Boban hybrid with piksi is illegal lol Zidane looked "similar" to prosinecki due to their running style with long strides on the pitch covering great distances and looking deceptively fast In dribbling at least netzer closely resembled Mario Kempes
Yeah, I can see what you mean in that way re: Zidane/Prosinecki and leadleader could too I noticed. It surprised me to read it but yeah maybe in dribbling Netzer and Kempes can seem to have a bit in common (somewhat languid and unpredictable). In passing and 'skills' I think Netzer is much more like Prosinecki than Kempes though, and in his role too obviously. Prosinecki probably being a bit more elaborate and holding onto the ball longer and more often though I think.
Let’s not get too far off topic. But here's a rare video of Baggio playing AM. I would agree with you that he doesn't flex his vision all too often.
I largely agree with the above; the most similar player to Baggio would be a slower (or much slower) Lio Messi, in my view. In slightly different terms: a slower version of Lio Messi is close to what I imagine Baggio could've been without the knee injuries. Baggio displayed great vision at World Cup 1994, as disappointing as he was in terms of his dribbling ability, his passing game and decision-making (when passing) was nearly perfect, and especially relative to his time. The following season - season 1994/95 - Baggio continued demonstrating the same type of seemingly perfect or ideal passing game, but unfortunately his dribbling form was gone forever at this point, with only very brief glimpses of it here and there. On a different off-topic note: Baggio and Hagi tend to - not so much rationally, but in terms of how I intuitively rate them as talents - intimidate me the most in terms of European talents, both of them seem to have more natural talent than the likes of Zidane, Figo, Arjen Robben, Cristiano Ronaldo, etc. Of course, as was normal to that era of the early 1990s, the respective careers of Baggio and Hagi tell the tale of incredible talents who in many ways perhaps played in the worst possible era; tactics evolved rapidly (especially zonal marking and consequently the overall speed of the game) year after year, and yet the defensive cynicism of the 1980s had not only not been stamped out of the game, it was essentially still the norm, at the same time that it became significantly faster and strategically more efficient than it ever had been in the immediate past and/or the long term past. I rather clearly remember some articles where World Cup 1990 was coined as, "the first World Cup where the managers are the most important players." And whilst I cannot comprehensively prove that said conclusion is in fact correct, it nonetheless rings true in my eyes. At any rate, I doubt that many other generations of players had to adapt to as many significant changes as those players who lived their primes in the late 1980s and/or early 1990s; the zonal pressing revolution; the dramatic increase in speed as a result of said tactical revolution; the back-pass rule; the systematical eradication of the defensive cynicism of bygone eras (to be fair, this happened rather slowly but surely, ergo nowhere near as immediate in its imposition as the other many era-defining tactical changes); the destruction of limits in terms of how many foreign players a club can have; etc.
I largely agree with this even though you undersell CR a bit(or a lot)but the general sentiment you quote re the 90s is something I share The first half in particular (90-94)was the most talented football era ever IMO As talents Piksi Hagi Laudrup Baggio Savecivic Were IMO clearly above most of those names you listed (and others you omitted as xavi/iniesta would just be "normal" talents in this era) Even ballon dor modric wasnt better than his compatriot Boban but this is another topic Piksi was actually in my personal opinion more naturally talented than Michel platini Id go as far as to say he was the most naturally talented AM since Maradona Obviously it needn't be said that talent without application doesn't mean a whole lot So bearing this in mind I can appreciate many technical genuineness of the 1990-1994 era for their style but for one reason of another did not live up to their true potential
Im unashamed to admit your knowledge of the game is currently more extensive than mine So I will ask that when you mention relatively obscure names that you attach a video of them (a performance or even mini highlight reel would do) I find it easier that way to form an opinion about what you say Thanks
As you alluded to, Xavi and Iniesta indeed belong to that same tier of names I mentioned e.g. Zidane, Figo, Xavi, Iniesta, Robben, Ronaldo, etc. (By the way, the names are in chronological order, not in terms of perceived greatness; in case you were wondering why Ronaldo's name is somehow last on that particular list.) When I watch Zidane, I see a legitimate genius in terms of ball retention, maybe also in terms of dribbling (adjusting for the fact that his distinctive type of athleticism doesn't consistently help him there), but at the same time, he is definitely not a genius in so many fundamental areas; passing, vision, stationary ball retention (i.e. ball retention when not running across space), and athleticism, to name at least the most important weaknesses to his game. With the above in mind, Zidane's unique athleticism helped him greatly at what he was a genius at, which is one specific form of ball retention, which he exploited as successfully as anyone before him or after him; but his athleticism wasn't ideal for stationary ball retention, wasn't ideal for dribbling past 2 or 3 defenders at a time, etc. In simpler terms: Zidane was a legitimate genius at one specific type of ball retention and maybe (being perhaps generous to him) also at one specific type of dribbling run, which I'd argue are the two things (above all else) that best exemplify or personify Zidane as a player. In other words: He lacks true 'genius' quality in too many fundamental areas of the game, to be a legit 'genius' in the same vein that Maradona or Hagi in full flight could, for example. On the other hand, when I watch Gheorghe Hagi, I see a player who I think almost effortlessly is a legitimate genius at many of the fundamentals of the game; passing, finishing, all forms of ball retention, athleticism, sheer unpredictability, etc. Perhaps dribbling is the only fundamental area where he maybe isn't a legit genius, but again, in his prime he was such a devastating athlete that he never needed to be a genius dribbler, just a very good dribbler with his unique physique was enough to offer the same end product (in terms of dribbling) as a better dribbler such as Baggio or Maradona, for example. Hagi enjoyed a plethora of physical benefits; low center of gravity, almost abnormally stocky even for a short player (in my opinion Hagi was innately wider-built than either one of Maradona or Romario, for example), very strong off and on the ball, very explosive in terms of short sprints, very good also in terms of top speed, great stamina relative to his time (albeit it seemed to vary a lot apparently and depending on either his fitness or his motivation, or perhaps a mixture of both), etc. Hagi's physical capabilities either as a dribbler or as an overall player are extremely underrated in my book. From all the European players I've watched, he is the only name that I can mention - without hesitation - next to Diego Maradona or Lio Messi; of course I'm talking about talent here, not career. Roberto Baggio is the other such European name that comes to mind, but with Baggio I need to use my imagination a lot more than with Hagi... Simply put: Hagi was fully fit in a lot of the games that can be watched of him, compared to Baggio who was rarely ever fully fit. And so, in order to get a reasonable idea of how great Baggio could've been without the injuries, one can only look at the few rare instances of video where Baggio is fully fit or close to full fitness; meanwhile, with Hagi, he is fully fit or close to full fitness in many of his games, which I think makes it significantly easier when people like me try to put a relative timeless value on players of that 'genius' mold. I cannot comment (not to any comprehensive nor definitive degree anyways) on Piksi, as I've watched only two or three games of him. As for Michel Platini, I think he was an absolute genius in terms of passing, vision, and stationary ball retention, all of which he utilized (in complement) to maximum effect, but - similar to Francesco Totti, for example - Platini's athleticism was amazing for stationary ball retention but limited in terms of its dribbling capabilities, which in the end is a signficant area of the game if we are comparing Platini directly against the likes of Pele, Maradona, Messi, Cruyff, Ronaldo Nazario, etc.
Valderrama / Iniesta + Xavi hybrid Valderrama dribbled more frequently than Xavi, less frequently than Iniesta (prime Iniesta that is), but was at the same time better than Iniesta was in terms of serving as a physical presence or anchor in the midfield similar to Xavi; essentially a hybrid of Iniesta + Xavi in my view.
I tried to look for it but to no avail Could you post on this thread the Hagi comp you made a few years back(if my memory serves me correctly when he was at real madrid) the skillset of Hagi was indeed that of a top 20 all timer Maybe even top 10 considering what he could do in full flight @Vegan10 seemed to believe he was not less than Maradona This is probably not a totally outrageous claim however Maradona will always get a few extra points for his ability on the ball, to manoeuvre himself out of tight situations in elaborate fashion and to pick out impossible passes that no one could see(even if he had to get it wrong a few times)
A good one for the younger Cruyff would be Ronaldo. See: https://dai.ly/x1lydyi Neymar is more like Jairzinho I'd say rather than Savicevic
Nazario or Aveiro? It depends Id say in his final (peak)form at PSG he is closer to Savecivic as AM who can play with ease on the wing or through the middle (only thing Id say is neymars decision making as far as finishing is concerned was much better than Savecivic who was prone to over dribble than shoot at times) For Barcelona neymar was closer in style to jairzinho as inverted winger like czibor,best 67/68,CR 07/08,robben at bayern or even Gareth Bale too.
Sure, no problem. The video basically consists of only 3 or 4 games, but nonetheless I think it's an accurate rendition of his general form that season; he also scored several clutch free kicks in games that were either won or lost on the basis of single goal differences. As I alluded to before: I think that Hagi had the unmistakable elegance of a Zidane or a Del Piero when on the ball, but just physically a significantly more powerful athlete than either Zidane or Del Piero. Moreover, Hagi also reminds me of James Rodriguez in certain ways; incredible left-footed shot and the ability to create an assist out of nothing, but of course, Hagi is significantly faster when compared to James (also physically stronger than James). At any rate, I rate Hagi as a true genius but, as I mentioned a few days ago, it is more of an intuitive argument, as opposed to a rational argument. I mean, Hagi was arguably a failure at club level, his Real Madrid career was considered a disappointment at the time, followed by playing with Brescia in the Italian Serie B, followed by playing in Barcelona's bench, etc. Though, to be fair, it absolutely makes no sense to me why Real Madrid got rid of Hagi, because Hagi in my opinion was either their best player or their second best player in the 1991/92 La Liga, so why get rid of him when he is 27 years old and very much still in his prime as was further evidenced at World Cup 1994 two years later?? Needless to say, it was a profoundly different era with a fundamentally different perception of what "great form" was supposed to be at the time... I mean, it's just bizarre how players as immensely talented as Hagi, Francescoli, Valderrama, Le Tissier, could have the European careers that they had.
Also, Lewandowski vs MvB is really a good comparison... Sehr kompetenter Text über das große historische Vorbild des modernen Mittelstürmers. Ganz große Leseempfehlung! https://t.co/mMMmWLVi8Q— Football Arguments (@SergiXaviniesta) March 17, 2019 Hoy se ha RT mucho un vídeo de un gol anulado de Gullit en el Bernabeu indicando lo que pasaba cuando no había VAR. Dejo x aquí esto otro para recordar lo mismo y para señalar q desde el sillón se arbitra muy bien, me gustaría verles a todos ellos a pie de césped en aquellos años pic.twitter.com/FuKSZ7DHLs— Hemeroteca RMCF (@HemerotecaRMCF) April 27, 2019 1989. Cuando no había VAR. pic.twitter.com/1tLL4k34y8— retrodeporte (@retrodeporte) April 26, 2019 Pogba is quite like B.Charlton.
Zinedine Zidane - Yoann Gourcuff (circa 2009) Ossie Ardiles - Andres Iniesta Phillip Lahm - Joshua Kimmich Fernando Redondo - Frenkie de Jong Bobby Moore - Virgil Van Dijk Di Stefano - Johan Cruyff Pierre Littbarski - Eden Hazard Eusebio - Kylian Mbappe
Michel Platini / Francesco Totti I assume that many fans would consider such a 'parallel' comparison to be nothing short of blasphemous, but honestly, Francesco Totti at any point between 2001 and 2004, was an absolute genius passer and ball retention specialist; the Italian Michel Platini. An attacking midfielder or a very midfield-active second striker? It was more or less impossible to tell at times, many times, with either Francesco Totti or Michel Platini. With the above in mind; Totti's vitriolic personality was a liability, and his decision to remain loyal to Roma cost him greatly, but other than that, I am convinced that he had the talent to have cemented himself as an all time great to be mentioned in the same breath as Platini or Zico or Zidane, etc. How often do fans forget that a 23 year old Francesco Totti almost upstaged a certain Zinedine Zidane at Euro 2000 (widely regarded as Zidane's magnum opus)?? How often do fans forget that the same 23 year old Francesco Totti won the Serie A 2000/01 directly against Zinedine Zidane in his greatest form ever (widely regarded as Zidane's best Serie A campaign)?? At any rate, I guess it just wasn't meant to be, which is not unusual for those rare talents touched by true genius.
Nice contribution. With all these (including my suggestions) it is a matter of getting as close as possible, because close to identical is very unlikely I suppose, but I can see the thought behind all of them. I've previously thought about Ardiles/Iniesta and Littbarski/Hazard myself, and after you mention it I can see certain parallels between Moore and Van Dijk (reading of the game, use of the ball) and Eusebio and Mbappe with the explosive but fluid running with the ball too for example. As alternative for Van Basten: Sandor Kocsis (just because the more I knew/saw of him the more impressed I have been with his touch and technical use of the ball etc, and of course he was great with headers and did attempt some acrobatics too; I think Van Basten had more gifts technically and especially physically overall though and it's certainly not a complete like-for-like one style wise): As alternative for Totti: Eric Cantona would be fairly close in style/role I feel.
Id say platini had a greater range of passing (or he used it more especially his 60 yard pinpoint long balls) In vision it is controversial to say but totti was superior to zico/Messi and close if not on par with Maradona/platini The regularity with which he pulled off no look passes from any range/distance is impossible. You have to wonder if he had eyes at the back of his head or an earpiece with someone telling where his teammates were situated at all times The euro 2000 final performance by Totti wasn't vintage Totti even though he was better than Zidane,his teams best player and as good as Henry Nobody would present this performance as a reason why he was comparable to the greats. Unfortunately the sad reality was he did fail many times to imprint his name on big matches Playing for lowly roma isnt always the default excuse He did have many chances to clinch the scudetto particularly when juve were relegated and the level of Italian football had dropped severely He was outshone by ibrahimovic in big games (league games) Being outshone by ibrahimovic in big games isn't something any legitimate great should have on his resume There is a distinction to be drawn between talent and the correct application of ones talent Totti could've left a bigger legacy than he did in serie A were many arent sure if he surpassed ADP who declined at 25 years old The clutchness of Michel platini for club and particularly country puts him in a totally different category all together One could make other arguments too (being a superior finisher as evidenced by his multiple 20+ goal seasons as a AM during the mid 1980s which was impossible) IN short In vision Totti was comparable to the best whichis maybe why he looked to be touched by "genius" However he lagged behind in significant areas of his game compared to platini let alone to the other player (s) you compared him too
Some might suggest Brian Laudrup is as close as anyone to Michael Laudrup: I'm not sure about that overall but certainly their style could seem very similar at times. I think Brian Laudrup could be like a link in between Hazard and Littbarski even actually, thinking about it! Although, the Laudrup that resembled Littbarski more in terms of particular dribbling (especially the use of the croqueta) would be Michael.
When I thought of Hazard, I had a Littbarski/Laudrup cross in mind. And also Cruyff having bits of Di Stefano and Best, and aspects to his game that neither of them had (which is incredible when one thinks of it).
Most probably in their hold up play and equal footedness (to a degree) He believes MVB is a class above lewandowski as do most serious analysts There is no player truly similar/identical to van Basten. One could perhaps say a hybrid of Dennis Bergkamp (ajax) and Andriy Shevchenko 99-01 is similar to peak van Basten with the shalom direct dribbling of the Ukrainian and the exquisite finishing of DB
As I mentioned, most fans will consider such a comparison to be nothing short of delusional... But having said that, Francesco Totti - similar to ADP - is also a player who declined relatively early; his horrific ankle injury at 29 years of age was the end for the real Totti as far as I'm concerned... he was always a shadow himself at any point after said injury, as was also immediately visibly obvious at World Cup 2006 (the first tournament that he played after said career-threatening injury), where Totti was a shell of himself. After the injury, Totti changed not only his hairstyle but his entire game... and even after a huge part of his game was permanently destroyed by said ankle injury, he still found a way of perfecting his shooting ability and his positional sense, to enough a degree that he remained a relevant figure in the Serie A for the next 2 years, despite his absolutely steep decline. Furthermore, I think it is unfair to say that Zlatan Ibrahimovic 'outclassed' the shell of himself (honestly) that was Totti at any point after that injury; not to mention the fact that Zlatan's prime occurs more or less at the same time as Totti's decline, which further magnifies the impression that Totti is overrated in such a way. Francesco Totti before the injury was - quite arguably - the most consistently talented league player the Serie A has seen at any point after Diego Maradona... Francesco Totti won the Serie A 2000/01; against Zidane in arguably his best Serie A campaign. Francesco Totti lost the Serie A 2001/02 by a difference of only 1 point; after Juventus had stacked their team with prime Nedved, prime Buffon, and a still capable Thuram, which then very much adds to the corruption that Juve was found guilty of years later. Not to mention the fact that the incredibly overrated - shell of himself - that was Batistuta in 2001/02, did far more harm than good to Roma; he scored 6 goals in 23 appearances, and Roma still somehow came within a whisker of winning the league; basically Roma 2001/02 with any striker not Batistuta would've won the league. Put Shevchenko in Roma, and Totti wins his 2nd consecutive Scudetto. Francesco Totti almost single-handedly carried Roma to the Serie A 2003/04; as late as in Round 31, with only 3 games left, Roma was just 6 points behind Milan, with one game - Round 32 - against AC Milan yet to be played, which means that if Roma had won that Round 32 game vs. AC Milan, then that would've put the league at only 3 points for Roma, with only 2 games to go, and AC Milan was beaten in Round 33, which means that Roma winning Round 32 could've won Roma the league -- the league was arguably decided by only one game, Round 32, which AC Milan won. And I cannot stress enough just how mediocre a team Roma 2003/04 was without Totti carrying them for an entire year; it truly was nothing short of miraculous that Roma still had a chance to win the league with only 3 games to go. The only player in the Serie A who could do that, was Francesco Totti. Francesco Totti 2002/03 arguably failed to consistently elevate Roma's standing in the league, it is probably if not certainly Totti's weakest league season between 2000 and 2004, even though Totti himself produced "on paper" the same statistics as the previous seasons, and yet Roma 2002/03 finished in 8th place - 8th freaking place - with only 49 points, that is, 23 points less than Juventus in first place. Roma was a mediocre team, with truly negative tactics by Fabio Capello; Roma on paper looks a lot better than it really was. Roma was also definitely a team that lacked depth, that is, a team that suffered when trying to play both the Serie A and the Champions League. At any rate, a team that cannot realistically win against the stacked AC Milans and Juventus of that era. With all of the above in mind; I cannot mention any other player - certainly not ADP - who could almost single-handedly make that big of a difference in the Serie A back when it was still perceived as the best league in the world. Francesco Totti in his prime was one of the best league players of all time, his form in the Serie A is nothing short of severely underrated by a majority of gullible fans who so profoundly fail to understand just how mediocre Roma truly was (if not for Totti elevating their perceived value), and ergo just how impossible it was for Totti to consistently make a mark "in the big games" against vastly superior clubs. At any rate, I think you really have to ask yourself, if Totti was such a big game flop, why did Roma 2000/01 win the Serie A?? Why did Roma 2001/02 almost wins the Serie A for a second consecutive season (and with a very overrated and old and out of form Batistuta making a mess of things)?? Why did AC Milan 2003/04 (one of the best Milan teams I can remember in the league) had to wait until Round 32 to decide a league that, on merit, they deserved to have won on the basis of a far greater margin of difference, and thus without the necessity of having to win one decisive game at Round 32 out of the 34 Rounds that was the Serie A format at the time?? In my book, I'm reasonably convinced that my politically incorrect opinion wouldn't even be controversial in the first place, if Totti (in his prime, that is, before the injury that devastated him) had played for Juventus and/or for Real Madrid, as Zidane did. For example, take note of how Pavel Nedved's perceived value in the big games immediately skyrocketed upon his move to Juventus. For example, take note of how Luis Suarez's record in the La Liga Clasico is statistically superior to Cristiano Ronaldo's, even after adjusting for the fact that Suarez enjoyed far less tactical advantages than Ronaldo. Moreover, Suarez was more or less a demonstrable disappointment in the big games in his time with Liverpool, and then immediately upon playing for a superior platform such as Barcelona, he somehow scores great statistics vs. Real Madrid in La Liga, year after year. At any rate, the most inescapable truth about football is... that it is a team sport where the better team not only tends to win, but tends to have the better "big game" players, and perhaps largely because those "big game" players wouldn't be perceived as such in the absence of the platform that allows them said rare luxury. Very rarely do players - talented as they come - break that rule. Having stated all of the above; I think it might be best to amicably agree to disagree, as we simply rate Francesco Totti on the basis of fundamentally different metrics.
The main stylistic difference is I think Moore wasn't known for his aerial dominance while for the other it's one of his main strengths and attributes. I can understand certain stylistic similarities though, also in the body language they show, the calmness in presentation, seemingly doing better when the pressure increases. Personally (when thinking about previous FWA and PFA winning defenders) I was thinking about Paul McGrath as a comparison in the sense of combining defensive solidity and good skills on the ball, and also strength in the air (another way of putting it is Rio Ferdinand with a shade of John Terry his solidity/reliability and lesser ball skills although Terry had a fine diagonal long ball). This is a genuine MOTM candidate performance: (here is McGrath playing in midfield against Juventus, vs Italy in the World Cup) --------------------------------- There are naturally still some discernible stylistic differences (McGrath less keen to use the long ball, but he shows some against Norway in the 1994 World Cup so maybe could do when required) but I was personally thinking into that direction. I'd certainly take one who was known to be good/solid in the air as well. Ngolo Kante his close comparison is maybe a young and raw Desailly (certainly the Desailly of the 1994 final comes close-ish in style I'd say).