Since you so candidly took the liberty to tag my views as ‘romantic’ and attach them to the ‘past’, I’ll take the liberty as well to make my defense. Interesting how people use the term 'romantic' inappropriately: i.e., as a sort of 'dreaming' & 'unrealistic' attitude belonging to a ‘past’, when in truth 'romanticism' historically was a modern reaction to 'classicism' (or to a supposedly more 'rational' or 'intellectual' posture pre-existent to it). Sorry for the somewhat long citation below, but it is useful to show how not always a ’romantic’ posture is something that should be dispensed with as something outdated. As a matter of fact it’s even been stated that not only in the sports sphere but in all fields of human activity the development of civilization has been an infinite succession of ‘classical’ & ‘romantic’ periods, with the former invariably defending ‘permanence‘ and ‘tradition’ and the latter proposing the ‘transformation’ of a status quo: Those are widely accepted common-place views about the subject & don’t deserve further discussion, but are sufficient to show how much in the 'past'...you are. Nothing older than the ‘defensive midfielder’ & the fixed positions of the ‘specialists’ (‘each player in its position’) : the ‘sweeper’, the ‘stopper’, the ‘advanced libero’ & ultimately the ‘DM’ are more ancient than my granma. Rinus Michels revolution came exactly in order to abolish all that ‘classical’ view. If world football didn’t have enough imagination to continue with it, it’s not Rinus Michels’ fault … The thing is that after the ‘rationalist’ involution that succeeded Rinus Michels’ total football many of the old ‘classic football’ vices of the past reappeared: the ‘defensive midfielder’ was one of them, the ‘frozen systems’ were another & so on. To every ‘today’ there is a ‘tomorrow’ & this tomorrow IMO is going to start very soon, more exactly next year in South Africa. Where the ‘classic’ ultra-defensive systems of the 90’s/early 00’s IMO will start romantically start to disintegrate (& we already had a hint of that at the last Confederations Cup) …
Wait, what's so 'simplistic' in making talented players exert several functions? In fact that's damn complex & way more exciting. Painful & simplistic is to put a finger in the dam hole & always expect it'll avoid the flood. More: that complexity IS football. And not monotonous & falsely pragmatic anti-game. Funny: Di Stéfano, Beckenbauer, Bobby Charlton & Cruyjff didn’t think that way … All of the above cited players displayed all those techniques at the same time: to a categorized player that’s not a seven-headed monster. In fact to a certain point he already did that - & very efficiently - for the French NT & Real Madrid. And if Di Stéfano, Beckenbauer, Bobby Charlton & Cruyjff were humble enough for such ‘lesser’ prowesses why wouldn’t Zidane be?... Isn’t that a real great idea? … In fact: if Zagallo in 1970 put a classic and refined midfielder as Piazza playing side by side with the ‘butcher’ Brito in Brazil’s backline, why not doing the same with today’s mids?... You’re roundly mistaken. Jorginho was a highly offensive defender, Aldair loved to score his goals & Maldini was not less useful as an attack enhancer. In my defense the ‘butcher’ is the notwithstanding classy Cannavaro: in a defensive line we always need somebody who can ‘slice’ a forward in two (although the equally classy Aldair could also assume the role): in a well balanced defensive line like that & with precious Zidane’s assistance we can dispense with ‘corks’ in the midfield like Makelele or Keane, taking the place of real midfielders (although we have to concede that the latter was in a quite higher level than the former – and there I’m not criticizing the player but the role assumed by him). I could have put Juan in place of Cannavaro but I feared people thought I was being too much ‘flamenguista’: and Juan you know is always ‘there’ in the adversary’s area ready to chip a header into those tempting nets. Baresi would add a 'touch of class' to that defense too. I’m not trying however to put down who used Makelele or Keane as their mids: I’m just viewing the game from a more offensive, post-modern & consequently ‘romantic’ perspective.
The simplicity derives from your assumption that because Zidane was a better player than Keane, he would be able to fill Keane's defensive role in midfield. There's nothing in Zidane's CV (aside from his flashes of temper) that suggests he could fill that role. You've shot yourself in the foot here, I think. The reason those players were able to play in such a manner is because they demonstrated they were adequate defensively, whereas Zidane never did and so your whole point is based on speculation. Certainly not for France, as you claim, where he was pretty consistantly backed up by the very players you bemoan in the game, such as Vieira, Deschamps, and yes, Makelele (who also covered for him at Madrid, to the very high praise of Zidane himself). The other thing here is that players like Di Stefano and Beckenbauer were excellent physical specimens, and could thus expend energy defensively while still being effective in attack. Zidane didn't have that, IMO, nor did he read the game as well as Cruyff. If you were claiming that Beckenbauer or Di Stefano would be able to hold that midfield together defensively there wouldn't be as much of an issue. However, to extrapolate from those players (who were different and better than Zidane) in order to prove that a player with no recognizable defensive prowess (other than 'humility') would somehow magically be able to perform that role because of a successful career as a primarily attacking midfielder is ridiculous. Why is it you assume humility is the only requisite ability for a holding midfielder? There is so much else that is required. Why do you need a 'butcher' at all, though? If Zidane can play Keane's role, he could surely do the same with Cannavaro's, since all that is needed to play defensively is humility. In fact, you should probably stick Scholes in that backline, as there have been precious few more humble players in recent memory. What you're doing is vastly underrating the nuance and skill required to play defense at the highest level, by assuming that players who were reliant upon the likes of Makelele for their entire career can somehow turn around and play that same role to a higher or equal level than those who spent their entire professional careers perfecting it.
What you said here is correct. However, what you said earlier, "defending is a lot easier than attacking" completely wrong, and the best defensive players have been technically outstanding.
If you don't rate Makelele, you don't understand soccer. He was a great passer. His job wasn't merely to find the open 10-yard pass. Whenever a player in his position receives the ball, there are 3-4 options. Picking the best or second best one is the key skill. Reducing this to "merely finding the open man" is severely underrating players like Makelele. Why are good distributors often good shields? Because good distribution requires one to pass towards the player or area of the pitch where the team is most balanced for further attack. This requires the same kind of insight that good defending entails, which is positioning yourself in key areas where your team is imbalanced. Also consider the following: You need two things to be able to do what he did: SEE open lanes and then have the timing/quickness/endurance to shut them down for the whole game. The vision and timing aspects overlap with those of a good passer. Makelele was a great player and worthy of inclusion in teams of the decade. And kingkong, are you saying that you would rather take an irrational approach to analyzing football? While nobody would disagree that everyone on the pitch would do well to play a bit more defense, it's unrealistic to ask today's teams to play total football as envisioned by Michels, when players are already asked to run so much as it is. There are limits to the human body and we are fast approaching them in soccer.
I may even think that Zidane is 'better than Keane' but I never said that 'because of that' he could fill Keane's (or Makelele's) role. That assumption is all yours. What I 'assumed' was that Zidane - since basically he was a polivalent player - could not only partially exert that function (with the aid of at least another of his companions in the midfield & I suggested Stoichkov &/or Rivaldo) but also could display his virtues as a playmaker (also with the help of the latter ones). Remember that we are dealing with a selection of the best players of a decade (or 15 years) which has at its disposal a pletora of multi-talented players & that IMO it's a true crime to ignore any of those 'football encyclopedias' in order to waste a whole spot among 11 with a player who's just able to do 'one thing' - to kick the adversary's playmaker nuts (even if he does it with class) lol ... Aren't the goalie and the 'butcher' enough?... You want another troglodyte treading with his anabolyzed adductors upon the sacrossaint grounds of the midfield?... I understand you want somebody there doing the ‘dirty job’ in order to let the other 2 or 3 midfielders free to ‘create’… But, man, that’s sad: it’s like driving a Rolls-Royce with sturdy Volkswagen bumpers only not to damage that fine painting… I’m sure that with some imagination a good coach can make 3 or 4 high-level midfielders do the job way more efficiently without sweating their jerseys that much. Well, I might be wrong, but I always saw Zidane as a very well-built player & with a sufficiently impressive physical presence, what - besides his innate knowledge of the position - certainly passed a feeling of security to his defense. That’s not totally true: Zidane was the ultimate 'supervisor' not only of offense but also of defense in any team he happened to play. If coaches of the teams he played overemphasized an exaggerately swollen defensive system, that’s not his fault - but the epoch’s. Besides Vieira at least was a high-class mid who destroyed but also created and I wouldn't oppose myself to place him in my team. Kept the due proportions Zidane IMO was the best mid of the last 15 years (exactly what Beck, Di Stéfano & Cruyjff were in their respective eras) & IMO with very much the same characteristics (specially Di Stéfano's). As I said Beck & Di were better (in fact way better) than Zidane but IMO not essentially different in style. And I mentioned ‘humility’ in the positive sense of the word (i.e., ‘modesty', ‘spirit of renounce’); besides I didn’t say it was the ‘only’ pre-requisite of a DM either. An ‘humility’ that Beck & Di displayed every time they could. Hey, now you’re repeating yourself. Anyway, in the middle of all those geniuses, in any epoch of the game, I see as essential a good ‘butcher’ in a defensive line. But it stops there: the rest of the players better be predominantly technical and tactically multi-faceted (obviously not without being able to impose respect physically - as the great majority of them, BTW). As I said, I’m not against the players Makelele or Keane (who are pretty good, BTW) but against the role they were made to represent in the game (which IMO is quite limited). A role to which MU for instance obliged Anderson (a highly technical player) to undertake transforming him in a South American Alley Oop treading with his stone axe the soil of the Premiere League. Nowadays nor even Dunga (traditionally a defensive player & coach) wants him anymore.
You speak in name of 'reason', but you are the one who talks like a preacher, man - not me. Besides neither am I preaching a 'return' to total football nor I'm undervaluating a player like Makelele (or Keane). Just said there are more complete players in the midfield for us to choose in those 10-15 years. All I'm talking here is about 'roles', not necessarilly about individuals (although sometimes I jokingly caricaturize them in order to stress an argument). Total football just taught us that roles can be almost infinitely interchangeable, and the best player is the one who acts accordingly. So, as far as me 'taking an irrational approach to football' don't come to 'preach' that soccer is an exact science (and that it's written in the stars that the DM is the unsubstituable variable of the eternal equation of football). When in this sport - maybe more than in any other - chance & surprise are its main condiment. And that's why reason & passion are almost undistinguishable in a football match.. Too 'romantic' for you? When you less expect that's however how life also reveals itself to be. Specially when a ball starts rolling ...
That’s not totally correct. That may be true of basketball, volleyball, Am football, tennis, hockey, rugby, cricket, golf, water-polo, polo, table tennis, handball, snooker, bowling, bocce, whatever sport you can imagine involving a ball. Soccer - among all those sports however - is the game in which the best team wins the least. They might win the ‘majority’ of the games (in absolute numbers) but lose much more frequently crucial ones. 1938, 1950, 1954, 1966, 1974, 1982, 1998, 2006 (almost 50% of all WCs) were years in which the best teams simply didn’t win the world title … That practically doesn’t happen in the other sports. Why is that?... Simple as water: football is the ONLY ball sport of the planet that uses the feet. It’s way trickier to control a ball than with the hands. Consequently blunders, mistakes, aleatory plays, chance situations are much more frequent. That’s why it’s no surprise that the country that displays the greatest (foot) ball control in the planet has the biggest number of titles: even though failing to conquer them when had the best team in the paper (at least 50, 82, 98 – not to mention 06). Besides that adds a new dimension: Because of its high rate of imprevisibility it is also the one that necessarily demands – of a group as a whole – the highest physical, psychological & emotional rates of collective concentration. That’s where enter ‘history’, ‘tradition’, ‘records’. All that helps forming the psyché of a team (at club or NT level). Much of that is impalpable & subjective? Yes, dear Phishnchipz, but what can we do?... That’s what makes the noble Breton sport the most impassionate sport of the globe.
2000-2010 3 unexpected/near-impossible comebacks One of the best strike rates for both club and country 187 goals and over 35 assist in 307 games A stand out performer most of the time. There has rarely been a season when he wasn't a topscorer or mvp of something. 02-03 - WC champ, silver-ball, golden shoe, la liga champ, intercontinental champ, Intercontinental final mvp 03-04 – Pichichi/la liga topscorer 04-05 - The 3rd season straight he scored 20+ la liga goals [eto, villa, forlan, etc, etc have yet to do that] 05-06 - WCQ topscorer 06-07 - WC bronze shoe, only Klose scored more, WC alltime topscorer, also in Serie A for AC Milan he had a goal or an assist every 89 minutes 08-09 – Before he got sidelined with his hand injury he was the most decisive player in Brazil and his team was in with a good chance of winning the very rare Brazilian triple.
Great post. Just open a 'Ronaldo' Google page & see who's the real one. http://www.google.com.br/search?q=R...s=org.mozilla:pt-BR:official&client=firefox-a
The way you originally phrased it ('if Keane could do it then so could Zidane') certainly gave that impression. If I misinterpreted then apologies, but you have to admit your posts aren't always crystal clear. See, this is where the disagreement lies. I think you overrate any supposed defensive ability that Zidane had. Ultimately, given the roles he had throughout his career, yours is entirely an assumption. Unless he played a different role at Bordeaux, in which case someone more knowledgable on his early career can feel free to chip in. It appears even the man himself would disagree with you, and he was even so helpful as to use a car analogy to counter yours. Zidane's comment upon the departure of Makelele for Beckham? 'Why put another layer of gold paint on the Bentley when you are losing the entire engine?' If Zidane himself felt he (and his other talented teammates in Raul, Ronaldo and Figo) needed a Makelele in order to make the team function, why is it you insist that a player of Makelele's ilk is unnecessary? FWIW, Hierro and McManaman both rated Makelele and his role in the team equally as highly: Hierro: 'He's been the best player in the team for years but people just don't notice him.' McManaman: 'The most important and yet least appreciated midfielder at Real.' Granted, the words of former players are not always accurate, but the praise directed towards Makelele makes your classification of him as a troglodyte ridiculous. And notice that their praise isn't necessarily of his defensive play either. Calling him the 'engine' of the team would seem to suggest that his wasn't simply a defensive contribution, and phishnchipz's excellent post earlier about his decision making is a great example of that. I totally disagree with your assessment of Zidane's organization of the defense as well. Well built, certainly, but not the organizer you're making him out to be. With guys like Vieira, Deschamps, Hierro, and Desailly behind him, I very much doubt the responsibility of supervising the defense ever really fell to Zidane. I think you're grossly overstating his role here. Alternatively, the coaches were vindicated in not giving him any defensive responsibility to speak of because it allowed him to concentrate on attack and forge the career that he did for himself. I disagree again. I doubt you'd see Zidane lining up as a libero in the style of Beckenbauer, at least not with any success. Again, a difference of opinion. Looking at the role of a Makelele in a vacuum it may seem limited, but looking at the freedom it gives the attacking players, it most certainly is not. Ask the likes of Frank Lampard what they think of the role he provides, since we already know what Zidane thinks. Perhaps the fact that Anderson offers zero goal threat is a factor in him not playing further forward...
great retorts but i have to nitpick on this. bergkamp continued to play further forward, all the way till his retirement, despite alot of people calling for him to move into midfield. i dont necessarily think you need the goals, as that type of forward player, as long as you have the mental agility, balance, touch and vision. but back on topic. he is a perfect example of being a gifted and a physical specimen of a player, a built player, but there is no way he will be a success in a role which is more than 40-50% defense so i agree with you there. i think nedved has it over him in a 4-4-2 and rivaldo/ronaldinho in a 4-3-3. an honorable mention is more than fair.
He didn't even get an honourable mention though. This decade I can see Nedved ahead of Giggs, but not if we stretch it to a 15 year period. Giggs is the finest left winger of at least the last 25 years.
Having the best control and technique doesn't automatically qualify a team as the best. Other aspects have to be considered like team cohesion, defensive ability, physical qualities etc. If you consider all these areas then Brazil was not the best team on the field in 82, 98 (maybe even not on paper actually) and definitely not in 2006. In all these cases the best team won... not only because of Brazil's blunders or simply because of aleatory plays.
Actually, I think extend you so much in the explanation, even citing that article about classicism and romanticism , is useless. It's extremely easier to understand: I think your election is romantic due you're trying to create a midfield that you would like to see and idealize for the genius of his members, what the great majority share and would dream to see, but is outdated. Not really, the primary role of the defensive midfielder is new about the history of football. About specialists, you're misunderstanding the phrase in which referred me the players of an attacking profile as Zidane, Ronaldinho, Stoichkov and Rivaldo, who aren't so good defending and aren't large multi-purpose (as other players in this decade). That's exactly the point where I can see the romanticism of your idea , not only because you're trying to predict the road of the evolution of the football, which isn't a fact, but also because by that idea you would trying to improving with a presumption of the future, what isn't accurate if you're doing a team of this decade. The present is the fundamental thing for a thread of this decade, the conditions in which develops the football today, not how was in the past or how you believe is going to be in the future trying to innovate mate .
Kingkong, I simply said that the best team wins the majority of the time. And you agreed with me. Of course there is more room for error and luck in football, but over the long run, the best team wins the majority of the time. And since that implies football is deterministic, its practice (coaching and playing) should be pursued rationally in all aspects.
You still didn't understand. What I said is even if I rate Zidane over Keane or Makelele (as I do) it's not necessarilly because of that that I think that he could partially replace them. But because of his polivalence (with the luxurious help in my ideal 11 of Stoichkov & Rivaldo of course). As far as my posts being clearly expressed (or not) … …that may also depend on them being 'crystal-clearly'...read. As the great communicator of Brz TV (Abelardo Barbosa) used to say during decades to his nationwide audience Sunday afternoon program: ‘I didn’t come here to explain, I came here to confound’. Supposed? Better believe I'm not alone though. This subject - the attention Zidane paid (or not) to the defensive system - has been discussed at large in BS in many of the threads that involve him. I'm among the ones who believe that his presence in the midfield - specially his admirable ability to retain a ball & make it meticulously circulate among the diverse sectors of the pitch - was an additional factor of tranquility for his defenders. So you're another believer in 'what players say' ... Besides being a gentleman Zidane (like any other normal person) was also a generous supporter of his compatriots. Of course having a sweeper helping him smoothed things up (even though I hint that deep with his buttons he'd intimately dispense with it). I exaggerated a little. I cannot be so much against 'troglos': I myself - Kong, king of the Apes - am one. I even affirmed Makelele could kick the adversaries' playmakers nuts with a lot of class. lol Dunga was another example of classy ‘troglo’ (IMO more efficient than Makelele or Keane in that function) & I dared not to patriotically put him in my team. I think it would be more efficient let decision-making Zidane (with Stoichkov &/or Rivaldo’s help) collectively assume some defense-related actions (not all of them by himself, bien sur) - than making a ‘troglo’ like Makelele or Dunga (as classy as they were) solitarily…think. Believe me: it’s easier to put a cerebral machine as Einstein to run the Marathon than making a pure-strength engine to produce elegies. It doesn’t have to be in the ‘style of Beckenbauer’ but can be in the ‘style of a Di Stéfano’ who was quite different but also cared about his defense. You see me as a maniqueist although that’s not true. I’m not denying that Makelele might have been highly important to the systems the teams he supported proposed to use. What I’m saying is that all that can be done in a much more talented, imaginative (and IMO, effective) way. Listen, man: Zidane, Rivaldo, Messi & R10. Doesn’t that sound like music to the ears?... Anderson progressively un-learned how to score because of the role they made him incarnate in England. Absurdly a denial of his talent - & by accepting it he’s been committing a professional harakiri. A somewhat similar treatment was awarded to Tevez in MU & (if well chiseled) I hint that at M City he – feeling freer at Robinho & Elano’s side - may turn infernal.
As far as that reason doesn't blunt coaches & players' sensibilities (what denies 'determinism') I'll go along with that.