But couldn't you argue that Maradona's drug ban came at the end of his career when he was clearly on a down slope? He may have been only in his early 30's but he'd played almost 7 seasons in Serie A as well as his time at Boca and Barcelona. As well as his high profile World Cup incidents wasn't his headbutt in a champions league match mentioned as one of the main reasons why he lost out on a Ballon d'Or title? For me, pressure eventually took its toll on Maradona. Whereas with Zidane, the incidents were something that were ingrained into his psyche. The guy was a wonderful player to watch. I'll never forget his volley at Hampden but he always lost a bit of the wonderment that surrounded him because of his behaviour at times on the pitch.
Let's clarify here. Nobody here (at least so far in the discussion) hates Zidane. What has happened on the boards has been a common divide. Some, such as yourself, have put Zidane up there with the likes of Pele and Maradona. Others have swung too far the other way and said ridiculous things like not putting him in the top 200 players ever. The reality, as in most cases, is somewhere in between these extremes. Nobody here denies that Zidane was an artist. He was among the most stylish and graceful players to ever play the game, and a joy to watch. However, we shouldn't get carried away with ourselves and allow that impression to let us put him among football's absolute elite. In making these selections I'm trying to put aesthetics to one side and focus on effectiveness. And that is where Zidane falls down in comparison to many of his rivals. His 1998 World Cup has been the subject of enormous revisionism. He scored 2 fine headed goals in the final against Brazil. That is it basically. He did very little else. His time with Juve was also less than might have been expected of an all-time great. When he joined them, they were European Champions. In the next two seasons they lost in the final. In neither of these finals did Zidane impress. Furthermore, when Zidane left Juve they improved and won back to back titles after failing to win one in his last three years at the club. Nobody can deny that his Euro 2000 was excellent. This, for me, was the pinnacle of his career. He managed to combine his artistry with effectiveness and was a major (though far from the only) factor in France's victory. His final was, in all honesty, underwhelming. Then at Madrid while he started with a victory in the CL, his time was again a dissapointment. In five years there he won just one league title, and that despite being a part of a truly stellar squad. For the calibre of players he played along that was a major failure. Again, coincidentally as soon as Zidane left the club they won back to back league titles. Certainly he was a great player, but talk of him being the equal of Pele, Maradona or Di Stefano is way off the mark. Sadly, as time goes on more and more people will forget the truth and begin to be taken in by this revisionism. On the Guardian poll that lanman referred to very few people even questioned the selection of Zidane. That just shows how far it goes.
Who should I "counter-troll" since I'm French ? Comme maybe ? Sorry but I think his ranking is excellent. Platini should not be mentioned in the discussion. He was superior to Zidane in every aspect of the game except dribbling, ball-control and headbutting.
Concerning Zidane, your argument is correct but I think you have to make a difference between his club carreer and his NT carreer. He has always performed better with France than with clubs. I think I watched all his games for France (108) and I must say that I remember very few games in which he was invisible or mediocre, except at the end of his carreer (WC06 group stage). On the contrary I remember dozens of games he really dominated, not only by flashes of brilliance. He did it in Euro2000 of course but also in a lot more games. In international games I don't see many other players dominating more than he did. Some months ago I've found some interesting stats watching again some games and looking at infos from the French football federation football site : to sum up, Zidane either scored or set up 1/3 of the French goals during his carreer with les Bleus (70/220 goals in 108 caps). Not only that but in games that mattered (ie no friendlies) Zidane either scored or set up 0.75 goal per game. I think that's as good as anyone except Platini, Maradona and a few other ones.
See this is one of the things with Zidane, and why opinions vary to such a high degree. He was seen by so many people, the good and not so good. It is easier to scrutinize him for under performing here or there. Even the people who saw Didi play probably didn't get to watch him that much. Ianman asked why I questioned Charlton or Didi being above. And not having seen those two all I have to go on is trophies and awards. Zidane: Trophies (1 WC, 1EU, 3 domestic titles, 1 CL) Honors ( WPOY 1st 98', 2nd 00', and 3rd 97') Charlton: Trophies (1WC, 3 domestic titles, 1 domestic cup, 1 CL) Honors (WPOY 1st 66', 2nd 67' 68') Didi: Trophies (2 WC, 2 CL) Honors (World Cup top player in 58) I know Zidane also had a lot of runner up finishes as well, but since I don't know about the others I won't include that. But when we talk about pure substance, Zidane's resume seems the strongest. If I'm off base here please explain why the others were better.
Isn't it a bit odd to compare trophy cabinets between players like Zidane and Charlton? Not only in terms of eras, but how Charlton found himself in a suddenly rebuilding Manchester United side after the Munich crash.
Based on how you feel about about Sneijder's season I can see you don't put much stock in winning. Other than trophies and individual awards how do you compare players who played in different eras? Surely not goals, that seems even stranger.
well goals would indicate they at least contributed to some degree trophy's don't always indicate that just speaking in general here
These are good points and I must say that the statistics are interesting. One stat that I did find particularly amazing though (and I'm not going anywhere with this) is that the first and only time Zidane assisted Henry was for his goal against Brazil. I don't know if that is true, but to me it was astonishing. Perhaps some of the anti-Zidane sentiment has gone too far in the past, but I do find it infuriating when people so often spout his "carrying" of France to the WC of 98 and the final of 2006. He did no such thing.
Zidane also assisted Henry for his goal vs Denmark during EC2000. Anyway 2 assists is a low figure for sure. Zidane assisted more Trezeguet, Wiltord and Anelka for their goals. However you can't measure Zidane's influence as a playmaker only looking at his assists stats : he was the guy who often played deep on the field to deliver the key pass that set one of his teammates into a good position (often Djorkaeff) to assist the goalscorer. It means that Zidane set up more goals to Henry than his 2 assists suggest. Another point that stats don't show is that Zidane was a master at maintaining possession, a bit as Xavi is now. This is something that is never mentioned but I think that was one of the key reason why the French defense was so dominating during his reign : teams couldn't attack because they were unable to get the ball. I think that was pretty clear for instance in the WC06 semi-final vs Portugal : he had a rather unspectacular game offensively (despite his penalty) but if you look closely he focused on retaining possession as much as he could. In some way his effort helped the French defense to shut down the Portuguese attacks. Many people said he was average that day but I think he was on the contrary actually pretty good, tactically speaking.
Those are valid points. Just to make clear the Henry assist stat wasn't meant as a jibe at Zidane, just a stat that I found very strange for two great players whose careers overlapped so much. Zidane was also extremely hard to dispossess as he had great physical strength for a man so graceful and he used his body well to shield the ball. His retention of the ball was great as well, though one thing that I think that Xavi does better is the way he manipulates the opposition by his endless stream of passes. That is Xavi's greatest strength IMO, though as seen in some big games, it doesn't always work against a bunkered defence.
Trust me, it is not a dodge but I could very much dismiss 50% of the argument of the "anti-zidane brigade". I don’t have the will to make such effort, as it demands a lot of time, especially for someone not writing in his own language. So great, Babaorum who is also French (half ? kidding !) isn’t really helping me. Not to deny the right for him to prefer Platini, I just want to put it under perspective. I have no numbers, lazy to find them on the net, but 80 % ? I would say 90% of the French would place Zidane above, or very above, Platini in a rating. Not only in accomplishment, but also in skill (the large version of the word). I would take these percentage from ppl above 30-35, those who had the chance to see both of them play, which is my case. Ask French ppl, and not those from this corrupted board. Few other things: - Funny how major stars seem only to get their skill set once they go in Italy, England or Spain. Do you think that Drogba was crap, or at least very far from the level he had in Chelsea when he was playing in France? What about Malouda, Essein, Ribery, Cech, etc... They were MONSTERS in France as well. Our ligue is pretty crap for several reasons but the formation level and the recruitment is off-chart, the amount of stars we produced for England, Italy and Spain was probably better than Brazil, Argentina or Holland from 1995-2008. As you see, I am not only talking about French players, but from players who learned from French league and clubs. We were the formation center for Europe. What about Zidane ? Zidane was a MONSTER in France way before he joined the Juve. Yea, he was bit of a late bloomer, but at 23 he was probably already the best French player, by then at Bordeaux. - The idea that Zidane was crap in 98 until finale : This is absolute bullshit, like the rumor spread by an ignorant, repeated ad nauseum by every cheep around. When you have almost every time 2 or 3 player dedicated to mark another (or 1 to mark and 2 other immediatly collapsing on the target), you may be shutdown or almost, but you are giving your mates a strong advantage, playing at 10 vs 9 or 8. Zidane was that good that almost every time he had not only 1 but 2 or 3 players jumping on him once he was moving with the ball. Watch games again, for France, for Juve, For Real. - Zidane wasn’t inconstant. It was quite the opposite. However he was sometimes shutdowned. The cost for the shutdown is the reason why Zidane is the best player I had the chance to watch play since, in my case, I would say 1986, when I was 10. I won’t comment Pelé or older player. - If you really think Zidane was invisible in 2006 pre the Brazil game, even during our pathetic 1st round, then definitely, the discussion between us is pointless. It is exactly the same thing that considering a goal keeper useless as he doesn’t score goals. - In 90% of the games I saw Zidane play in he was the best player on the field. Shut downed or not. By his standard, he was sometimes at 70% and still the most influential player on the pitch. I would understand that in this 3 last years for Real, since he was 33 to 36) if was declining. But I didn’t see him play much by then.
On what basis is he better than Platini? What tournament did he ever have to touch that of Platini's Euro 84. Which club seasons did he have to touch Platini's incredible 3 top scoring seasons for Juve? As for the numbers who would prefer Zidane, I'll have to take your word for it. Public perceptions tend to be pretty warped though. Check out this all-time England team for example: http://www.channel4.com/sport/microsites/E/englandsdreamteam/survey/results.html Hmm, so being a top player in France (as good as Malouda) is of significance in terms of an all-time ranking? I'm not deriding the French league, but domestic performances like that are not really the sort of thing that puts you into the very highest echelon. Just as a comparison, between Platini and Zidane. Zidane's first nomination for the Ballon D'Or came in 1996 (after his move to Juventus) where he finished 28th. Platini in comparison was first nominated aged 21, and he finished 5th. In the whole of their careers Platini finished in the top 5 8 times as opposed to Zidane's 5. Platini finished in the top 3 5 times as opposed to Zidane's twice. Platini won it 3 times, Zidane only once. So what were Zidane's notable contributions prior to the final then? We'll have to disagree here. He was inconsistent and often peripheral. He wasn't invisible in all the games, he was good against Spain. Was it a coincidence though that France won their only game of the group stage (against Togo) without him. He was very average up until the Spain game. Again, we are poles apart here. I watched him play in every tournament game he ever played for France, as well as significant numbers of games for both Juventus and Real Madrid. The 90% suggestion is totally off-base based on the games I saw.
Comme, you are wasting your time here. You are talking with a guy who just claimed that Zidane was the best player on the field regardless whether he was shut down or not. Think about it. Sildegil would claim that Zidane singlehandedly slew Lucifer if he could get away with it.
The Guardian journalists' team was a strange one. ---------------Casillas Cafu -- Lucio --------Beckenbauer -- Lizarazu Neekens--- Matthaus --- Mackay --- Tardelli --------Maradona -- Ronaldo The midfield was basically 4 midfielders, with no separation between wingers or central midfielders. Then the selection of Gerrard by readers was absolutely ridiculous, but that is the sort of thing these polls turn out.
Tribune, why do you dare posting in this forum when you shoot yourself in the foot like with this argument? Ok simply math: 2 teams : A) 11 players of equal skill B) 10 players of equal skill (same as those in A)) + 1 superior player. Coach of team A) considers that his best shot to win the game is to put 2 players on the superior player. Consequence = 2 players are mobilized but the superior player is shut downed. Question 1) who will win? Question 2) who was the best player on the pitch? Seriously what the ******** is wrong with you guys? Even Basketball fans (who are not supposed to be the brightest) actually understand the double teaming and how it shows the value of a player.
But this sort of thing happens all the time to top players. The very best players set themselves apart with the way they deal with it. You are effectively giving him a free pass by saying that in every game that he was double teamed he is automatically the best player because he set a team-mate free. Whether he actually did anything himself doesn't matter to you. By that criteria he automatically is the best player on the pitch each game.
The jounalists team actually had 4 midfielders that are all on your 'defensive midfielders' list (though of course Neeskens and Matthaus especially were very useful going forwards too), wheras the readers team had 3 from your 'attacking midfielders' list in midfield (Gerrard, Zidane, Maradona) and one who'll be in the forwards I assume (Cruyff). The thing is though it's possible that no single reader chose a midfield like that but that overall those 4 received the most votes. The jornalists midfield is definately more suprising - given all the attacking midfielders and wingers available I'd think he could've included at least a couple either in a 4-4-2 or diamond while still having a solid team which is what he was going for I would think (it would actually be more balanced as well as more talented this way). He's also left out Pele which has got to be a big call for an all-time XI. Admitedly an all-time XI can never be tested, and there could be as many questions about the policy of 4 attacking midfielders I suppose (I was thinking about submitting a team on a nice website linked by a user called GeorgieBest on my Daily Mail Top 50 Players Ever thread, and if I do I'm pondering moving away from 4 attacking midfielders by putting Beckenbauer in midfield with Baresi and Moore in central defence). The website has lists of greatest players by position which make an interesting comparison to the ones comme has done, plus sections on great national and club sides.
The irony of which was the fact that the whole thing was started to celebrate Pele and Maradona's birthdays.
Lol, well he ended up in the readers team though if I remember from yesterday when I had a look correctly only because Maradona went into midfield. When are their birthdays then - are they the same star sign?
Pele is 23 October 1940, Maradona is 30 October 1960. Apparently that makes them both Scorpios (wikipedia is my friend, I do not know anything about star signs). The number of top players born in October is incredible.
I wish I had more time to answer Comme. But I am at work, and my employees are zergling me. Maybe we should also not spoiled your own thread which is not all about Zidane. About the term "shut downed". Even if I had to over simplify to develop my reasoning, with my math metaphor, it is more complicated. Football isn’t an exact science. The "guardian(s)" still can contribute. The guarded still can contribute. The vast majority of the time, Zidane was not only able to make several opponents collapsing toward him, but still contributing a bit. As his main goal wasn’t to score or assist but to orchestrate the play, even marked or double marked, his vision allowed him to guide the play where it should be. Watch the first round in 98, the whole pace, orientation, orchestration was his. He wasn’t able to destroy the opposition like he did against Brazil in WC2006, because he was immediately surrounded, but still, in every single game, he WAS the most important player for France. Opponents had to modify their tactic to contain his aura/presence, liberating space, + he was still able to contribute enough (what I may have badly called "Shut Downed").