not to mention that Baggio scored both goals against nigeria that sent italy to the quarter finals. then scored the winner against spain to send them to the semi finals. then scored both goals against bulgaria to send them to the finals before limping off with a thigh strain. he probably would have scored the winner against brazil had he not been injured, if you consider the chances he created for himself.
Watch some of the sublime talent Roby possessed here: http://hem.passagen.se/roberto_baggio2000/movies.html
Perhaps we can clarify the term "greats." I expect that Duck means, Is Baggio up there with Cruyff, DiStefano, Maradona, Pele, Beckenbauer? In other words, the all-time greats. It's an interesting question--and one I'm all-too biased to answer!
Hmm. "One of the greats" is misleading then. For instance Careca was one of the best players of his day, but no one would say he is "one of the greats."
careca wasnt one of the absolute best players of his generation. there were 4-5 better players on brazil alone.
He was definitely one of the absolute best players of his generation in the world. The only player from his generation who could outdo him was Romario. Stoichkov and Hagi were great players too, but I don't think they were greater than Baggio.
When Careca was at his peak, apart from Maradona who was significantly better than him? Careca was widely regarded as the best striker in the world circa 1990 WC and was first preference for Brazil ahead of Romario (who was injured) and Bebeto. He was the first striker in most published World XIs.
im not talking about peaks. im talking about players like Platini, Maradona, Zico. careca was never in that mold of players.
You make absolutely no sense. The thread is titled, "Is Roberto Baggio one of the Greats?" Clearly that "the Greats" suggests something immortal, not tied to a specific time. Meaning the likes of Pele, or Maradona, DiStefano, Beckenbauer, etc. ............... Now it turns out that being one of the "Greats" means only being as good as your peers in whatever generation you were in. But when it was pointed out that Careca was among the best of his day, and that no one would ever call him "one of the Greats" you said that "the Greats" refers to a "mold of players," like Zico, Maradona, or Platini. This is very confusing and ill-defined. I don't get it, really, and I don't know why it's not much simpler. The thread should be asking if Baggio was one of the all-time greats, period. No one doubts he was as good as the other players of his day. He won the Golden Ball, so he was clearly up there with his peers.
True. Baggio was never in that mold of players either. But then these are all-time greats. I thought you were talking of generational greats. Depending on the definition of a generation, Careca and Baggio would be generational greats but not all-time greats.
ill explain it to you since you obviously dont understand much stuff. Zico, Maradona and Platini were the best of their generation. so i consider them some of the greats of the game. i dont consider careca as one of the best of that generation, so i dont consider him one of the greats. if you put careca in the 1920s, im sure he would score 3 goals per game for as long as he bothered playing. that doesnt mean hes one of the greats though now does it? its how you preform against your generation that counts because the game and its players evolve. Baggio was one of the best of his generation of romario and van basten etc. and he was as good as Platini and Zico was.
maybe not Zico. but i think Baggio was better then Platini. its close anyway. id put Baggio up there with those two guys.
It is my firm belief that Roberto Baggio should always be considered as one of the all-time greats. Talent-wise he was as great as players like Zidane maybe even Maradona. However what has hurt him was not winning a World Cup. Winning a World Cup can transform a great player into a legend. What if Ronaldo didn't get sick in '98? Would we still think of Zidane as the greatest of our generation? What if Nedved did win a World Cup? Would he be viewed differently? What if the 1990 semi wasn't in Napoli? Would we even be having this disscusion about Baggio's place in history? All the what if's are what seperate true legends from great players. I will always consider Baggio a legend but he is unjustly viewed differently by other people.
Well, there are always so many misconceptions. Many know him for that missed penalty, but forget that he scored 2 penalties 4 years later in WC '98. I think if Baggio hadn't had so many knee problems, he would've been much greater than he was. He has had so many knee surgeries over his career.
i definitely agree that winning the world cup pretty much cements you as one of the great ones, if you won it in large part because of you. that would have been the case for Baggio if italy had won the shoot out in 1994. even more so then with Maradona in 86.
Well France didn't win it in large part because of Zidane did they? Other than the final he was serving a suspension for the most part of the tournament. But he was still considered a true great since that day.
well the final is a pretty good time to step up and score deciding goals. but zidane has done alot more things then win that final in his career. he would never have been considered a great just going by that one game.
That is not fair. Baggio's performance in WC 1994 was nowhere close to Maradona's in 1986. He was very disappointing in the first round. And although he scored in the three knock out games, he wasn't dominating the opposition in any of the games. Its not as if he was constantly running circles around the opposition like Romario in 1994 and especially, Maradona in 1986. Baggio wasn't even playing as good as Hagi or Stoichkov in 1994, although he was deciding the games by scoring like them.
i said they would have won it because of him. i didnt say he was the tournaments best player. he scored every decisive goal in the knock out stages. Maradona didnt. if the ref had been more alert argentina might never have been in the final anyway