Probably the most fitting thing to do would be to insert Stoichkov in for Deschamps and make it more of a 4-4-2 or 4-1-3-2 (the 4-2-3-1 was not so in vogue at that time either). Although he could come in for McManaman or even Shearer based on the ratings. Popescu and Ivanov don't really fit in positionally if an attempt at a realistic and balanced (right to left as much as anything!) team is made. They would be beating Babbel and indeed even Blanc, and equalling Hemer and Ziege based on average ratings for the games they played though. 3 players from Bulgaria/Romania does seem enough though probably! Perhaps it would only be France Football that'd have them in such an XI anyway, but I haven't looked more in depth for the La Repubblica ratings or anything.
No perhaps it is fair and reasonable to put in Ivanov (Popescu on the other hand was playing in midfield of course, wheras he had been part of the defence during the 1994 WC; he has a lower average than Eilts and the same as Deschamps over less games and not getting past the group and 3 DM/CM's would be going too far for an all-star team I guess it would be agreed!). So perhaps this for 3 games minimum: Seaman; Sammer; Ivanov, Desailly, Helmer; Eilts; Letchkov, Hagi, McManaman; Shearer, Stoichkov. (Optionally still Deschamps in for McManaman, or feasibly Shearer but the team would be low on attackers then)
According to personal memories (so not related to the 11's made by the different mags or newspapers), opinion : A_____________KOPKE______________ _____________SAMMER______________ ________BLANC_______DESAILLY_____ MCMANAMAN_____EILTS_________ZIEGE _______POBORSKY___STOICHKOV______ _________SUKER____SHEARER________ B_______________KOUBA_______________ ___THURAM__BABBEL___HELMER__SUCHOPAREK _______________DESCHAMPS______________ _______R.COSTA_________MÖLLER________ ______________DJORKAEFF______________ ________BIERHOFF_____MANJARIN__________ + _BEJBL_GASCOIGNE_INCE_ ... + maybe that at the time I rated Asanovic but I can't remember it. + Babbel is half-real-memories half I'm not sure, but I believe that I remember that he was good. All the others that's certain in my mind/ in my view. Maybe that I have overrated Suchoparek at the time but I found that he was very good (Bogarde I don't remember at all, more de Kock but not sure why). Don't remember too if Manjarin was a 7 or a 11 but he caused troubles to France. Was really a devil. His name was always at the mouth of the commentators "Manjarin this...Manjarin that...Manjarin him again...". Manjarin...he was at Depor. At last, Hässler made some good stuffs at times I think, so when he had to play. And Lama was safe and even quite heroic - more in his own style this - in the quarter-finals. Portugal : Couto and Baia speak to me but that was more the names I guess, maybe that they were not that great, or less than expected. Figo, I don't remember him at all. Nedved almsot the same because of Poborsky and the hard-working defense which were the main things I believe. Berger not bad neither. About the A-team, McManaman fits quite well into that role...and he was good. But I'd have other players over him from the B Team in a ranking about the individuals. + of course still about my first team, Stoichkov can be the (scoring) LW and Suker can drift a bit on the right or drop-back in the hole (Stoichkov can drop back too and I prefer to have him there and Suker where he is in my 11, that by default, for the picture). On Shearer, I remember that he had several occasions in the first match against Scotland before to set out (and that he never scored before the tournament btw). + maybe that I missed something but I believe that Figo has not been much discussed in the thread. Many ex-aequo players anyway, as usual but maybe especially here about this Euro with, it is true, an homogenous level of play from the different teams. That's just that I thought that making a team only based on memories (without re-watch) could be interesting to be made by different people. Of course I remember Seaman (and others) but in my mind he's not outstanding compared to other good gk's into that tournament like Zubi or Lama while Kouba made a big impression to me (unexpected star of the tournament ofc, there was also the surprise effect...). He only failed in the Final...was great before I believe.
You're right wm, it is difficult (but interesting)! As I said, it is harder when we don't know in our minds that we picked a best XI at the time I think (WC 94 was two years earlier, but I have a better idea because I did do that that time - maybe I watched slightly more I.e pretty much everything that time too but I'm sure I watched most of Euro 96 also). In both cases it is inevitable to lean a bit on reports/ratings/highlights/other opinions/stats even a bit when in doubt or trying to refresh the memory anyway. I wasn't clear about my A and B team before so I'll try again but I think not being clear and decided in my own mind doesn't help! Normally for that era I might try to go with 4-4-2 or similar (4-1-3-2 as per the FF average ratings XI I showed) but I'd already thought of those two formations and since you use them then I'll continue to do that to show my ideas/memories. Otherwise I'd be estimating Blanc as 2nd best player overall perhaps, but being undecided if him or Babbel should go in team A if using a back 4 with sweeper (Sammer has to be so Blanc can't be and Blanc played in more of a flat back 4 anyway). I know what you mean about McManaman on that side because I remember he switched with Anderton and commentators etc were saying Venables should stick with that set-up. Occasionally Anderton and McManaman did play as wide midfielders in front of a back 3 in an attacking Dutch-inspired Venables formation (not the one actually used for the 4-1 win vs the Netherlands though) and Poborsky was either a right winger or outright attacker so fits in that position you put him too I think - the team you chose does reflect the actual tournament well enough in those respects I think (which I would always try to do rather than say consider Brian Laudrup as right winger because he showed he could be great there, with freedom to roam, at club level around that time). So I'll go with this: A -----------------------------Seaman-------------------------- -----------------------------Sammer-------------------------- --------------Blanc----------------------Helmer------------- Poborsky-----------------Asanovic-------------------Jarni --------------Rui Costa----------------Gascoigne---------- --------------------Shearer-------Suker--------------------- B ----------------------------Kopke---------------------------- G.Neville-------Babbel---------Desailly---------Lizarazu ---------------------------Nedved------------------------- --------Letchkov---------------------McManaman------- --------------------------Djorkaeff------------------------ -----------------B.Laudrup-------Klinsmann------------ Top 22 in a list though maybe more like (still very estimated - moreso than for 1994 like I say).... 1 - Sammer 2 - Blanc 3 - Suker 4 - Poborsky 5 - Rui Costa 6 - Seaman 7 - Asanovic 8 - Gascoigne 9 - Shearer 10 - B.Laudrup 11 - Nedved 12 - McManaman 13 - Helmer 14 - Djorkaeff 15 - Desailly 16 - Letchkov 17 - Figo 18 - Klinsmann 19 - Berger 20 - Babbel 21 - Jarni 22 - Joao Pinto
Maybe, like for the 94 WC I could attempt to split it into vague recommendations.... I used these categories that time: Definite to possible *** (1-10) - this time I'll say 1-6 Definite to feasible ** (11-20) - this time 7-12 Definite to reasonable * (21-40) - this time 13-22 (Not sure if the wording is exactly the same but was too lazy to check!) (As with that attempt, I'd say other players that others recommended or that I'd have in mind too could be * in my mind also - there'd be a few left-backs in that bracket for me this time for example - or even more without too much confusion or argument from me) (Using the England contingent as examples does make my potential tier-ing seem understandable for me as I actually expect and will understand Shearer being given ***, and though I might hold back from it too in the end I could see why Gascoigne in any given individuals view might merit it too, while Seaman is not necessarily a shoe-in but seems a very reasonable call for big moments as well as general security; and meanwhile out of those four McManaman is the only one who I'd be in two minds about whether he could stick at * I think and in any case I seem to think *** would be over-doing it although I wouldn't complain if he was awarded it or anything....but I don't think it was a case of him out-doing his club form in general so much as proving he could have an impact and contribute well as an International player, while Shearer as wm said had been on an International goal drought but had been scoring consistently and impressively for his club and again I wouldn't feel he showed more for England in Euro 96 than for Blackburn in general over the previous year or few certainly but he was also being effective on the big stage and helping his team to the semi-finals obviously).
The next best rated goalkeepers by France Football after the group stage were Kopke, Lama, Zubizaretta, Pascolo, Schmeichel, Peruzzi and Van der Sar. I guess Kopke received a deduction for the penalty incident (and 'non-red') against Italy and he had two well rated defenders ahead of him; Lama had some super high rated defenders in front of him (esp. Desailly + Deschamps; Blanc was at 11 stars); Zubi conceded goals in all three group stage games. To just pick out these three. Seaman stood out for some crucial saves I think and few or none errors (including against NL + Scotland at crucial phases in the match).
Ok. Couldn't remember any precise facts about Seaman even if sure there was something (so I had couple of re-watch since/ so the highlits about the matches you mentioned and ENG v SPA/ I have not even read the Onze Mondial I was quoting for their best 11, just watch pictures...and recall some names and things). On Zub', is that I did not like him and that I thought that he made no blunders into that tournament, even looked solid. In any case, that's the impression kept from that time. Lama, to be honest, never looked as safe as he was during this competition. Maybe that the other way, he inspired more confidence to the defenders than ever before too. That being said this is true that he had two central AT defenders before of him. But if Desailly was steadily continuing to rise or was in his peak period, about Blanc it is a bit different as it was a sort of come-back for him that year, there was no 100% guarantee prior to the tournament imo with him to perform like that at this level of competition (never was as good as during this tournament at the position of libero finally and we know how it has continued). So I think it is the two ways between the gk and the df's because yes, when the opponents had first to deal with Deschamps, Karembeu, then Desailly-Blanc or Blanc-Desailly or Thuram, surely that it resulted in more "easy saves" in many occasions. Also maybe that if Lama allows one or two goals Deschamps-Desailly-Blanc have not 11 FF stars. Now, I don't know if Opta has this somewhere , but no, there has not been many shots on target into that tourney it seems (when looking at the 'actions by actions' now in match reports). So the defensive systems...the lack of strikers with world class finishing skills maybe as said earlier in the thread too. And in the middle of that a good handful of keepers who where present in the crucial moments yeah. Now, amongst them we can discuss the style of Köpke (so the fact that he boxed the balls rather than blocking them) but he was always there. Yes certainly that he was lucky for the 'non-red' and in any cases it was tight into this tourney between the teams. It was really about details, about game facts. But what an idea to give to Zola the responsability to take the penalty-kick into that match of men... I don't know, '94 Baggio miss could have been taken as a 'lesson' (Baresi it is different he was injured/ out of form/ old). Because for sure it is not Köpke who stops this, it is well Zola who misses (...Baggio was supposed to be injured too it is true...but he did not look injured in any case). Germany would have qualified anyway as 1st at the goal diff. yep. But not the Czech Republic this is true.
Yeah no that's right. That's what I thought at first then changed my mind without really any reason, did not verify the rule...but yes it is well the "mutual encounters" that counts, right. Changed my mind about what was the rule because when consulting the results I was thinking about the fact that it was tight for the Czechs too in some ways so that probably, logically, in consequence we would not talk so much about Poborsky and even less about some other Czech players as being amongst the best ones in the tournament if they don't go through. Because I saw that the Czechs and Kouba conceded 3 in a 3-3 with the Russians in the last group stage day match. It does not change that I was mistaken about the rule but this match could have finishsed badly for the Czechs. But Smicer equalized.
I should have been referring to marks out of 6 (4 out of 6 for example) regarding FF's grades of course! (I knew because of the WC games ratings we've discussed previously but didn't type it correct and it hadn't crossed my mind to correct myself until now). Maybe there wasn't a 6 on the page Puck showed (it might be unusual for a tournament if there hadn't been any at all but perhaps Suker vs Denmark or something in the group stage did get a 6 I don't know - some of the average ratings for defensive players or the likes of Hagi and Letckhov in the group don't seem to compare badly overall to what is handed out in WC's) and that had somehow led to my typo.
I might as well add some actual calculated France Football ratings (hopefully I don't make any errors or omissions, but I shouldn't do) * Top 4 ratings for each section of the team shown based on 4 games minimum but with notes about where certain players with 3 games minimum would slot in. Goalkeepers 1 - David Seaman - 4.4 2 - Andreas Kopke - 4.17 3 - Bernard Lama - 4 (and over 3 games Marco Pascolo scores 4 too) (over 3 games Peter Schmeichel and Angelo Peruzzi score 3.67) 4 - Andoni Zubizareta & Edwin Van der Sar - 3.5 Defenders 1 - Matthias Sammer - 4.33 2 - Marcel Desailly - 4.2 3 - Thomas Helmer & Christian Ziege - 4 (and over 3 games Trifon Ivanov & Paolo Maldini score 4 too) 4 - Laurent Blanc & Gareth Southgate - 3.8 Midfielders (Over 3 games Gheorghe Hagi and Yordan Letchkov score 4.33) 1 - Dieter Eilts - 4.17 2 - Didier Deschamps - 4 (and over 3 games Gheorghe Popescu, Demetrio Albertini & Krassimir Balakov score 4 too) 3 - Jiri Nemec - 3.83 4 - Steve McManaman, Pavel Nedved & Patrik Berger - 3.8 Forwards (including borderline/changeable AM/forward cases) (Over 3 games Hristo Stoichkov scores 4) (*Also it seems according to what Puck found that Dennis Bergkamp might have just had 3 rated games, although in some World Cup games scores were given for much less than 60 minutes - if so he was also on 4 after 3 games and effectively stayed there but wasn't deemed to play 4 rated games) 1 - Alan Shearer - 3.8 (over 3 games Brian Laudrup scores 3.67) 2 - Karol Poborsky & Davor Suker - 3.5 3 - Joao Pinto - 3.25 4 - Youri Djorkaeff - 3.2
I don't mind doing a few calculations for La Repubblica ratings, although I think we were missing England vs Switzerland? The other source was interesting to see and compare too, and not necessarily 'worse' just because it was less official, but it wasn't complete in terms of rating all games of course.
The Bergkamp thing seems confusing but in theory he'd be in the XI for 3 rated games ahead of Shearer, but it could be fairly said "well he played in 4 games and being subbed off is different to the team being out already or not being available" I suppose. And I don't know whether any others not mentioned scored 11 points and therefore the same average rating as Brian Laudrup after 3 group games of course. Even 10 points would equal an average rating that was above the overall one for Joao Pinto and Djorkaeff. I don't know abut ratings for Klinsmann or others who might, or might not, have scored in that range over the whole tournament over 3 rated games of course either.
After the group stage there were a few attackers with 12 stars. Their ideal XI had Shearer and Stoichkov up front. Letchkov, Deschamps, Hagi, Eilts and Ziege in midfield (all 13 stars). Desailly (12 stars), Sammer (14) and Maldini (12) in defense and Seaman on goal (13).
Yes, I guess they made a considered decision to take Maldini over Ivanov or Stoichkov over Bergkamp etc. And of course Shearer's average went down a bit, so that's maybe what makes it hard to decide overall if 3 or 4 performances should be the minimum (of course when the average is exactly the same but one player plays an extra game it makes sense to choose him). I think it's interesting to see the ones who just had 3 rated games too though anyway. I wonder whether the fact that Euro 96 (like some recent World Cups) was better towards the start than the end explains to some extent why a few players who went out in the group stage would make a best rated XI anyway. Also it's worth adding (re-mentioning/clarifying) that Aljosa Asanovic and Christian Karembeu had an overall average of 3.75, so just outside the threshold for midfield players in my list above, and comfortably above some other players in other positions.
If Suker was not rated for the Portugal game, he'd be on 4.67 and that would change everything in terms of ratings lol! But that would surely apply to Boban too, and Asanovic would be on 5 (not unprecedented for FF ratings as Thuram managed it for 1998 WC, wheras Cruyff and Maradona in 1974 and 1986 had only 4.71 - but the rating scale maybe plays a part and not only their opinions here and of course Thuram's 6 out of 6 rating vs Croatia is treated the same as any Cruyff or Maradona performance even if they'd be worth 6*, or the number of 6's could be reduced arguably). I guess that can't have been what happened, but that makes the Bergkamp case even more curious (I don't see why he'd receive a o vs France though). In WC94 Caniggia had been given a 2/6 for 22 minutes before getting injured in one game.
Rui Costa would also be on 4.33 if not rated for the Croatia game (playing the same number of minutes as Bergkamp vs France) but I would guess that's not the case (not because the average rating would seem too high as much as the principle would seem out of line with how they do it for WC's and common sense given the report below has him as MOTM and I did review the first 20 minutes or so of that game and indeed he was playing well and combined at one moment with Joao Pinto excellently to make an opening that was wrongly pulled back for offside for example; in that time Figo showed a few nice skills as well as taking his goal well of course and he was roaming around various parts of the pitch and maybe I can understand why the Independent saw him as attacker even if I don't really agree - somehow for the 'purist' team they were the midfield was actually a bit cautious in some ways with Sousa taking the more advanced/creative role of the CM's and an 'extra' DM preferred to another AM or winger, although they did play a pure passing game and Rui Costa and Figo had plenty of freedom conversely). http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/portugal-take-advantage-of-slack-croatia-1337981.html Somehow Bergkamp wasn't rated or was given a 0/6 for the France game though it seems. Or the 12 for the group stage was a typo or error, or he should have been included in the overall summary at the end of the tournament with more than 12 points.
It can be seen here that Berger did receive a rating after coming on at half-time, but played extra-time too and Pedros came on at 62 minutes (and therefore played nearly an hour) and didn't get rated. Anyway, yes, things would change a lot in terms of my post for Rui Costa, Asanovic, Suker etc (and I'd need to check other substitutions I had treated as per what I had assumed due to how I thought it was done in World Cups - not quite maybe but it seemed like almost more than 20 minutes would get a rating as sub and certainly there are example where coming on with half an hour to go got a rating). It would be relevant for comme in terms of FF's assessment anyway - Rui Costa's potential *** less in doubt or Asanovic seeming to have very much a case for one himself, if their averages should be upgraded by over a point. Although maybe it'd be less helpful overall if excluding displays of up to hour from consideration for a rating (it couldn't be assumed they'd all be getting an average-ish rating, if they'd been rated, I wouldn't say either). So I don't know Puck whether the ratings for Portugal vs Croatia, or France vs Netherlands are viewable in any issue you got hold of? More likely the former I guess, but I assume neither and you just got a group stage points summary. I'd have to say my post is very much 'pending' at this point though, as my assumptions (which if anything went against rather than with my memories/impressions) feel more in doubt now somehow. The best XI's would change too based on average ratings rather than points totals, but would also feel a little bit less valid/informative anyway.
Players who received a red card receive typically a '0', save for a few rare exceptions. Players who are subbed out with an injury (outside their own fault) - while playing on with it for a while - received sometimes a soft rating too or none at all. I'll try to 'solve' the mystery although within the wider picture it is a small detail. Good observations re: Berger and Pedros. That is clarifying.
As can be seen from the 1994 WC, the La Repubblica ratings won't necessarily correlate really well with FF or other Italian sources, but I thought I'd check those few players and also the players making the provisional FF best XI's in midfield and attack, according to their grades: Suker: (4.5 - 8 - 5.5 - 7) =6.25 Boban: (5 - 6.5 - 5.5 - 7) =6 Asanovic: (5.5 - 7 - 6 - 7) =6.375 Rui Costa: (7 - 6.5 - 6.5 - 5.5) =6.375 Bergkamp: (5 - 7 - 6 - 5) =5.75 Shearer (pending Switzerland game being added): (6.5 - 7 - 5.5 - 6.5) =6.375 Stoichkov: (6.5 - 7 - 6) =6.5 Hagi: (7 - 6.5 - 5) =6.17 Letchkov: (5.5 - 6.5 - 7) =6.33 Poborsky: (5.5* - 7 - 6.5 - 7 - 7 - 5) =6.33 McManaman (pending Switzerland game being added): (6 - 6.5 - 5.5 - 5.5) =5.875 *Poborsky only played half a game himself in the opener, but if that wasn't rated by FF then he got a 5 and a top rated 6 in the other group games, and we know he scored 10 points over the 3 knockout games (less impressive ratings comparative to other players and the general trend, than La Repubblica give it seems in that instance although La Repubblica didn't rate his final game at all highly). Yes, I don't remember but maybe Bergkamp had played on with an injury then while Rui Costa was withdrawn to save him for the QF's (maybe even Bergkamp played 1 minute less according to some sources). If players playing half a game or more with no injury problems had been excluded from ratings then that'd be different to how it seems to be done for both WC94 and WC98 anyway.
Other selected La Repubblica average ratings.... Seaman: (pending Switzerland game added) (7.5 - 5.5 - 6.5 - 6) =6.375 Sammer: (6.5 - 6.5 - 6 - 7 - 7 - 6.5) =6.58 Blanc: (7 - 6 - 7 - 7 - 6.5) =6.7 Desailly: (7 - 6 - 6.5 - 6.5 - 6) =6.4 Maldini: (6.5 - 6.5 - 7) =6.67 Deschamps: (7 - 6 - 7 - 6) =6.5 Eilts: (6.5 - 6.5 - 7 - 7 - 6 - 5.5) =6.42 Nedved: (6 - 6.5 - 6.5 - 6.5 - 6) =6.3 Djorkaeff: (7 - 6.5 - 6.5 - 7 - 7) =6.8 Brian Laudrup: (7.5 - 5.5 - 7) =6.67 Klinsmann: (6.5 - 5.5 - 6 - 5.5) =5.875
The ratings I listed in brackets are in order so that should help - the England vs Switzerland one is not shown/known though and Klinsmann didn't play the first Germany game). I can do it later but that info might help you see for yourself anyway I guess. There could be some players with notable ratings not shown in my posts yet of course, but for example I had spotted the likelihood of Blanc and Djorkaeff getting high averages so included them (especially Djorkaeff might not have been listed otherwise as his FF average wasn't exceptionally high by any means....and interestingly he is French of course!).
So La Repubblica would look like this after the group stage among players you show the ratings for (minus the England players because the Switzerland match is missing) Deschamps - 6.67 Djorkaeff - 6.67 Eilts - 6.67 B. Laudrup - 6.67 Maldini - 6.67 Rui Costa - 6.67 (team loses in QF thus drags average down) Desailly - 6.5 Stoichkov - 6.5 Blanc - 6.33 Letchkov - 6.33 Nedved - 6.33 Poborsky - 6.33 (as PDG says it's likely that FF didn't rate him for the first game or low because he was a sub) Sammer - 6.33 Asanovic - 6.17 Hagi - 6.17 Bergkamp - 6.0 Klinsmann - 6.0 Suker - 6.0 Boban - 5.67 My feeling is that Suker is hard done by- although they give his best game an 8.0 which might be unmatched by anyone else (also remembering DFT his comments here; this is maybe a game for 'best ever performances in a tournament'?). Hagi receives a 5.0 in one game despite creating/preparing a few chances including a goal (what is his job really? for a team of that level?). Bergkamp receives a 5.0 against Scotland for basically doing the same thing. Also Sammer his position is noteworthy here, compared to France Football after the group stage (where he topped the list as only man with 14 stars) - merely my opinion.
I think Blanc was on 7.67 after the group games unless I had made an error Puck? But yeah, France Football did rate Sammer's group games better and La Repubblica rated his knockout games better interestingly. Actually Hagi didn't assist that goal, but Stinga did I worked out recently, but another source had said Hagi too. Maybe the famous player gets picked out incorrectly in some cases like that sometimes. But another trend could be indeed that a disappointing result does make performance-raters lean towards the lower ratings for players at times when in doubt I guess - it can be unusual for 'good' ratings to be awarded within a team that is struggling more perhaps? I did watch a few 20 minute openings of games on that Footballia site, and I'd say in that one Hagi had started not too bad (playing actually on the left of midfield, with Stinga on the right which is the area he did make the assist from later too) - not exactly disjointed or something, but perhaps with a few slightly off passes as opposed to wildly off, while still reminding of his class with a nice piece of first time control or something at times. Zidane vs Netherlands was a bit similar - not completely 'unrecognisable' from the player we know since that time. But I don't know and can't remember if their performances regressed a bit. Both the report here (Blanc had in the first 20 mins seemed both sharp and good on the ball indeed, and I'd noticed one Djorkaeff moment already that was good) and the caption for the game showed Bergkamp placed as a CM for some reason but he looked to be playing as a SS/AM type player behind Kluivert to me certainly rather than in between R. De Boer and Witschge: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/fitful-france-advance-1338498.html Here is the Footballia site in case people want to lok at it now or when browsing this thread in the future (I know you linked it on another thread Puck re: Dalglish initially a few days ago and then I've only mentioned it to you to point out another full Dalglish game, vs Spain, in 1984, is there too; but it is of course very good for Euros games especially in relatively recent times like 1996 indeed) http://footballia.net/matches/croatia-Portugal Don't worry anyway, as I was fooled by commentary about an apparent Figo assist (that was actually Folha) vs Denmark, even though I'd have known before (at the time and/or any recent time I looked into it probably lol!) that it wasn't him. And I also implied that FF used marks out of 5 by mistake recently when I knew full well it was out of 6 but didn't stop to think lol! Not all your thoughts on Hagi seem baseless at all though if we believe the FF ratings, or even some of the La Repubblica ones given scoring over 6.5 is not easy with them. He does seem a player dividing opinions moreso than in 1994 though (when the only different opinions might have been 'brilliant' and 'very good' although he had still been a bit variable of course - it'd be interesting to know if France Football gave him any 'perfect' 6's in Euro 96 but I suspect not),