So I think that Nedved ticks many boxes for walking in the ideal team of his generation. Super consistent, a number of goals in big games (the 1999 CWC final, his poorest season by the way), important, could be used in many roles, did well at national team level (with his stamina he could carry a team, and he did). I don't think Lazio had won nearly the same amount without him in the side, and he was difficult to replace. That generation of players had not really a 2nd Nedved. He hasn't the 'magic' of a Zidane or Baggio but for the type of player he was, he was actually pretty smooth and elegant. I'd say he moved around more polished than a Matthaus or Bryan Robson for instance. His motor skills, albeit of the type 'big steps, get home soon', were pretty fine. What works against him though, is that the Czech Republic is a small national team (with a language that no one speaks) and he didn't join a fancied club before the age of 29. This matters a lot for who the authorities, the media and the sponsors want to fancy and promote, as recent news reports on the FIFA corruption and sponsor complaints (to UEFA) on the abysmal BT Sports UCL viewing figures again underline. Once Nedved played for Juventus, he was immediately nominated three times in a row for 'best player of Serie A' (2002-2004). At league and domestic level (and again, both him and Zidane are from 1972) I think Nedved outplayed him in 1997-98, the 1999-00 double winning season and then at least two of the four seasons between 2002 and 2006 when both were ageing. I'd give Zidane the nod for 2000-01 and 2001-02, which not unsurprisingly coincides with when Zidane was widely hailed as "best in the world" (I think he was by consensus or default between 2000 and 2003 championed as such by the media, and it was defensible). But what of course creates the gap was Zidane's enigmatic and mystical personality and style (maybe, maybe not magnified by the media, camera angles and smoke machines), his timeless technique, and of course the application of this at the international level for club and country. At the club level the gap isn't as enormous as is occasionally thought. Zidane has the slightly better resume (finals won, finals reached), the slightly better goals and assists stats (in Champions League, UEFA Cup, Cup Winners Cup), but also played for the bigger and more powerful clubs. The Moggi and Perez clubs. Because it is also paired by the more transcendental technique, and his stats are actually slightly better (but didn't have nearly the same work rate), Zidane gets the nod. Even so, I thought Nedved was very good in the 1997-98 UEFA Cup campaign (best player on his team, in the league club topscorer), which they lost 3-0 in the final against peak Ronaldo's Inter. He was fine in the 1998-99 Cup Winners Cup that Lazio won (scored an important goal in the final, not a good league season). Excellent in the 2000-01 Champions League, which made Juve to step up efforts to sign him and think he'd be a better fit than Zidane. And then of course another excellent UCL season in 2002-03. His 2000-01 campaign was however by no means inferior, in my opinion. With 19-20 Champions League assists in total he is on 10th place for the first 20 years of the Champions League (1992 - 2012). Giggs, Beckham, Figo, Zidane, Henry, Raul, Seedorf, Xavi and Roberto Carlos ahead of him. The main problem already starts however with that he didn't play on a truly 'big' team before the age of 29. Then as a veteran, the mid-30s, he was admittedly still very good (in a declined league) but what works against him here is that it isn't tied to tangible moments or a tangible achievement. A moment, a defining image. For example: the veteran Teddy Sheringham is occasionally remembered because at the age of 35-36 he was club topscorer of Manchester United, in 2000-01, when Manchester was one of the three best club teams in the world. Dennis Bergkamp at the age of 35-36 is remembered because with 14 league assists he was slightly behind peak Lampard (unquestionably elite that 2004-05 season), all from open play, and scored 8 goals (no pens) as well for a championship contending team. And - you all know where this is leading to - the same is true for Zidane, despite all the debate and controversy around his post 2003 years and tournaments.
Argentina fan, got it. What do you think of Redondo then, considering the topic, where would you place him amongst Zidane, Xavi and Iniesta? True, Barcelona have played in a more direct fashion with Luis Enrique at the helm and that certainly works against Iniesta being able to showcase the same level of domination from midfield. In fact, when I think about it, its really difficult to find another set of teams who played with the level of focus on possession that Pep's Barcelona and Del Bosque's Spain did, as opposed to a more direct 'move the ball to the forwards as quickly as possible' style. So in a way, maybe the circumstances that Xavi/Iniesta played in during 08-12 could be the ones that should be considered as an outlier, from that perspective of domination. Can you share the source for the nominations please Puck? The actual award winners information seems readily available online, but I have never been able to find the nominees information. I am assuming you are talking about the Oscar del Calcio here, considering that for the Guerin d'Oro, all the players with a minimum number of games in the league campaign (I believe it is around 20), are eligible and thus could be considered as nominees. Also, what do you think about the ESM appearances i.e. for the time when both Zidane and Nedved were playing for big clubs (01-02 and onwards)?
Here: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_del_calcio_AIC_2003 Between 2002 and 2004 (for Juventus) one of the three foreign nominees and one of six overall. In terms of Guerin d'Oro he was already one of the best in 1997-98. His weakest season between 1996 and 2006 is 1998-99 (like Zidane, coincidentally). First of all, this was my own assessment with regards to domestic seasons: "At league and domestic level (and again, both him and Zidane are from 1972) I think Nedved outplayed him in 1997-98, the 1999-00 double winning season and then at least two of the four seasons between 2002 and 2006 when both were ageing. I'd give Zidane the nod for 2000-01 and 2001-02, which not unsurprisingly coincides with when Zidane was widely hailed as "best in the world" (I think he was by consensus or default between 2000 and 2003 championed as such by the media, and it was defensible)." In terms of ESM XI: 2000-01: Nedved 3, Zidane 2. Nedved is in the 'team of the season' while Zidane is not. Personally I disagree with this outcome and I think there's a lot to back it up, but since this is no new ground I leave it at here. Lazio has 11 inclusions in total while Juventus only 3. Juventus finished 2nd in the table, four points ahead of number three Lazio. 2001-02: Zidane 5, Nedved 1. Zidane has two inclusions at the back end of the season when he played (and admittedly did well) in the Champions League. Zidane on his own has as many inclusions as the whole Juventus team combined (Thuram, Ferrara, Nedved, Trezeguet twice). Real Madrid has 15 inclusions together. 2002-03: Nedved 5, Zidane 3. Real Madrid with 12 inclusions and Juventus with 11. This is Nedved's vintage season, at least in popular perception. 2003-04: Zidane 4, Nedved 2. Juventus with 2 inclusions (i.e. Nedved alone) and Real Madrid 14 inclusions. Is this really an accurate distribution? Maybe at hindsight, yes, with all the matchfixing surrounding Juventus. Real Madrid finished 4th in their league, and Juventus 3rd this season. 2004-05: Nedved 1, Zidane 0. Juventus 10 inclusions, Real Madrid 1 (Ronaldo). Both are now 32+ years old. Juventus has 9 times defensive players included (Buffon, Cannavaro, Thuram), plus Nedved. FC Barcelona's Ronaldinho/Rijkaard era now in full swing. 2005-06: Nedved 0, Zidane 0. Juventus 6 inclusions, Real Madrid 1 (Robinho). Quite possibly Nedved is actually sold short here, relative to his team mates, per the Italian sources (and my own perception, not too long ago I watched Milan vs Juventus of this season). Anyway, Juventus was exposed midway the season, and later punished.
Thanks, I can see the detailing goes all the way back to 1997. Typically I make it a point to look at the local language wiki pages, but must have missed doing that for this award. Thanks for sharing the comparison and your analysis. Since you added the 00/01 season, I thought we should just as well extend it all the way back. On doing this, one gets - 1996/97: Nedved 0, Zidane 2. No inclusions for Lazio. Thirteen inclusions apart from Zidane's two, for Juventus. A strong team performance overall from Juventus that season. 1997/98: Nedved 2, Zidane 5. Nesta has one inclusion apart from Nedved's two for Lazio. Zidane as you mentioned almost matches the rest of the entire Juventus squad's inclusions. 1998/99: Nedved 0, Zidane 0. You already provided commentary, though one could mention the knee injury that Zidane carried and for which he underwent surgery at the end of the season. Am not sure about Nedved regarding whether he had similar challenges. 1999/00: Nedved 0, Zidane 2. Lazio has 10 inclusions, including 4 in midfield. So I'm not sure what to make of Nedved's exclusion over the length of the season.
I added it because it shows Nedved higher while that is not correct I think. Nedved did play very well in the Champions League for Lazio. At domestic level Nedved was really good. Both Gazzetta dello Sport and Guerin Sportivo are in agreement here about his standing: Gazzetta had him 8th (5th outfield player) and Guerin Sportivo had him 4th highest average grade. He was Lazio's club topscorer in the league and across all competitions. After a red card in the 28th round ('coincidentally' against Juventus) Lazio lost 6 and drew 1 of the remaining games. This illustrates Nedved his influence. With him out and then three incomplete matches Lazio tumbled from 3rd to 7th place. http://www.bdfutbol.com/en/p/j96048.html?cat=-&temp=1997-98&equip=-&rival=-&noj=1 Even though not as important and influential as in the league, he was I think also their best player in the UEFA Cup campaign, with some decisive actions. Lazio lost the final 3-0 against peak Ronaldo's Inter. About players as Riquelme and such it is often boasted how they 'carry' their team, but for Nedved (in this season but also whole career) there's actually something to support. At least at domestic level. Those four inclusions are three for Veron and one for Almeyda. Lazio won the double this season. Without Nedved in the team they drew four games in the league and won two (against Lecce and Perugia). Without Nedved they drew one Coppa Italia game. Without Nedved in the starting line-up they lost in the UCL against Feyenoord ( ), drew against Bayer Leverkusen, and won against Maribor and Dynamo Kiev. This was a stronger Lazio team as 1997-98, but the influence is still visible. He scored 5 goals in the league (no pens) with their club topscorer Salas on 11 goals. Mundo Deportivo placed him in their ideal team of the season and he was nominated for UEFA club midfielder of the year. Guerin Sportivo had him on #3 this season (behind Frey, a goalkeeper, and Davids) and Gazzetta dello Sport had him as #7 (4th highest outfield player; behind Montero, Thuram and Davids). In both cases a gap of 0.15 with the 2nd highest rated Lazio player (Veron or Simeone). Nedved wasn't good in the Champions League (unlike 2000-01 - with some goals and assists), but neither was Zidane. In other seasons (2000-01) Zidane was domestically better, but for 1997-98 and 1999-00 Nedved has a fine record to show. Without hesitation I'd put him in my 1995 - 2005 team.
Ok, got it. Since it wasn't a year wherein he played for Juventus, I thought your addition of it meant you wanted the comparison to be extended to all of their ESM relevant years. Regarding the 99/00 double, Lazio did win the league on the final day after Juventus lost away to Perugia in a game which had to be stopped for around 70 minutes at halftime due to torrential rains and was then played on a pitch covered in puddles. AFAIK, Juventus was not very happy with the referee (Collina) for allowing the match to continue in those conditions. Also, regarding Zidane in CL 97/98. His game away vs a strong Kiev side in the QF (wherein he had 3 assists) was quite spectacular. He had some great goals and assists against Manchester United, Feyenoord and Kosice in the group games and Monaco in the SF as well, IIRC. For those years Nedved takes the LM spot on my team as well, no doubt about it (especially considering that he has no real competition apart from Giggs). And as you pointed out earlier, 1972 was indeed a peculiarly strong year producing 4 separate Balon d'Or winners, with all four capable of playing in the same team without much positional change (Rivaldo - SS, Figo - RM, Nedved - LM and Zidane - AM). I doubt any other calendar year carries that distinction.
Not to offend you, but in my opinion the part in bold is a fact, that is, it shouldn't even be open to debate because it can be comprehensively demonstrated on the basis of video-based data, but because it isn't easy to demonstrate said fact because it's considerably time-consuming to document the video-based data that is necessary before ever demonstrating said fact... Well it's not an easy fact to demonstrate/establish. In any case, it isn't an important fact as it relates to the specific context of Zidane vs. Nedved, because within the given context, just the fact that video replays are themselves based on skills, should be enough evidence to agree that Zidane benefited from the fact that the media of the time was skills-oriented. In contrast, Nedved would probably be more appreciated in Messi's era, because Messi's era is more statistics-oriented, than it is skills-oriented. But anyways... In my opinion Zidane was demonstrably magnified by the media of the time; most of every step over, most of every dribbling run, most of every distinctive skill, was shown through 2-3 different camera angles; the use of technique-based replays, meant to magnify the technique of the players. The other 'new ability' of Zidane's generation, was the 'political play' behind those video replays - not all the players had the same corporate power behind them. To push all those replays - air time is not random, it costs money, and some players had more money behind them. But even if you disagree with the argument that more money (interest) behind a player, was a guarantee that that player would get more replay (interest) time - the fact that the replays themselves were based on skills, is inherently biased in favor of skillful players, which is in my opinion an important fact to keep in mind when discussing Zidane vs. Nedved. In other words: in this specific context, Zidane was inherently magnified by the media, compared to the contextually 'boring and limited' Nedved. In the one-minute-long video above, there are at least 2 skills by Nedved that were worthy of what I call, "the replay treatment." (That one-minute-long video could easily be 20 minutes longer, if I actually took the time to make a comprehensive video about all the skills by Nedved, that deserved the replay treatment, but that didn't get the replay treatment. That type of thing simply doesn't happen to Zidane, regardless of how Zidane actually performs in each respective game.) If that were Zidane, those 2 'dribbling runs' would've definitely gotten the replay time they arguably deserved. But of course, Nedved does not get the replay treatment, because Nedved never was backed by a financial giant such as Adidas or Nike (for whatever the reasons). Francesco Totti - who had a contract with Nike in those days if I'm not mistaken - would get a decent amount of replays. Zinedine Zidane - the face of Adidas at the time - would get a lot of replays, definitely more than Totti on average, and not because Zidane tried more replay-worthy skills. A lot of fans do not properly understand this fact, but that 'replay treatment' policy was an entirely new thing in football. That camera-based game of politics didn't actually existed before R9 and Zidane. Put differently: in a fair fight, Michel Platini's Euro 1984 would be popularly perceived as equal or as superior to Zidane's 2000 Euro, but the reality is that 100% of the great ball retention skills by Platini 1984 were captured from artistically-mediocre (impersonal) camera angles, whereas the great ball retention skills by Zidane 2000 were captured from artistically-fluid (personalized) camera angles. And so, perhaps the expert students of the sport will still chose Platini 1984 as the equal or as the better performance, but the vast majority of the fans who vote primarily on the basis of pure perception - those fans will readily vote for Zidane 2000 as the obvious choice. The camera-based differences between Platini 1984 vs. Zidane 2000, is more or less the essence of the obstacles that Nedved had to play against (compared to Zidane), in my opinion. (But of course, Platini was a skillful player, in a way that Nedved never was.) The 2 videos above are a microcosm of the overall reality, as I see it at least. Valderrama vs. Argentina 1993 was routinely closed down (i.e. systematically fouled) by 2-3 Argentina players; literally all 2 of Valderrama's attempted dribbling runs, resulted in tactical fouls on Valderrama, including one particularly dangerous knee-high tackle that should've been an easy yellow card for the referee to punish accordingly (but then the referee didn't even used the yellow card to punish the systematic use of such blatant violence); incorrect off-side calls in many of Colombia's attacks (i.e. Argentina's defense was actively helped out by a referee who conveniently used the off-side call most of every time that Argentina was in trouble); most of Colombia's goals came from short passes, obviously correct short passes that didn't allowed the referee to use the off-side call so as to actively conveniently help out the home team; etc. And also to consider: the fact that a brutal foul on Valderrama was replayed from several camera angles (2 replay camera angles in the Argentina version; 1 replay camera angle in the German version), but then the actual technical skills by Valderrama were NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, shown on replays. It demonstrates just how different the culture was back then - fouls were magnified via replays (on average), but actual skills were not magnified via replays (on average). The fact that skills could be magnified via replays (on average), was not a prevalent practice in that era. Put differently: Maradona getting hacked down was the type of thing that would get at least 1 replay segment per every 3 fouls, and there are plenty of "Maradona gets brutally fouled" replays of Maradona at World Cup 1990, but then there's close to zero replays of Maradona actually doing something entertaining at World Cup 1990; and Maradona did do a few entertaining skills at WC 1990, but the cameras consistently did not magnified those technical skills via the use of replays. Replays were systematically or unconsciously used to magnify the violent side of football. Replays were systematically or unconsciously not used to magnify the stylish technical aspect of football. "Men playing out there... They step up and play through the pain... Those are real players out there... Messi and Ronaldo wouldn't last a year in those conditions..." That type of warrior-based tribal mentality was magnified by the replays of that era, but then curiously, a highly difficult (and perhaps quite stylish) technical skill by a famous player would not get the replay treatment of that era. The defensive and perhaps malicious aspect of football was readily (but not necessarily consciously) magnified by the cameras/replays, but then the entertaining technical aspect of football was readily (but not necessarily consciously) ignored by the cameras/replays. That definitely changed in R9's and Zidane's era; in Zidane's era, the replays focused primarily on the technical (and perhaps stylish) aspect of the sport, instead of the defensive (and perhaps malicious) aspect of the sport. Zidane vs. Brazil 2006 never really had 2-3 Brazilian players on him; zonal defense more or less guarantees that Zidane never gets 3 Brazilians on him, because it is impossible to do zonal defense properly when you have 3 of your defensive pressing players systematically 'shadowing' one specific French player (i.e. it wouldn't truly be 'zonal defense' when you actively have 2-3 Brazil players systematically following Zidane around); Zidane was never brutally hacked down in any of his dribbling runs; Zidane was never brutally hacked down at all, not when dribbling, and also not when not dribbling; literally every single skill by Zidane was replayed several times, from several camera angles, therefore deliberately magnifying Zidane's technique (Riquelme was another Adidas player, but Riquelme never had anywhere near that many replays in any of his World Cup 2006 games and/or Copa America 2007 games, and Riquelme did plenty of replay-worthy skills in both of those tournaments); Zidane's assist was in large part the result of incredibly lazy defending by Brazil, that is, 3 Brazilians trying to defend against 5 French players, and with Roberto Carlos tying his shoe laces when he should've been closing down Thierry Henry; etc. The fact of the matter is not necessarily obvious, if at all obvious, but definitely self-evident when you gather/uncover enough data. The 4 points below cover the essentials of what I think is the underlying truth of the matter: 1. More cameras means more protection, and therefore actively using 2-3 Brazil players against Zidane, would create a lot of fouls and a lot of yellow cards - it isn't as efficient a defensive tactic as it was back in the days when defenders were allowed to be truly cynical and truly malicious on a consistent basis, without so much as a yellow card to nullify/regulate the reckless use of violence-against-talent. 2. Football was faster and defensive players were expected to also attack, therefore using 2-3 players to nullify Zidane/Valderrama is not as efficient as it was back in 1993, when the sport was slower and when defenders were not expected to systematically join the attack. Which not coincidentally is why zonal defense took over eventually - it was the logical conclusion to plain old evolution/process. (That being said, some 'dead trends' have a way of circulating back into relevance, so I wouldn't be surprised if a modern equivalent of 'man marking' became popular in the future.) 3. There's more replays (i.e. more cameras) in Zidane's era, particularly if you happen to be Zidane doing a half-decent sombrero on fat R9... So the technique of the player gets routinely magnified, in a grand way that didn't existed in 1993. 4. The off-side rule is much more attack-oriented in Zidane's era, compared to 1993 where you routinely see horrible defensive-oriented off-side calls all the time, in all competitions.
Excellent post - I agree with most of it. In my opinion Zidane is clearly ahead of Nedved, however, Zidane wouldn't be clearly ahead, if at all ahead, without his success at NT level. The list below is a recollection of additional thoughts that I have of Zidane's perception as an all timer. 1. In Zidane's era, there was a demonstrable lack of great South American players who could realistically and consistently compete against Zidane between 1996 and 2003. Ronaldo and Rivaldo are the only South American names that come to mind. Riquelme was 19 years old in 1998, and still only 24 years old in 2003 - too young to have consistently competed against prime Zidane, not to mention that Riquelme at 24 years of age arguably achieved more than Zidane at 24 years of age. There was no successor to Uruguay's Enzo Francescoli. (Inter Milan's Alvaro Recoba had talent, but injuries and perhaps a lack of ambition, devastated his career. Furthermore, Recoba was 21 years old in 1996, so to compete against prime Zidane, Recoba would've needed to hit his prime - without the injuries - at 24 years of age, which is something that Zidane himself didn't do.) There was no successor to Argentina's Diego Maradona. (Sebastian Veron wasn't as talented as Carlos Valderrama, let alone even remotely comparable to Maradona; and Fernando Redondo was great, but his prime came and went before Zidane's better years, not to mention that Redondo played a defensive role that would never allow him to compete - at least not in terms of the perceived reputation - against an attacking midfielder like Zidane. Moreover, Redondo also has a very short NT career with Argentina, which becomes another significant obstacle against Redondo's standing as an all time legend.) There was no successor to Colombia's Carlos Valderrama. There was only a successor to Brazil's Romario-Bebeto, in Ronaldo-Rivaldo. In conclusion: I think that Zidane inadvertently benefited from the sudden lack of great South American players in that era between 1996 and 2003. Zidane never actually competed against a great South American attacking midfielder (and for the record: I do not consider Rivaldo an attacking midfielder). And to make matters worse, the one South American that could compete against Zidane, the Brazilian Ronaldo, reached his peak at 21 years of age because injury stole him of arguably his better years. So not only did Zidane never competed against a great South American attacking midfielder, but Zidane also didn't actually competed against R9, who was either injured or consistently struggling with form (because of persistent nagging injuries related to his big knee injury). Zidane's generation was an incredibly good era to be a European player. It's more or less the equivalent of Michel Platini never competing against Zico, because Zico gets injured before 1981 (never to be the same player again). It's the equivalent of Cristiano Ronaldo never competing against Lionel Messi, because Messi gets injured before 2010 (never to be the same player again). It's the equivalent of Johan Cruyff never having to realistically compete against Franz Beckenbauer, because Beckenbauer plays for Portugal. Zidane's generation was an incredibly good era to be a European super star - perhaps the best era ever to have been a European super star. And particularly so when the other great European super star of that generation - Luis Figo - plays for a team that cannot realistically compete against Zidane's national team. So Zidane has the Euro and the World Cup, as 2 tournaments where he should definitely outclass Figo. Johan Cruyff never enjoyed such a benefit over his direct rival in Franz Beckenbauer. 2. The demonstrable lack of South American creative players, also played against Ronaldo and against Rivaldo, who get routinely discredited for having dominated 'easy' Copa America tournaments where nobody could realistically compete against Brazil; arguably not even Argentina's A team, which is arguably the primary reason as to why Argentina kept using their B team in those CA tournaments - it gave Argentina a seemingly legitimate excuse to discredit the dominance of Ronaldo's Brazil. "It was Argentina's B team... Mexico could easily beat Argentina's B team... In fact, Mexico won the Confederations Cup Final in 1999 vs. Brazil's B team, the same exact year that Rivaldo dominated Argentina's B team..." And not coincidentally, that demonstrable lack of South American talent also inevitably inflated the perception of the Euro - Zidane had to play against Figo, whereas Ronaldo/Rivaldo had to play against Argentina's B team, post-Valderrama Colombia, post-Francescoli Uruguay, etc. Zidane inadvertently benefited in this regard - Zidane would get great credit for the Euro, because the Euro was perceived as a great tournament with great players such as Figo or Totti or Mendieta or Bergkamp, etc. On the other hand, R9 and Rivaldo would get discredited for dominating demonstrably easy Copa America tournaments. Back in 1987, the Copa America had legitimate creative talents in Maradona, Valderrama, Francescoli, and Romario. The same was true for the 1989 Copa America. At any point in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, the Copa America had great creative talents in Zico, Socrates, Falcao, Maradona, Kempes, Bochini, and Francescoli - arguably comparable to the Euro of that time. Back in the late 1960s, Brazil alone would've boasted more legitimate talent than most of Europe combined - arguably comparable to the Euro at that point in time. Zinedine Zidane just happened to have played the better years of his career, at more or less the same exact time as the Copa America was at its lowest ever point. In essence, Zidane had one additional big medium (the difficult Euro) to showcase his skill. In contrast, Ronaldo and Rivaldo had one less additional big medium (the easy Copa America) to showcase their skill. If Zidane went missing in the World Cup (as was the case at the 2002 World Cup, because Zidane was injured), he still had the Euro going for him. On the other hand, if R9 or Rivaldo went missing in a World Cup, the Copa America would do nothing for their all time credentials - at least not in the opinions of the majority of the public, who were well aware of the fact that the Copa America only had Ronaldo-Rivaldo as legitimate great talents, but was otherwise lacking the Francescolis and Valderramas to elevate the overall perception of the tournament. (The Copa America has never really recovered from that low point in the Ronaldo-Rivaldo era. It still is perceived as a relatively mediocre tournament, even though it does in fact have players like Messi, Suarez, Neymar, Rodriguez, Alexis, all competing in the same tournament.) 3. The lack of legitimately great talent at the Copa America, was also perhaps contextually true in Europe as well. Contextually true, perhaps, in the sense that Zidane didn't ever actually competed against other European midfielder playmakers with a reputation for being magical or wizard-like. There was no successor to Gheorghe Hagi (who was already 33 years old at World Cup 1998). There was no successor to Michael Laudrup (who was already 33 years old at World Cup 1998). Rui Costa arguably had the talent, but he never had an NT performance that could be compared to Hagi 1994 or Laudrup 1986 or Valderrama 1990, etc. Not to mention, that Costa declined contextually early for a player of his style; Costa was only 30 years old at World Cup 2002 (roughly the same age as Valderrama at World Cup 1990), and Andrea Pirlo was already AC Milan's primary playmaker as early as in season 2003-04 (Pirlo was 24 years old during the entirety of that season). Dennis Bergkamp was already 29 years old at World Cup 1998 (where he was arguably as good as Zidane was), but he wasn't a midfielder playmaker, and his age arguably started to show in consistent colors at Euro 2000 (at 31 years of age Bergkamp definitely did not replicated the level of performance that he displayed at World Cup 1994, World Cup 1998, and Euro 1992. And Holland didn't qualified to the 2002 World Cup, so Bergkamp didn't get the chance to prove that he could still deliver the goods at +31 years of age). Luis Figo was more of a winger playmaker, than a midfielder playmaker like Hagi or Laudrup. The fact of the matter is that Zinedine Zidane arguably was the only midfielder playmaker of his kind left in Europe, which arguably heightened the perception of Zidane as a singularly unique talent - perhaps he wouldn't have been perceived as such a singularly unique talent, had the world seen Hagi and Laudrup with the added benefit of high resolution replays. In the early 1990s, Zidane would've been another magical wizard-like midfielder playmaker like Hagi and Laudrup were. In the late 1990s, Zidane was the only magical midfielder playmaker that the whole of Europe had to offer - I think this matters a great deal when it comes to the perception of such a 'unique' player. 4. The players that in my opinion could've realistically challenged Zidane were; Alessandro Del Piero, Ronaldo, Luis Figo, Rivaldo, and Francesco Totti. (Pavel Nedved played for the wrong national team, and didn't have enough of the 'innate talent' that is traditionally associated to players like Zidane, Figo, Laudrup, Hagi, etc.) Alessandro Del Piero declined early as a result of a big knee injury, and he was too young pre-injury to have established his standing as an all timer. Ronaldo was a very similar story to Del Piero's - declined young as a result of a big knee injury and was too young pre-injury to have established his standing as an all timer, albeit that wouldn't be fully correct for R9, who did do enough at the tender age of 21 to have established his place as a unanimous Top 30 all timer (but still not enough to have established himself as a greater all time legend than Zidane, who was already 25 years old when Ronaldo was only 21 years old). Rivaldo declined early, and pre-decline he didn't do enough in Europe. Not to mention that Rivaldo already was 26 years old at World Cup 1998, so Rivaldo declined early, and he also earned international recognition at 26-27 years of age. Francesco Totti said no to the big clubs who came calling, including Real Madrid who voiced their interest very early in Totti's career - and sadly Totti's loyalty to Roma came at a great cost to his standing as an all timer, because he couldn't compete in the big stages of the Champions League. Moreover, Totti had a career-changing ankle injury in February 2006 - Totti in my opinion was never the same player again, and the injury especially nullified him at World Cup 2006, the tournament that could've defined pre-injury Totti as an all timer legend at the World Cup. Also to be noted: Totti was only 23 years old at Euro 2000, compared to Zidane who was 23 years old at Euro 1996 - Totti's chances of competing against prime Zidane were quite remote, at least looking at 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, when Totti was 21-24 years old. For reference: Zidane himself at 21-24 years of age was relatively not even on the map. Luis Figo in my opinion achieved a higher peak at club level than Zidane ever did at club level, but Figo played for an inferior national team (i.e. the Portugal team that underperformed at World Cup 2002 and also didn't qualified to World Cup 1998) in an era of football where glory at the World Cup and/or the Euro was still largely considered as a greater achievement than glory at the Champions League. For example, Del Piero's 1995-96 Champions League, arguably doesn't have anywhere near the legend-making power of Andrea Pirlo's Euro 2012. And Zidane's 2001-02 Champions League, arguably doesn't have anywhere near the legend-making authority of Zidane's Euro 2000 or Zidane's World Cup 2006. Quite simply: Figo had a massive obstacle against him (compared to Zidane). Furthermore, by the time that Portugal became more competitive (at least in terms of actual results), Figo was already obviously past his better days at Euro 2004 and again at World Cup 2006. Moreover, when Figo declined as a result of decreased athleticism, it was more noticeable than when Zidane declined as a result of decreased athleticism - so Zidane also gets the (somewhat artificial) nod in terms of longevity, which is a category where 'dribblers' like Figo typically lose out to 'languid playmakers' like Zidane. Dribblers like Figo tend to decline heavily as a result of decreased athleticism - nothing Figo or Ronaldinho can do about that, except transition gracefully into their sunset years. Zidane will always get the nod here purely because he never was expected to dribble as consistently as prime Figo nor as consistently as prime Ronaldinho, that is, Zidane benefits here (if not necessarily unfairly, then definitely conveniently) from the fact that his role isn't as reliant on pure athleticism, whereas Figo's role was very reliant on pure athleticism. In other words: it isn't pure coincidence that the players with the best longevity, more often than not are exactly the type of players who never played very athletic roles. In this regard, the argument over 'longevity' can be somewhat artificial, in that false conclusions/implications are typically conveniently fabricated by the fans of these players, e.g., false conclusions such as the argument that Zidane had better longevity than Figo, because Zidane was born with a special ability that Figo wasn't born with. When in reality, Zidane more than anything benefited from the fact that great athleticism was never expected from him in the abilities (such as dribbling ability) that require great athleticism; so Zidane will decline less than Figo or Ronaldinho, but Zidane also will probably not have the same club peak as Figo or Ronaldinho. And Figo or Ronaldinho cannot transition into less athletic roles as efficiently as Zidane, because Zidane has an entire career of preparation/experience in that area, compared to Figo or Ronaldinho whom are expected to transition in a matter of 1-2 years. Overall, I think that it is a largely correct conclusion to think of Zidane as the best player of his generation - but Zidane didn't consistently played against players like pre-injury Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, prime Ronaldinho, etc. That's not to say that Zidane's generation was a weak era altogether (I don't think that's the case, at all), but I think that it's demonstrable that Zidane played in an era where he wasn't consistently challenged by players like prime Ronaldinho. Perhaps only Luis Figo consistently challenged Zidane, but of course, Figo got the wrong of the deal because Portugal couldn't compete against national teams like France or Italy, and because Figo (as is typical with dribblers) declined heavily at 31 years of age, compared to Zidane who still was at the height of his powers at 31 years of age.
Thanks for this example. It shows what I tried to say. Although he was a player of the type "with big steps and large strides you get to home soon" (and in essence football is indeed that simple), relative to a Bryan Robson or 20 years later Van Bommel he looks pretty refined in his motor skills. Not as mechanic and robotic as many of his mold (hence Matthaus played to his 'Terminator' - the cyborg - nickname). Also next to Lampard or Gerrard imho. But that's perhaps personal taste, in part, the other part is that he had probably indeed an efficient running technique, for making many kilometres in a game. The second example also shows that although his technique was basic and functional (next to Zidane), he was very good in bringing difficult balls down and playable within 0.1 seconds. Under pressure by opponents as well. He could control balls effectively (without being unusually error prone - this was my criticism of the Romario highlight reels) on knee and pelvis height while being one the move and/or sprinting. His shooting technique was by the way for a midfielder above average, and imho better than Zidane, Veron, Rui Costa, Valeron and many others. And he went for the high percentages. He also starred at euro 2004 against the Netherlands. I'll think about re-watching what the pundits said about him then (e.g. Johan Cruijff, who analysed him).
Here is the OPTA Index (i.e. predecessor to 'WhoScored') for euro 2000. It includes players who got eliminated in the group stage. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Football:+EURO+2000+SUPER+STATS;+ONLY+one+man+in+our+team+of+the...-a065937842 Of course goals scored count for a lot, which only makes the high placing of Guardiola (with 0 assists) and Bergkamp (with 0 goals but top assister with 3-4 assists) for example more remarkable.
Here's an old article from The Scotsman. I'm not saying I agree, but it's indeed somewhat forgotten he was among the best of the tournament. And then saw his team eliminated from the sidelines with an injury (subbed out in the 40th minute, Greece scored 1-0 in the 105th).
Strongly agree with most of the above statements. Nedved in my opinion is arguably one of the all time underrated legends - the subtlety in his play was never properly appreciated. Nedved was great at the pure basics: he didn't do step overs and he didn't do fancy tricks, but he rarely ever lost the ball, because it was extremely difficult to dispossess him without also fouling him. He just had a consistent subtle little way of touching the ball before the defender, thus forcing the defender into a tactical foul. And the fact that he had the physical ability of immediately recovering ("bouncing back") from those hard fouls, meant that he would do it over and over again - willingly sacrificing his body in situations where many other talented players would think about protecting themselves (protecting themselves being code for: exaggerating the foul, before the foul actually occurs - essentially diving before any hard contact occurs). Moreover, the fact that Nedved was extremely accurate at dribbling with his right or his left foot, definitely helped him in drawing as many fouls as he did. And added to his extraordinary stamina, extraordinary ability to immediately recover from hard fouls (an extremely underrated quality for a player to have), above average agility, above average strength, above average top speed, etc. Nedved could really dictate the tempo of the midfield on the basis of drawing fouls seemingly at will, because he was better than the sum of his parts, because there were so many ignored subtleties to Nedved's overall playing style - it's the reason why Europe hasn't seen another Nedved. That being said, playing for the Czech Republic was too big of an obstacle for Nedved to overcome (compared to Zidane). In other words: Zidane had the 2 World Cups and The 3 Euros to elevate his standing as an all timer. Nedved played 1 World Cup and did well at 2 Euros, but Zidane really created a significant gap with his NT legacy. And additionally and perhaps most importantly in the grand scheme of perception, Nedved - fairly or unfairly - never was perceived as a wizard-like midfielder playmaker... If you had a good but not genius midfielder playmaker, and you compare him against a wizard-like flawed genius with an enigmatic personality to go with his playing style -- the wizard-like character in Zidane will always predictably get the nod over the "practiced talent, but not natural talent" that Nedved was perceived as. Zidane had the traditional 'innate ability' that the fans traditionally prefer. In other words: Nedved had 2 big obstacles against him - he was never perceived as a magician nor as a wizard-like midfielder playmaker, AND he played for the Czech Republic. So it's really nothing short of amazing that Nedved achieved as much as he did, coming from the Czech Republic and having the unimpressive reputation (e.g. "great but not a genius") that he had throughout his entire career. Nedved also was distinctly impressive vs. Manchester United 2002-03 (Top 2 club in the world at the time, in my opinion), Real Madrid 2002-03 (Top 2 club in the world at the time, in my opinion), AC Milan 2002-03 (the club that won the Champions League), and Barcelona 2002-03 (a talented and underrated club at the time). I'm not sure I've ever seen another midfielder playmaker deliver that many impressive performances, against that many top tier clubs, in the space of one single season. Nedved's first touch was elite level quality. I've seen him control the ball with his shoulders and/or chest, in almost Ronaldinho-like fashion - it's just that when Nedved does it, Nedved doesn't get 2-3 different camera angles replaying the ability. It's also a part of the reason as to why I do not rate Zidane's first touch as highly as many Zidane fans do - it's because I have repeatedly watched players like Nedved and Totti do it just as efficiently and as consistently as Zidane, but Zidane did it with more spectacular style (personality) behind the skills. In other words: I genuinely enjoy the added personality/flair that Zidane adds to his skills, but I do think that some of Zidane's skills get recklessly overrated when compared to less spectacular players who otherwise were equally efficient at those basic skills; first touch being a BASIC ability, at the end of the day. It just isn't an extremely difficult ability in my opinion, and a good number of world class players were actually much better at first touch than Zidane fans give them credit for - Nedved is one of those world class players, and Nedved actually had the physical ability to be relatively "literally all over the place" in a football pitch, which allowed him to use his elite first touch ability more consistently than Zidane could. (Zidane of course, does get the replay - youtube - highlights, so the general perception predictably is that Zidane was more consistent in terms of using his first touch ability efficiently.)
Unfortunately it has only the half-time analysis on the disk (which has nevertheless some interesting and technical comments). But - as I vaguely remembered - JC14 did say Nedved was "a player to my heart" (link). If I see some more and it's interesting I might show. I did see Edgar Davids and Juan Sebastian Veron mentioned Nedved as the best midfielder they played with in their career, "the most useful teammate as perceived from my own playing position", as Davids put it. These brief highlights show a few of the subtleties, including a visionary left footed through pass. This is also a vintage game, against the team that ended #2 in the league. In the first half he creates the first goal, scored the second with a long range left footed shot. Around 17:30 he launches a counter attack from deep. In the second half his presence fades a bit, the commentator saying at one point Davids is the man of the match, but then in the 83rd minute it is again Nedved who makes the difference (outsmarting, out-sprinting and outplaying Zanetti) and prepares the 3rd goal. Basically one might say in a counter attacking team it is indeed so simple as running fast and hard (simplistically said; in many matches at the highest level the team with the most intensity sprints and top speed does tend to win), but those nuances and subtleties have to be appreciated and undoubtedly add some extra percentages. Certain tidbits in his career as Lazio dropping from 3rd to 7th in the table without him add to his legacy (back up the high Gazzetta and Guerin ratings in 5-6 seasons), which also doesn't make it particularly surprising to see him score well in (imperfect) metrics as this (in the top 100 out of 30000+ players). In the end I agree with leadleader that most probably he doesn't surpass Zidane (or Ronaldo Fenomeno) but for me he walks easily in the 1995 - 2005 team. Estel mentioned Ryan Giggs and he might move then to 1990 - 2000 if Nedved takes the left wing spot (Giggs's Ballon d'Or votes came in 1993, 1997, 1999 and 2009 - as career recognition - too, and his 1992-1995 'glamour boy' years are maybe too significant to ignore).
What relevance does the video above have in common with this thread?? Does Zidane's (disappointing) Euro 2004 in any way prove anything that may have any relation to this defined thread??
zidanes relatively poor euro 2004 was demonstrably superior to iniestas car crash of a performance in Euro 16 zidane performed at a world class in 2 world cups and 2 European championships iniesta only has 2 international performances at a similar level Euro 12 /World Cup 2010 If anything Estels comp gives further credence to the fact zidane reached a legendary level for the NT(not so sure about iniesta or any recent barcelona player excluding xavi)
Zidane had a good individual performance at euro 2004, the disappointing game was the one they got knocked out, he didn't do much in that one. But legendary comeback vs. England in the opener (90 and 92 min goals) FK goal vs. Croatia Header goal vs. Switzerland So very solid group stage, but poor performance vs. the eventual winners.
Zidane 2004 had prime Thierry Henry in his team, and Zidane was the playmaker, and Zidane obviously did not do a good job of "unleashing" the talent of prime Henry. Henry was amazing in 2004, at club level... But as soon as Henry was played in the same team as playmaker Zidane, Henry became less than a shadow of himself in large part because Zidane always liked to cross the ball (i.e. Zidane was not a direct playmaker), and Henry was average (if not below-average) in terms of header ability and/or overall ability in the air. Henry looked much better with Robert Pires than with Zidane, because Pires was a much more direct playmaker, which obviously suited Henry's speedy and direct style of play. (Real Madrid has more or less doubled their cross-ratio ever since Zidane became coach... Because Zidane both as a player and as a coach has a tendency towards that type of game - drifting wide and crossing the ball, consistently. Henry was never suited towards that type of game. Henry practically always looked like a shadow of himself, whenever he had to rely on Zidane's ability to provide/create Henry's chances.) It's one of those funny abilities of Zidane... The ability to be perceived as a "great playmaker" even when he totally failed at playmaking for Thierry Henry. Any other less-stylish playmaker would be criticized for not having created the type of "playmaking" that suits Henry, but with Zidane, we get to see a reverse situation in which Henry gets criticized for failing to do nothing with Zidane's nothing of playmaking, and where Zidane gets defined as "world class" because he scored free kicks and because he scored penalty kicks (i.e. because he scored goals) but then totally failed at his primary task of "playmaking" for Thierry Henry. Zidane is the only playmaker that I know of, who has the unique ability to single-handedly transform Thierry Henry into a mediocre goal scorer, and at the same time transform himself - a low scoring playmaker - into the primary goal scorer of the team. Iniesta's Euro 2016 was not a car crash of a performance, as can be easily demonstrated by the game-to-game player ratings. Not only that, but Iniesta did not have a prime Thierry Henry to "unleash" on the basis of intelligent playmaking. To put it simply: Iniesta is significantly better (than Zidane) in terms of creating the style of "playmaking" that allows players like Thierry Henry to have the glory. On the other hand, Zidane was arguably unparalleled (not only compared to Iniesta, but compared to any player in the history of the game), in his ability to make himself the focus of everything that could be perceived as positive, within the context of Zidane's own team. Zidane forcibly makes himself the center of everything (always at the expense of players like Thierry Henry), and he also makes you believe that that is necessary because his teammates (e.g. Thierry Henry) are not up to the challenge. Zidane is the only playmaker I can mention, who gets defined as "world class" even when he consistently makes a mediocre job out of unleashing Thierry Henry's talent. A player like Andres Iniesta would've never struggled in unleashing the talent of a direct and a simple player such as Thierry Henry. Zidane's ability to make himself look great (even when he thoroughly fails at actually creating the correct service for Thierry Henry), does not actually make Zidane a better player than Iniesta. Zidane's ideologues have an obsession with venerating their charismatic super-hero-come-leader, so much that they often forget that Zidane 2004 thoroughly failed at his primary role of playmaking (even if he did scored free kicks, and penalty kicks, and a header goal). Thierry Henry was widely perceived as a Top 3 player in 2004, but with Zidane as the playmaker of France, Thierry Henry didn't even looked like he belonged in the Top 20 tier. I just cannot mention any other playmaker with such a unique record of being unable to make good use of a Top 3 player. Zidane's Euro 2004 was not (and is not) universally regarded as world class - a lot of people have always noted that if it weren't for Zidane's 2 free kick goals, Zidane's Euro 2004 would've been rightfully perceived as a massive disappointment. And given the fact that Zidane was the playmaker of the team, and given the fact that Thierry Henry was widely perceived as Top 3 player in the world pre-tournament, and it becomes self-evident why so many fans do not remember Euro 2004 as a particularly good (if at all good) tournament for Zidane. Zidane had the best national team of that tournament behind him, and he couldn't beat Greece. But overall, I think that Zidane does have a better NT career than Iniesta. On the other hand, I think that Iniesta has a better club career than Zidane. So essentially, I agree with @ko242 in that there's very little (if anything at all) separating Zidane from Iniesta, and I think that demonstrates that Zidane is overrated... Because if Zidane cannot soundly outclass players like Rivaldo 1999, Figo 2000, Owen 2001, Ronaldo 2002, Nedved 2003, Shevchenko 2004, Xavi 2008, Iniesta 2009, Xavi 2009, Iniesta 2010, Xavi 2010, Iniesta 2011, Xavi 2011, Iniesta 2012... If Zidane can't soundly outclass players like that, how can you reconcile the opinion that Zidane is not overrated, with the fact that Zidane is widely regarded as a Top 7 all timer?? I think that Estel's intentions are dishonest intentions... Estel is basically using this thread as a space where he can simply post videos of Zidane - no arguments, just videos of Zidane, and those videos proved nothing other than the fact that Zidane was a stylish impressionable type of player (more so than Iniesta and/or Xavi). EDIT: I will post a video of 2004-05, in which the English narrators (and the English were always massive Zidane fans) are describing Zidane as "A shadow of himself... Luis Figo has been better this season... And Ronaldo has been the best Real Madrid player this season, but he simply doesn't get the type of service that he thoroughly deserves..." That was the perception of English narrators: Figo was better, and R9 was the best player in the team, and Zidane was a shadow of himself. That was also more or less the perception throughout the whole of the 2005-06 club season, until Zidane redeemed himself at World Cup 2006.
Zidane definitely was performing at a high level in Euro 04 as you rightly picked up from the compilation. It is one of his more underrated tournaments IMO (from a perspective of football fans at least), probably due to the lack of footage. What is often lost in the noise about Greece overcoming France in the QFs, is that the French NT would not have made it out of the Euro 04 group stage without Zidane's direct goal involvements. That's a pretty impressive statistical return, for a midfield playmaker.
Disagree. Agree. + one big problem was that Vieira played on one leg in the group stage and was definitely unfit to play in the quarter-finals. He was replaced by Dacourt who did not make it but it was not all his fault and who was replaced around the 70th minute by a striker in order to search for an equalizer. + the defence was not as securizing as before. But with a good Vieira, in oder to dominate more the matches, it could have been ok for the defence and maybe to Zidane to express himself better. What he did was already something though as he was probably not in full-shape as well. They gave him the magic stuff (to Vieira) for he can play in the group stage but after that he was definitely out. Then in the 2006 k-o stages, Zidane was overloaded...but he was probably not the only one on the pitch in this case, like in the final but also before. I have no proofs of course.
Is it an "impressive statistical return" that Thierry Henry becomes mediocre primarily because Zidane consistently displayed in inability to provide the type of service that suited henry's style of play?? Is it an impressive statistical return that the midfield playmaker of the team scores the goals (from penalty kicks and free kicks), but at the same time Thierry Henry becomes more or less mediocre as a goal scorer (from open play)??
Zidane and Henry played exactly 58 national team games together. In those Henry scored exactly 25 goals. He scored 36 goals in the 85 games from his debut in 1997 until 2006. Between 2000 and 2006 Henry played 74 games and scored 33 goals. Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler 1 11-10-97 Lens South Africa 2-1 2 27- 5-98 Casablanca Belgium 1-0 Hassan II Trophy 3 29- 5-98 Casablanca Morocco 2-2 Hassan II Trophy 4 1 1 12- 6-98 Marseille South Africa 3-0 World Cup 5 2 3 18- 6-98 Saint-Denis Saudi Arabia 4-0 World Cup 8 3 3- 7-98 Saint-Denis Italy 0-0 [1] World Cup 9 3 8- 7-98 Saint-Denis Croatia 2-1 World Cup 10 3 19- 8-98 Wien Austria 2-2 11 3 5- 9-98 Reykjavík Iceland 1-1 European Ch. Qual. 13 4 26- 4-00 Saint-Denis Slovenia 3-2 14 4 28- 5-00 Zagreb Croatia 2-0 15 4 4- 6-00 Casablanca Japan 2-2 [2] Hassan II Trophy 16 1 5 6- 6-00 Casablanca Morocco 5-1 Hassan II Trophy 17 1 6 11- 6-00 Brugge Denmark 3-0 European Champ. 18 1 7 16- 6-00 Brugge Czech Republic 2-1 European Champ. 20 1 8 28- 6-00 Brussel Portugal 2-1 European Champ. 21 8 2- 7-00 Rotterdam Italy 2-1 European Champ. 22 8 16- 8-00 Marseille FIFA 5-1 23 8 2- 9-00 Saint-Denis England 1-1 26 8 27- 2-01 Saint-Denis Germany 1-0 27 1 9 24- 3-01 Saint-Denis Japan 5-0 28 9 28- 3-01 Valencia Spain 1-2 29 1 10 25- 4-01 Saint-Denis Portugal 4-0 30 10 15- 8-01 Nantes Denmark 1-0 31 10 1- 9-01 Santiago Chile 1-2 32 1 11 6-10-01 Saint-Denis Algeria 4-1 [3] 33 11 13- 2-02 Saint-Denis Romania 2-1 34 1 12 27- 3-02 Saint-Denis Scotland 5-0 35 12 17- 4-02 Saint-Denis Russia 0-0 36 12 26- 5-02 Suwon South Korea 3-2 39 12 21- 8-02 Radès Tunisia 1-1 40 12 12-10-02 Saint-Denis Slovenia 5-0 European Ch. Qual. 41 2 14 16-10-02 La Valletta Malta 4-0 European Ch. Qual. 43 14 12- 2-03 Saint-Denis Czech Republic 0-2 44 2 16 29- 3-03 Lens Malta 6-0 European Ch. Qual. 45 16 2- 4-03 Palermo Israel 2-1 European Ch. Qual. 52 22 20- 8-03 Genève Switzerland 2-0 54 23 10- 9-03 Ljubljana Slovenia 2-0 European Ch. Qual. 55 1 24 11-10-03 Saint-Denis Israel 3-0 European Ch. Qual. 56 1 25 15-11-03 Gelsenkirchen Germany 3-0 58 25 20- 5-04 Saint-Denis Brazil 0-0 FIFA Centennial 59 25 6- 6-04 Saint-Denis Ukraine 1-0 60 25 13- 6-04 Lisboa England 2-1 European Champ. 61 25 17- 6-04 Leiria Croatia 2-2 European Champ. 62 2 27 21- 6-04 Coimbra Switzerland 3-1 European Champ. 63 27 25- 6-04 Lisboa Greece 0-1 European Champ. 71 1 29 17- 8-05 Saint-Denis Ivory Coast 3-0 72 29 3- 9-05 Lens Faroe Islands 3-0 World Cup Qualifier 73 1 30 7- 9-05 Dublin Ireland 1-0 World Cup Qualifier 76 31 1- 3-06 Saint-Denis Slovakia 1-2 77 1 32 31- 5-06 Lens Denmark 2-0 78 1 33 7- 6-06 Saint-Etienne China 3-1 79 33 13- 6-06 Stuttgart Switzerland 0-0 World Cup 80 1 34 18- 6-06 Leipzig South Korea 1-1 World Cup 82 35 27- 6-06 Hannover Spain 3-1 World Cup 83 1 36 1- 7-06 Frankfurt Brazil 1-0 World Cup 84 36 5- 7-06 München Portugal 1-0 World Cup 85 36 9- 7-06 Berlin Italy 1-1 [4] World Cup That is not near his stellar best, but it is rather that Henry was statistically outstanding for Arsenal until 2006, in the league and Champions League, instead of him being sub-par for the national team. For the national team he wasn't worse with Zidane than without him. People have received that impression because of the 2003 Confederations Cup (without Zidane playing), but at other final tournaments between 1998 and 2006 the return is 1 goal (against Togo) in 6 games with Zidane unavailable because of injury or suspension. How was Henry scoring for Monaco, Juventus, FC Barcelona or in the problematic 2006-07 season for Arsenal? (the first season post-Pires and post-Bergkamp). Basically old Wright and young Anelka had their best seasons too alongside Vieira, Bergkamp and one of Overmars/Pires. Henry has repeatedly said Zidane is one of the few "superhumans" or "freaks" but Bergkamp was the best he has played with - and he missed the most at away games in Europe. Which matches with the periods he achieved his scoring bests. Did a Paolo Rossi, who was topscorer material, achieve his scoring best alongside Platini? Had Giordano, also topscorer material, and other partners their best return alongside Maradona? I hope you don't see me as a fanboy now, but just some things to think about (imho).
Let me put it in a different way then. Zidane's Euro 04 often goes unmentioned in spite of it featuring his best statistical return in an international tournament group stage. Agree with Vieira's fitness being a factor, though one should also consider that his presence didn't always make a huge difference. For instance, he played all 360 minutes of the WC 02 group stage for France. IMHO, the French defence not being quite as secure as earlier was the case since Euro 00. It was just that in that tournament, the attacking brilliance of the team overshadowed this frailty at the back. However, the team paid for it in WC 02 and Euro 04. It was only in WC 06, when there was a major defensive overhaul with Thuram-Gallas in the center and Sagnol-Abidal on the wings, that the team managed another great defensive performance in a major international tournament.
To surmise, Henry for France in major NT tournaments (playing alongside Zidane) - 10 goals/18 games with 2 direct assists from Zidane and a few more decent setups not converted by Henry Henry for France in major NT tournaments (playing without Zidane in the team) - 1 goal/6 games with either Vieira or Petit, i.e. his Arsenal teammates, featuring in the midfield in every one of these games At the risk of repeating myself, I think the lack of more direct goal involvements in each other's goals for both Zidane and Henry (mentioning Henry here too as he has only 1 assist for Zidane for the French NT, even though he was a notoriously high volume assist provider himself), is more down to happenstance. Thus it is similar to the case of Messi's 2 year dry spell across competitive games for Argentina, at the beginning of this decade.