't deliver against good opponents was against Dinamo Berlin (1st round of 1981-82 European Cup - together with missing the entire 1978-79 CWC due to injury probably his low point in Europe), Hamburg 1983 (the final, tightly marked) and Real Madrid in 1987 (clearly after his prime and best technical/physical years). Roughly a 14/17 success rate, to put it that way even if he didn't always win (thanks to defense), or 15/18 if we also include 'hard ball' Intercontinental Cup. National team is a bit different thanks to the early years and the 1985-1987 years (but even then good games despite losing at times).

I always thought of him as a very good candidate for best European player of all-time if we also consider luxuries that he didn't have (like being born into a wealthy elite club team as many other greats were) - certainly if we consider Eusebio or CR7 as basically 'African born' (on the African continent). And yes, his relative lack of physique or strength was his charm. On the outside, in appearance, he looked like an everyday man rather than an athletic 'monster' or one of unnatural proportions.

 

I had totally forgot about his goal against Romania on the moment. Good reminder! For the rest, it is pretty much what I said, but now there are all the details.
By the way I never made the conclusion that Zidane was not important in qualifiers, only that Platini's contribution, into these games, has more historical weight, given the context (what cancel nothing for what concerns his talent of couse, the opposite, it was very strong to do what he did, at the time, even if it was a good generation it remained to be done, not a small affair, and we talk of good generation only if there are the results in the end).
And clearly, that part where I went talking qualifiers is not to be much taken at 1st degree. Even, if yes, what Platini did in these occasions is something very strong and very special. In this way, the main idea was just to say there is little difference between the two players. That was my intention in any cases.

The France football page posted by PuckVanHeel sums-up well things, in numbers, + of course the different well inspired captions by France Foot in my opinion.

Zidane international games + goals + assists:
http://footballyesterdayandtoday.blogspot.fr/2015/05/zinedine-zidane-statistiques-detaillees.html
Same for Platini
http://footballyesterdayandtoday.blogspot.fr/2015/04/platini-statistiques-detaillees-en.html

Normally there is no error.

 

To be honest, imo, he has always been on the dark side since a player. First because generally it's safe to say that the world of football is totally corrupted (since ever) so it is corrupting, and more specifically for what concerns Platini since "l'affaire de la caisse noire" (slush fund) in Saint-Etienne then his move to Italy and his passage in Italy.
He has always been quite cynical, in his remarks, already as a player, especially since at Juve. For example remarks like : "there are 3 possibilities in football : a win, a loss or a draw". Until now it's just laconic until he adds : "sometimes you can do everything, there are matches you just can't win...and another times it is you who wins". It is his maneer to exprimate this too (I don't have the exact words), also the peripherical speech around these little sentences here and there and the topic of conversation into wich he slips this type of words, in his interviews from the time until even today. because he remained, imo, a bit of a child (is still a player) and he can't hide the evil, the bad things in Football, his speech is so much about the agreed that it shows well what he tries to hide. In a few words, he can't lie as well as the most experienced politicians. He lacks prudence, maybe feels (or felt now) intouchable like manys in sports, most of all when you have been a champion. And he is very spontaneous. Maybe that's more about that than to be really cynical, even though it is well known he can be cynical too, in his political manoeuvres. The celebration of his goal in the 1985 European Cup Final remains a disturbing episode of his career, too.

/
About where his words type "it's a win a loss or a draw, sometimes you can't win, sometimes you are the winner" it is much when he was asked to talk about Italian football by French journalists and went to talk about the phenomenon of fanatism in Italy with the supporters, the "tiffosi"...insisting parallely on the fact that football feeded much people in Italy...he evokes the word "industry" to talk about Italian football, the "calcio" as he liked to say...not forgetting to insist on the importance of the "Lotto"...at last he says it is all integrant part of the social life in Italy where football is cultural...a maneer to say that corruption is (was?) cultural in Italy, imo, that's only an interpretation of words (not facts). That said, once again, I also think we can read very easily between the lines in general, with Platini. Taken just like that, it is just making shortcuts, I'm conscious of it, but History told that there was corruption in Italian football, and not just Italian football, and not just in football in Italy, or elsewhere but the subject was his Juventus years).

 

That slush fund was mostly related to tax evasion if I'm not mistaken (I re-checked the 'Le Foot' book by Christov Ruhn that has a chapter), and Platini came out of it well with a fine (because, of course, it was in principal orchestrated by the president; ASSE never recovered). It's presumably a 'dark' act but not related to the events on a football field.
Rolling Stones and U2 do the sort of the same... And cruise around the world with their jumbojet to talk about global warming. It's not like cheating with charity money, in the manner of Madonna, the Clintons or other athletes (or like Hoeness did: gambling with black money and hanging out with RL Dreyfus of Marseille).

Passage to Italy: yes that is a sensible point, and Juventus was building a reputation. Nevertheless, I don't think they had in the late 70s and 1980s an as infamous director as Allodi or later Moggi.. I'm not aware of specific revelations aiming to that direction. Declan Hill is an expert in these things, in his work. He mentions a lot of well-substantiated things, based on real evidence, but not this (Juventus during Zidane is another matter ofc, although Zidane was a fringe figure and never fully trusted by Juve).
Same for Brian Glanville his book about the European Cup (1992); he has an eye for these things and esp. Italian clubs. The Derby County (1973) scandal had cleaned up Juve a bit, for a while. John Foot his book mentions two curious/controversial title deciders in the years before Platini arrived (1981 and 1982) but not much more than 'curious', and nothing during he played there (Juventus had no part in 'Totonero bis' unlike their rivals actually..)... Platini was pipped for the title by AS Roma (2nd title, after 1941-42), Hellas Verona (1st title) and Napoli (1st title; Juve in decline) in the years he played there, and Juventus performed better (esp. in Europe) with him in the ranks. Feel free to correct or add.

What I meant is that he, as a player, socialized with the Agnelli family but not (yet) with the UEFA circles or the new powers that be in FIFA (so called "puppet masters" in the words of Jennings/Yallop since Havelange's coup in 1974).. As a player he wasn't someone to see yellow cards erased. It's after his national team manager stint that he became a protegee of Blatter and these circles (the inheritors of the realm), for sure.

Didn't he say that in relation to the 1982 semi final? If I remember correctly.

From a purely football perspective he took issues with the 'cattenacio' coach and unlimited cynicism of Trapattoni... It was in his own interest as an attacker, absolutely, but he didn't like the cattenacio-related thinking in compartments either (a defensive bloc, a striker and then a 'trequartista' or number 10 as luxury player without responsibilities).

According to the tales he was also one of the few to scoff back at Agnelli... When Agnelli saw him smoking, Platini replied he should start to feel worried when him (Bonini) smokes and drinks. Platini won his Ballon d'Or and placed it in his hands, he said "here is something you can't buy."

Hmmm yeah, maybe the bold things are not bad traits. There is some to be liked about his disenchanting cynicism in his analysis at times... At the same time he's not the type of guy who claims divine privileges or claiming too abrasively that someone else fixed 167 matches (Maradona about Platini).

That's right, but I didn't relate that to the 'dark side' (or so). Maybe it should... There are differing opinions about his wild celebrations. Some don't see the problem at all (him not knowing the scale of the scenes), the other half find it tasteless. It has been said too that the penalty was a gift as the foul was outside the box, though referees did it more often those days as a de facto policy (with sending off punishments not existing yet for goalscoring opportunities) - but the Swiss official was more aware and better informed of the events (and he was Italian speaking).

Indeed, we can read between the lines (with good reason?) or maybe see it as a raw analysis and observation devoid of glamour and allusions to divinity.

Just some thoughts...

 

Good to see:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ENRHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zY0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5510,3317771

 

I'm not aware of the details someone who has made real investigations could have in his possession. But when a club is outlaw, even in the case where it doesn't concern directly what happens on the field, I find there's always a relationship still. Not all the clubs accomodate with the laws so the ones who do it take an advantage here out of the field that still has sportive consequences imo: as they have less difficulties to buy or pay the best players, amongst other things.
It can be public money too for a part of it.

And naturally he has always been close of the Agnelli's clan even after his playing career. I don't know but maybe he started to learn about how the sytem works at this time at Juve, before starting entering...the "realm" by starting some relationships with the FIFA/ UEFA at the precise time you talked about then being part of it.

Very possible he has been "pipped" for some titles. But it can be a counter-part too. As you say it happens when one club is not much sure to be champion or in decline like Juve in '87. But in these cases in general, there's something for everybody so for the players too, if not a title.

Cynical. And also "disanchanted", exactly (as if he would not have completely join the other side), both things apllies to him in a same time. That's a point where the complexity of the character lies (or it is lays the correct word, I don't know).

yeah, he is not crazy as Maradona. But he remains a bit of a player. In my view, he did not clearly choose his camp with on one hand his sincere empathy for the players in general (but maybe not when NT coach, or just the best players), his real love of the game (that has been teinted of some disenchanting as you said), and his love for power (power is also a bit about a game but anyway...). That position "in between" probably was his weakness.
Not a bad trait, but a weakness when playing the game for power.

But I agree he mustn't be totally lost to join back the... light side... we can see at times he is still human (but maybe he is only in he seduction when speaking like a disanchanted, one can be seduced by that - also he has certainly built a character to protect his inner self of all of this (including, very important, the 1985 European Cup Final catastrophe, that is the result of a whole system)...also maybe he is only a psychopath and feint the emotion when speaking, why not...). But he's on the way for redemption finally with all of those affairs that happen right now, him who is/would not be totally rotten. Back to the human aspect of his character, that said, all the worst criminals look more or less human.

(Quoting the same part again)

But yeah, that's why I do the relation with the "sometimes you lose sometimes you win" and the (very, imo) possible fixed match in the 80s...he's too silent about this. Maradona, him, speaks too much. That's for sure (about Maradona).

In 85 I think it is impossible that the players did not know but as you say, there are different versions and furthermore I would agree to say that a reaction, even of the bad(dest) taste can happen. It's not about reproaching it to him again and again, but maybe another player would not have done that, or even himself if it would have been 1 minute before or after, maybe.

Not sure, and on the other hand that is true that judging on all of this without knowing well the different datas (like the investigating officers must know) make that judgements are limited to moral judgements. But thankfully right now, the justice does his job (for what concerns FIFA), and Italian justice does much efforts on his home soil since some times (doping, corruption) what did not exist at Platini's time as a player. I doubt nothing happened before Moggi, at Juve, so/and in Italian football in general. Other clubs were concerned as well (Milan surely carried it off well into this affair for exple).

Again, about the pk, it is almost the official version now that it was a "gift". The reason being it was to...appease the supporters. If such thing was possible, horrible story, very sad.

That's right. But I think that he kept repeating this little sentence of him in different contexts, about different questions through the years. It is one of his formulas that he uses over and over again.
And sometimes it betrays him. Maybe he wanted to be punished all in all?
But I'm not sure now if it actually happened precisely like this. I should re-read different articles...not sure if I have the envy right now. But I have the clear souvenir of the impression that his words betrayed some truth(s) in several occasions. That remains an interpretation. I'd have to re-find clear examples to illustrate this.

I'll never pretend it's for good reasons (but in order to reach a good goal yes, literally it's confusing in french, "for good reasons") as, a last time, I or x or y has not the knowledge of all the details of the different datas in his possession (to be frank I don't even know much about the investigation reports for my part) . That's an interpretation, when doing the correlation with other elements, elements that can appear in the same one single interview. Thankfully, once again, it seems that nowadays the justice does his job (tries to do it the better they can), and thankfully the effectiveness of their work doesn't lie on interpretations but on proven facts. For my part yes it's only a feeling.
It's only a feeling...that's not a song that? Must be.

At a "pure sportive plan" then, if I dare to say now after all of this, yes he was great. And he did not received any sentence of justice for now, only one by FIFA itself.

 

Can you elaborate on why it is "very possible" according to you? What's there to know.

There has always been sort of a paradox here... The paradox is that Italy has always been good since the 1950s to uncover the truth and not so good in keeping things secret forever. That's also 'culture', north presumably more so than south (lower hierarchy and so called 'power distance' - i.e. 'follow the leader'). Experts like the same Declan Hill (and Kistner) are right in a key reason behind this: the Italian judicial system (of the north) and efficiency in detective work - with an uncanny ability to reconstruct events of 25 years earlier - has been hardened and seasoned by decades of organized crime and masonic lodges. Most of the time football is child's play compared to the syndicates they had to battle. It's true though that Italian football administrators don't always follow the track and groundwork laid down by the judicial system (who has every reason to step in when health becomes endangered etc.).

Remember there are quite some things known about Italian 'tricks' during the 1960s and 1970s (Internazionale of Herrera, to a lesser extent Rocco his AC Milan). Then also Juventus in 1973, who got seriously cleaned up afterwards (their corruption could beat Derby County, which woke up the Brits, but not Ajax). Until Juve started to wonder what Moggi had been able to accomplish with provincial clubs in Europe. Then, Italy was also the first traditionally big league to have systematic and structural doping controls - some classic rivals followed 25 years later.
I agree in so far with you that it's naive to think that 'IAAF management practices' (sending emails to important partner Russia) don't happen in football - in fact, it has happened already (1994WCQ playoffs).

Long story short: (imho) the controversy, let alone hints at special privileges are very thin or non-existent during the 1982-1987 years for Juventus (or France NT) - based on the specialist works uncovering the true 'dark' aspects. Then it is also the case that Platini certainly lifted his team to a higher level, his 'GoalImpact' is for example higher than all the other Juventus players (also higher than league colleague Maradona in fact, though difference is only 11.0 points). If a 'dark side' existed behind the team, it could not totally cushion the absence of a Platini. There are also no stories known, to provide another example, about him threatening 'pagellisti' (player raters) for attaining a higher grade..
I wouldn't bet my wallet on it or stick my hand in the fire that he was 'light' previously ('grey' is a better reflection indeed); he made the wrong step - joining the Havelange/Deyhle/Dassler realm - after managing the national team (euro92) and that's what I found "sad".

I knew... That is in a way also a 'gift'. That is why I used the word. Referees (and Italian speaking one at that) being susceptible to the public is not a revolutionary insight ofc

https://ideas.repec.org/p/spe/wpaper/0707.html
https://www.ntu.ac.uk/research/document_uploads/85424.pdf
http://ftp.iza.org/dp8857.pdf
http://www.ncer.edu.au/papers/documents/WPNo46.pdf

But to conclude with some positive words that appreciate the player; the charm of him as a player (to me) was his passing and shooting skills, one of the best strikers of the ball ever; that he didn't look like a 'monster' with surreal physique; that he performed in ~80% of the big matches (if not injured); that he didn't glorify his stats that much with penalties; the simplicity of his game and ball control; the intelligence of his forward-movements; the insistence of him to not be a mere luxury player (and as such not too dependent from a physical and technical point of view on his team mates to bring him into effective playing positions, imho).

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/31/sport/football/football-heysel-hillsborough-juventus-liverpool/

It's almost certain all the players and managers were aware of a tragedy at the stadium. Platini's celebration was excessive even for normal circumstances, he was likely rubbing it in to the Liverpool ultras on the stands. Regardless, it was in extremely poor taste especially considering the goal came from a shocking mistake by the referee (if it was a mistake) in awarding a penalty.

As for Platini's time in charge of UEFA, clearly he did more bad than good including making the CL a competition privy to four or five super cubs to the hindrance of leagues remaining competitive. And obviously he is corrupt, now facing a life ban from the game.

Doesn't change his status as a legendary player, but let's call a spade a spade. No one should be excused from unethical behavior.

 

It is not "certain". The players didn't receive a briefing unlike the referee, who of course received a vague notification. Where's the relevant passage in the link?

Check this:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2005/apr/03/newsstory.sport
http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/history/dalglish-heysel.shtm

That doesn't reflect his personal opinion and platform.
The UCL and subsequent effects are a brainchild of primarily Johansson (check page 222 here), Hempel, Lenz and Aigner (as well as the media conglomerates). Platini by and large failed to do something against it, as many proposals stalled, but he wasn't an advocate. See the reports of today for example - alluding to his personal opposition:
http://www.worldfootball.net/news/_n2035515_/rummenigge-revives-idea-of-european-superleague/

Later one of those architects turned against it, and this was in 2003 (Platini got elected in 2007)
http://www.politico.eu/article/beau...gly-and-its-all-bosmans-fault-says-uefa-boss/

Saying it is 'sad' doesn't equal 'being excused'.

 

Back in 2005 (?), when Liverpool faced Juventus in the CL, the topic surfaced again and a couple of posters in Xtratime mentioned being in the stadium at the time and knowing that a tragedy had occurred. There is no doubt that the players knew something horrible had happened.

Platini was in cahoots with all who engendered the current state of super-clubs in football, and never tried to do anything significant to ameliorate the situation. He is as much culpable as anyone, and I am sure it will go down that way in history.

It is indeed sad that his end in football is so disgraceful but not undeserved.