I would easily put Robben ahead of Alex James, Faas Wilkes, and Paul Van Himst. I personally don't like rating pre-1950s players, so someone like Alex James would get downgraded in my view. There's just no good way of judging these players, imo. Faas Wilkes was a successful journeyman, who was the star scorer for pretty much every club he played for. However, I wouldn't say he was recognized as the best player in the league, and one of the best in the world, for as often or as long as Robben did. Paul Van Himst club career was limited to one league, and it wasn't one of the top leagues either. At club level, he doesn't have the European club competition pedigree to match Robben's and at the international level, while Van Himst was a very good player for Belgium, Robben's WC2014 was better than Himt's EURO1972 as well.
But a lot of that is assuming that these things are a zero sum game within nations. A vote for Cruyff doesn't necessarily mean one less for Krol. Baresi is picked more often and ranked more highly than Krol across an array of lists. But anyway, I just found it unusual that Baresi, who is frequently ranked in the top 30 or so, could be below the 10th (at best) Dutch player in your estimation.
To an extent it is. If people are asked to give an XI like for World Soccer in 2013 they'll think twice to fill in three with an orange color or even four Italians. The customary Brazilian, Argentine, German also has to be in. It's not fully zero sum but it plays a part. No question, in some non-Italian lists he's at times even ranked the #1 Italian. The FourFourTwo 'peer vote' of 1995 had him #33 as the first Italian, Krol was #75. Second example: L'Equipe in 1999 had Baresi at #24 (as first Italian), Krol was #94. By the look of it the Italians themselves are less unanimous about this (even Gazzetta of Milan; but also Guerin Sportivo where he wasn't part of the first twelve Italian footballers). Okay 'Voetbal International' in 2017 had Baresi as the seventh Italian by the way (at number #43).
Funny anecdote in this tweet series: On Ruud Gullit’s birthday, the perfect opportunity to remember one of the most under-appreciated assists of the 90s.What a fucking pass. pic.twitter.com/3tWSoLOgL4— A Funny Old Game (@sid_lambert) September 1, 2019 https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/archive...oriesstrongfont-when-ruud-ran-out-at-reading/ In 1999 Newcastle United was trailing 2-0 in a pre season friendly. Gullit was annoyed, taking them back to 2-2 after bringing himself on. "IT'S proved a popular quiz question in recent years: When did Ruud Gullit first pull on the black and white stripes for Newcastle United? The answer, of course, was on our only previous visit to Reading's Madejski Stadium back in July 1999. The Magpies travelled to Berkshire to help mark the opening of the Royals' brand new stadium, but it was the Dutchman who grabbed the headlines when he named himself among the substitutes for a pre-season friendly ... and then introduced himself into the fray at half-time with his team trailing 2-0. The sight of Gullit on the pitch lifted his team and it was his 50-yard diagonal pass to Paul Robinson that saw the forward win a penalty converted by his young strike partner James Coppinger. Not to be outdone, Robinson levelled things ten minutes from time as the game finished 2-2." The other Ruud played twice for Feyenoord Nothing to see here. Just the most graceful central defender of all times, Ruud Krol, in a guest appearance for Feyenoord (!) during a summer tournament in Italy in the early 80s. pic.twitter.com/1OUopadgK1— Runar Nordvik (@RunarNordvik) August 12, 2019
It are good thoughts and can see what you mean but a reason why I name Wilkes as option for the #3 to #9 group is precisely because it is hard to compare eras. Here my summary. The technical mastery was remarkable for a man his size, and he also translated it into goals (for 40 years the all-time topscorer of his national team). He managed to become a club legend for two teams (both competing for the championship) in two different foreign leagues. I also saw schwuppe posting Liedholm (himself a great player, later excellent coach who was ahead of his time) his ranking of best Serie A players he has seen and Wilkes was #7 in Liedholm his estimation despite his relatively brief spell. Wilkes was in the first five years after the war one of the dozen (or so) continental players getting some 'thumbs up' by the English newspapers. ------------ Van Himst never played in a top league, that's true (the Belgian league was at their best between 1975 and 1995, thus after him), but he was the main factor behind Anderlecht becoming the dominant team. After he left there was a dry spell domestically, and before him there was also a five years lull period after the peak years of Jef Mermans and co. A fair chunk of that domestic dominance can be attributed to him (just as Mermans and co made them the most popular club in the country). That he became later a successful coach for club and country added to his standing. Pele, Cruijff and Eusebio played in his farewell match. Crucially, he also did fine outside the confinements of his league. In Europe for his club he has 33 goals (2 pens) in 58 matches although his number of goals against top teams and 'only' one final (one semi) is somewhat disappointing. Anderlecht would have their best period in Europe after him. However, for the national team he has his goals and performances against world champions Brazil, France (three times), England (two times), catenaccio Italy (twice), Hungary, Scotland. Of course the chances for a win are small but he did fine there. Furthermore, his technical ability is commonly rated as very high. He's in that discussion. I'd have him among the better European players of the 1960s certainly. How that compares to another period is tough, but for a balanced representation I'd keep him in I guess. I prefer to leave out Wilkes then, if a chance has to be made. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x68ww84 (unfortunately the euro 1972 videos are deleted)
First off I think Robben is relatively interchangable with all of these players. Wanted to say that again before I make these arguments. My first issue is your assertion that he was clearly the third best player of his era behind Messi and Ronaldo. If I was pressed to choose one player who through the whole era of Messi Ronaldo dominance was third best I might settle on Robben, but If you are looking at any single point in time there are many players who have held that third position, and Robben is just one of the many and he did not hold this position for a longer time than any of these others. In my opinion there is no clear third best player of the era, although I would likely choose Robben or maybe Ibra if pressed as they were the most consistent over this time. Third best player 07/08 - Torres or Xavi 08/09 - Xavi 09/10 - Xavi or Sneijder 10/11 - Xavi or Iniesta 11/12 - Iniesta or Pirlo 12/13 - Ribery or Ibra 13/14 - Robben or Suarez 14/15 - Neymar 15/16 - Griezmann or Suarez or Bale 16/17 - Neymar or Modric 17/18 - Salah As I said I am trying to put different eras on an equal level and not downgrade old players because we know less about them. As far as I can tell James would have a claim to be the third best player in the world in the early 30s behind Sindelar and Meazza, and some British observers likely had him as the best. Players like Orsi and some others would likely be in competition as well. My thoughts are unfortunately built on incomplete data but I want to give these players a fair shake vs modern ones. James was the fulcrum of the Arsenal's great sides who set records for scoring on winning. He was also a famous international for Scotland although his English clubs rarely released for international duty, being a key player in the most famous match of his era in Britiain, the Wembley Wizards match. Wilkes has a lot going for him in my eyes, and his standing in his time might not be as high as Robben's but that is more likely because he was not able to play the national team during his prime. He only played for the national team for three seasons to start his career, and then roughly for five season at the end of his career. During this time he played 35 times and scored 38 goals, again none of these games were played during his prime. His club career being limited to one league is no fault of his, but is does make him more difficult to analyze, similar to someone like Denya. I would say his club level career is not to far behind Robben's when you look at how he preformed compared to his opportunity. The thing for someone like PVH is is he misses half a season like Robben did in 2013 his team will get knocked out of any European competition they are in, he never had the option to miss some time or have a poor half season and then still find himself deep in European Competition with a chance to have a great performance that catches everyone's eye.. Robben had the benefit of always being on one of the best teams in the world. If he misses some time (which he did often) his team is not going to fall apart. For the National team I would agree that Robben was overall better and they had similar opportunity, although Holland during Robben's time had better teammates and easier road to qualifying for big tournaments. Like I mentioned earlier I find all three difficult to parse apart and very similar in achievement and quality.
I think this is great company for robben I'd argue though that he isn't the strongest of this group (but not necessarily the weakest) Baggio is a top 20 all time talent who had the career of a player not even in the top 100 I don't just mean trophies (or lack thereof) Really if you take away what he achieved in roughly an 18 month period (92-94) there isn't much left in terms of consistency Stoichkov id argue leads this group A player with notable achievements before he even joined Barcelona He burned out quickly yes but he was literally great in every single competition he played in World cup Euros ChampIons league Intercontinental cup League He was to Barcelona what eric Cantona was to United The extra quality, even the catalyst that immediately took Barcelona to the next level to my knowledge he is the only 90s player who was great on every level (International and all club competitions) Id argue Luis Alberto suarez could join this group too (arguably the 3rd best league player of the last 10 years even if his CL record is left wanting) Oleh Blokhin is another great addition to this group too Overall robben would sit well here (only 'black mark' is his European championship performance) I don't see what separates th14 from Stoichkov I can see the opposite though
I do think this is a particularly interesting point. In most of the lists we see Baresi is the last centre-back who features. The names we typically see are Beckenbauer, Baresi, Moore, Passarella, Scirea and Krol. In time I'm sure we will start to see Cannavaro make them as the Ballon d'Or factor comes to bear. So in effect, there are no centre-backs of the last 25 years particularly highly rated. Maybe that reflects the difficulty of rating centre-backs or that the things we have valued in centre-backs have changed over time. If we try and look who have been the best in the post Baresi era: Centre-backs selected by FourFourTwo (your order) Nesta Godin Pique Terry Puyol Cannavaro Ramos Rio Ferdinand Desailly Hierro Sammer Adams To those we can add Blanc, Stam, Frank de Boer, Campbell, Vidic, Carvalho, Ayala, Chiellini, Bonucci, Hummels, Boateng, Lucio, Thiago Silva, Pepe, Kompany (and others). I think it's very hard to come up with a clear order for those, yet the same centre-backs for the 60s, 70s and 80s pop up with regularity and often in the same sort of order.
Yeah I think there are some of Baresi his era I am tempted to place ahead: Van Basten, Matthaus, Laudrup, Gullit (roughly in that order). Then I can also see a strong case for Stoichkov (already partially covered by carlito) and Rijkaard - possibly some more. Rijkaard won three Champions Leagues as starter, scoring or assisting in each final, won unlike Baresi a major tournament, won the Cup Winners Cup (winning goal in semi, assisted by MvB) was a supreme center back as well when needed (at the highest levels). There is more to say but think there is a case for Rijkaard as a better footballer. One problem is that you can't have a top 30 without a single Italian in. Or an XI without one in. http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/wrldallt.html With the offensive positions 'locked', the defensive positions are the sensible way to give Italy fair justice. Baresi is one of the best center backs of all time to me (certainly on a five years peak factor), but do wonder why he finished 2nd in 1989 BdO. I will reply to this in the other thread but Van Dijk 30 years later wins across the board, and is evidently more crucial. For a start: Milan had the 3rd best defense of their country in 1989, and won against teams like Barcelona and Napoli without Baresi, zero goals and assists in the European Cup.
He didn't reach the same heights there as in the league, Champions League (knockout), or the three World Cups, but has still his games. Most notably vs Czech 2004 and France 2008. Against Germany in 2012 he assisted Van Persie his goal. Van Persie had still work to do (baiting Hummels etc.) but Robben his precise one touch pass helped to give him momentum. In one go he gave Van Persie the momentum vs Hummels. Arjen Robben is the fourth player to assist a goal in three different Euro finals tournaments (Klinsmann, Poborsky and Schweinsteiger). #NED— Castrol (@Castrol) June 17, 2012 (What was Van Marwijk thinking when he made Huntelaar his first choice striker? Crazy)
Done here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/best-players-of-18-19-season.2102576/page-23#post-38128427 Beckenbauer is clearly the single best but he's also the most unusual center back. Telling is he's the German player with the most shots in World Cup history, above Klose, Muller and the rest (shooting still a weaker aspect of his repertoire; four of his five WC goals came in fortunate circumstances with goalkeeper errors, very weak Switzerland etc.). In the euro 1972 final he had more dribble attempts than anyone else of his team. This eulogy on 'spielverlagerung' mentions the defensive limitations ("he is no sweeper", breaks down after so many high balls) and sometimes taking a nap or his pause. https://spielverlagerung.com/2016/1...ing_wp_cron=1567537270.2409019470214843750000 The next group of more conventional center backs is much harder to place in order. Interesting there how Baresi often gets placed on top (not without reason) despite not winning the World Cup and being a relative late bloomer.
I think you are conflating a bit 'best season' vs 'best player'. If it is about the actual third best player then Neymar has also a case for 2017-18 for example (and Salah too). In the same way, I think at a stretch Robben has a case around 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014, 2015 and even also 2017. His ratio of great performances and delivery against the top 15 teams (for club and country) was excellent in 2016-17 and the first half of 2017-18, including his games against Real Madrid; arguably significantly better as what Neymar did against the top sides; who is also a candidate for the actual third best player that year. Here two relevant summaries here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/historical-ranking-of-arjen-robben.2087098/#post-37322170 https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/du...cation-1979-1994.1978389/page-9#post-37114131 He's the European with the most successful dribbles in World Cup history (against tough opposition, missed the group stage of 2010, group of death in 2006 and 2014); with 6 goals and 6 assists. That does not negate though I'd keep for balance Van Himst in, who was technically a superbly skilled player.
Players shown as most similar by the Doppelgangers tool (first and second tier teams only), typically with slightly lower offensive stats but better defensive stats from the Z-score: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/world-cup-comparisons/franz-beckenbauer-1974/ Lahm 2014, F. de Boer 1998, Augenthaler 1990, Demyanenko 1982, Sansom 1986, Carlos Alberto 1970, Moore 1970. Comparison: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/world-cup-comparisons/philipp-lahm-2014/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/world-cup-comparisons/frank-de-boer-1998/ Looking past the occasional fluky-or-not results, I don't dispute he was the 2nd best player of his generation (by the different versions of 'GoalImpact' he's also one of the more effectual center backs), but it must be noted the defensive record was regularly not at a good level, including 1976 for club and country. That also underlines the difference with the 'conventional' center backs, who in turn are harder to place in order (okay, Krol > Scirea is for me not a difficult conclusion). I saw this 'best XI' by goalkeeper Jürgen Croy: ------- JÜRGEN CROY ... was the best goalkeeper in the GDR. In 1976 he won gold at the Olympics in Montreal. And, yes, in 1974, on June 22, when Jurgen Sparwasser shot the West German team into defeat, Juergen Croy was also in goal. GATE Gordon Banks: Very business-like, very controlled, with enormous charisma. DEFENSE Franz Beckenbauer: The outstanding footballer of Germany. Ruud Krol: He gave security to the Dutch team. Bobby Moore: He gave the English team almost aristocratic traits. Daniel Passarella: He was both an outstanding defender and an outstanding footballer. MIDFIELD Johan Cruyff: The above all towering technician and strategist of the 1970s. Diego Maradona: Whenever the genius has the madness in check. Pelé: The footballer of the century. ATTACK Eusebio: I think of the World Cup in 1966, when he enchanted us all. Garrincha: Crooked legs, strong with dribbles, ball-lover, so must be an outside winger. Gerd Müller: Without a spectacle he did what a center forward has to do: goals, goals, goals. https://www.tagesspiegel.de/sport/die-experten-lassen-defensiver-spielen/714042.html ------ I'd say myself Passarella was one of the dirtiest and meanest on the list, could be drawn out of position like in 1982 many times; Scirea the cleanest in his actions. Passarella had the advantage of his scoring and assisting though; arguably one of the two best since television started (Blanc et al. are in the 2nd group in that respect).
Where would you rank Marius Tresor among his contemporaries Beckenbauer, Krol, Passarella and Scirea ?
Yes it is interesting in that late 1970s, early 1980s period not all of them were at their peak but Beckenbauer, Krol, Passarella, Figueroa, Scirea, Baresi, Hansen, Chivadze, Pezzey, Augenthaler, Morten Olsen, Bossis, Zmuda, Metgod, Tresor among others were all active. If you look at ideal XIs per season I think you can claim Tresor was included as often as many of them, with the exception of the first four I name (here I combine Passarella his stay at both continents; when he was playing for Fiorentina or Inter he was actually overlooked or ignored quite often). The continental European vote even included Tresor in 1977, before he played the World Cup. He was included four times in the Ballon d'Or between 1977 and 1982, but each time he received only one vote. His club career is rather disappointing (more so than Blanc) with a 16th, 6th, 13th finishes in the league for Ajaccio. Then he joined Marseille who had just won back-to-back championships (and a 2nd place before that) where he finished 3rd, 12th, 2nd, 9th, 12th, 4th, 12th, 19th. Then he joined Bordeaux aged 30.5 where he ended up 3rd, 4th, 2nd and 1st. Tresor won only two club trophies in his career: a domestic cup and a solitary league tile when he played only 12 league games. In Europe he finished 1st round, 2nd round, 1st round, 1st round, 2nd round, round of 16, 1st round. In the first season after him Bordeaux reached the semis of the European Cup (losing 3-2 on aggregate against Juventus), that's tough. Playing for 'poor' teams does not necessarily equal a sub-standard player, but don't think he made a substantial difference for a team finishing 12th (need to look closer to be 100% sure but for now the evidence isn't there). If a club footballer is really that good he can be expected to make a factual difference for his sub-standard side. Maybe I'm wrong here about Tresor, but the quick glance doesn't give a green light. For the national team I think he was good, just unlucky he was fading once France really became strong, became a better equipped organization, and solved their defensive problems. He was born a few years too early. Dearman his perception of him constantly out of position is harsh (I disagree with a lot of what he says; while Dearman didn't make such 'defensively bad' remark about Krol, it is imho wrong to imply he was less fair than Passarella - "rough tackles" - and the Italian sources agree with me). Those assessments are however a reminder the 'great' center backs are primarily remembered for what they could do with a football (Tresor: two goals against Germany, once against Brazil; four national team goals in total). The evergreens have not necessarily withstood the test of time because of the defensive capabilities, and the regular *enormous howlers* become forgotten. Tresor is an interesting player in the sense he could play as a 'simple' stopper/marker and also as a ball-playing defender. Where I would place him I'm not fully certain, but not at the bottom and also certainly not among the four names you mention. edit: Tresor became footballer of the year for Ajaccio. Not later for Marseille or Bordeaux? If it is about national team contribution (65 caps, 4 goals) I can sort of understand why he finished 6th in the French player of the century.
Thanks for the quality of your analysis (as always). He acted like a kind of pioneer, being the first 'great' French player raising in the early 70's, even before Platini, Bossis, Rocheteau etc did. No surprise he's seen as a model for someone like Desailly (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/02/marcel-desailly-picks-his-all-time-france-xi) and that he finished that high in the ranking you mentioned. But yeah I see why his club carreer can be seen as a limitation. Edit : his WC78 and 82 performances look pretty solid and are a testimony to his all-around game I think : https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/world-cup-comparisons/marius-tresor-1978/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/world-cup-comparisons/marius-tresor-1982/ Pretty similar to Scirea in 82 for instance. Naturally, the issue is that Tresor rarely had the opportunity to play with good GKs, central defender partners and defensive midfields.
Thanks. How do you see the comparison with Desailly by the way? Tresor the better footballer, Desailly the better athlete I think (at times really a pinball machine in how he processed the ball ). Desailly his pass accuracy (long and short, own half and opposition half) is clearly below the likes of Leboeuf, Stam and a young Rio Ferdinand when he was in the Premier League. In above placement I ignored two of his best seasons (1992-1994) by the way. Came to the fore of the domestic scene when he was 24 years old if I'm not mistaken (his Nantes colleague and friend Deschamps made the jump earlier). Desailly played three great tournaments although I rate the last of them (2000) as the least strong. This is supported by his much lower index and statistics (but of course he compensated for Blanc's weaknesses and ageing, who ranks high in the Opta Index). In 2004 Desailly was a liability. Desailly his club career is great everything considered but - for example - after 1994 only once part of the best defense, despite playing for teams named Milan and Chelsea (from 2001-2004 alongside an already strong performing John Terry; Leboeuf not too bad either, 50 caps as 'back-up' in a very competitive period). Five times part of the 4th best defense or worse (twice for Chelsea) after 1994. I think I can see why both Blanc and Tresor ended up ahead of him in the France Football vote.
Yes he is not European but babaorum mentions him and how Tresor would fit in. The doppelgangers tool gives Uwe Seeler as 2nd most similar player, for his 1982 version. Shows what 'defender' he was. Collected many yellow cards for tactical fouls in his European career, the Ramos of his time. Except for one supreme season, in Italy or Europe they weren't convinced (add in his SA seasons though and you get up to six all-star recognized seasons). As I said before, I am not at all convinced the club scene didn't matter much in the past. If you look at the old all-time lists (from Europe or South America), many are on who never starred or played at the World Cup and/or another major tournament.
About the Desailly vs Tresor comparison : I wouldn't say Desailly was a superior athlete. I mean Tresor was quite a physical guy, very strong, excellent in the air, and quite fast (he practiced tracks and fields before playing football). But Tresor was definitely a better football player, definitely. Not as good as Blanc with the ball in his feet, but better than Desailly for sure. Desailly achieved much more than Tresor and he dominated his time in his own way, but pound for pound I reckon Tresor was a superior player. The libero role disappeared today, but I think Tresor is one of those past players who would play in nowaday's football with ease. What does @wm442433 think about all of this ?
Interesting that Desailly is not considered a great ball-playing defender because when he first came to England, he was billed as such. I guess it goes to show how lacking the CBs in England were in this department. I guess anyone can look good on the ball next to Tony Adams hoofing up the ball
Here another scene or this In the 2000-01 season he got a whopping eleven yellow cards in 34 games. He got sent off in the 1998 World Cup final and in the 2002 Senegal game he was a few times hopelessly kicking thin air (without exaggeration). I'd have him a couple places higher for his full career (92/93 despite the unfolding scandal, 93/94, 95/96 are his best phases) but one thing that does not sit well with me is he never had an ESM selection between 1995 and 2004. His team mates Weah, Maldini, Simone, Lebouef, Zola, Di Matteo, Babayaro, Cudicini, Terry, Bridge, Lampard had all a monthly selection when he was playing in the same team. Another thing is that unlike a Vidic, Stam (three teams) or Hierro he really didn't lift his team to a higher sphere. For Vidic the evidence is clear (between debut and last match), for Desailly it is the opposite. It seems babaorum and myself have the same sort of ideas about the relative 'class' of the players but Desailly is still easily within the best 35 center backs of the past 25 years of course. Here a nice summary of his time at Chelsea: http://www.sporting-heroes.net/foot...phy-of-his-football-career-at-chelsea_a11305/ He had a nice charming appearance and charisma, had the captain armband at times, and on his CV was "can play in midfield", "world cup winner" and "scores in a Champions League final". The biography in the OPTA yearbooks explicitly notice his technical shortcomings. When deployed in midfield he had a big presence and was dominating on the eye, but it as always it comes with trade-offs. He wasn't always aware what happens behind his back. In interviews he himself said this: At Stamford Bridge, you went from defensive midfielder to central defender. Why? Which position did you prefer? Tom Penney, Manchester The game is much more tactical in Italy and I was in a different phase, too. I managed to get by in midfield. In England I was in a period when I needed to get back to my original position, my real position, at centre-back. The game is so much quicker in England, there’s no time to turn and you are fouled much more. I was heading towards the final years at the top level and I needed to be playing in the position where I was most comfortable. https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/marcel-desailly-one-one#E6O5wg50l5apIfqs.99 Which is an interesting realization: on the one hand the slower pace (and within season-management) in Italy gives leeway to a Totti or 35+ years old strikers to do his thing, gives a breather to creative players who aren't physical beasts. On the other hand, Desailly has to process the ball much quicker too in England. Physicality is very important in the British leagues (or football in general). When Van Dijk was scoring one free kick after the other for Celtic this was the commentary by 'The Herald' of Scotland: Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler Dutch observers, once they have overcome their natural shyness, note their countryman's composure with the ball at his feet and reckon he isn't anything special. Mark Wotte, the Dutchman responsible for bringing through the next generation of Scottish players in his role as the Scottish Football Association's performance director, has taken a close interest in van Dijk's development since the former Groningen player joined him in Glasgow in the summer. He has been impressed with the 22-year-old's form and believes a full call-up to the Dutch national side may not be too far away but, in typically candid form, felt that the player was "not exceptional" in a country where defenders comfortable with the ball at their feet are commonplace. "In Holland, central defenders are judged in another way," he said. "It's not only clearing the ball and winning headers. For Celtic, van Dijk is a good passing player but in Holland he's not exceptional with his passing ability. I know big clubs have watched van Dijk, but they have their own players who they have developed through the youth system and did not want to pay the money. (the same guy two years later) Physicality is one of the differentiating factors between players with equal or better ability (not to mention recovery also aids technique and training). Furthermore, Desailly had his matches where he looked more than okay. That interview has also other interesting questions and answers I see: You were at Nantes six years before Marseille signed you. Why did it take so long for the big clubs to take notice of you? Joel Green, Lincoln Because, for a start, at the time we respected our contracts much more. Bosman hadn’t yet happened and it was difficult to imagine young players moving abroad as easily as they do today. And Nantes also had a policy of holding on to their best players for as long as possible. Indeed, I might well have stayed longer at Nantes but the club had a few financial worries and were obliged to sell me. But maybe it was because I wasn’t such an exceptional player, either. I was a good young player, with a lot of potential, but I hadn’t yet got into the France side because I was barred by the likes of Casoni, Basile Boli, Franck Silvestre, who were a bit better than me. Which meant I hadn’t quite proved my worth to the big clubs like Marseille, Bordeaux or PSG. [....] Zidane, Van Basten, Papin, Zola, Maldini, Baresi, Gullit, Rijkaard, Weah, Henry, Sutton. You’ve played with some great players, but if you could only have one of them in your team, who would it be and why? George Thorpe, Leytonstone Van Basten. The complete player. He really impressed me. When I was at Marseille I dreamed of playing alongside Van Basten. What a player! Sensational! Some of the other players I played alongside when I was already an established player – it was different. Zola and Zidane were tremendous players, too. Amazing creativity.
Yeah, Desailly could be a dirty player at times. Quite the opposite of Tresor, who was yellow-carded only twice in his carreer (and was never red-carded). One last thing about Tresor is that he was also a pioneer in the sense he's the first player from the Antilles islands (or the overseas more generally speaking) to have really emerged at the top level. He opened the door to overseas players in some ways. Players like Thuram or Henry still show him a lot of respect for that. So, Marius Tresor's importance probably exceeds a bit what he did on the field.
I don't like Passarella. Apart from that, I think you have dissected things well enough with PvH so nothing to add. About the direct comparison between Trésor and Desailly, they can fall in two distinct categories ofc (libero and stopper) though as already said Trésor could play as stopper and also that Desaily was not that bad on the ball (was even very satisfying in that aspect imo, taking apart his post-98 years maybe or even before in club, yes... at one point he stopped to progress and has regressed surely + I think he really needed to be at his top physically to be at his top technically as well, especially true for a player "like him" perhaps, who somehow surpassed himself at a technical level with the ball during his peak years) and I think that all in all... they're equal. No joke. I have them two in my ideal French team's back four (with no 'real side-backs'). Then it's two different eras and while I agree with you about Trésor being a player who could "adapt" in today's football (though himself says a bit the contrary), in terms of career and for Desailly actually has played in that just pre- Bosman + Bosman era wich is also the CL era etc., I stronlgy suppose that I'd rank Desailly first. In '94, 96-98, we could say he was unbeatable and nobody would have accused yourself of being exaggerating. Also, just like Rijkaard, he scored his little goal in a CL final as a midfielder ('94) and Capello was content with him at this position. Wich shows the importance of a system and of one club's DNA imo (or at least its recent past) : nobody would rank Desailly higher than Rijkaard as a midfielder but in the facts, he has made the job too. Back to the question about athletical qualities, Trésor says that it was not the same at his time compared to later/ now but yes, during his own era, was he not described by Dzajic as a "tank"? And it's not only Dzajic surely. Also as you Babaorum surely knows, it seems that despite everthing, during that particularly difficult era for the club, Trésor has always been exemplary at OM, and was always considered "international-class queen king gold" while being there. Then, that's leaving aside the periods of time during wich he was injured of course, perhaps a couple of times during his stay there. At Bordeaux, yeah, he was finishing his career. Very good Mundial 82 tho. Even legendary! Trésor at the Mundial 82 is a bit like Zidane at the Weltmeisterschaft 2006...??... yeah... Of course he was "only 30" when he joined Bordeaux, but "il aimait la vie" il faut croire. Btw, I like this video where he is commenting on a France-Portugal from the sofa, at his home, as injured. (in March '78) + yes, I'm seeing at the moment in a video-itw that he played without shin pads. A bit like Blanc (who cutted them in two or used shin pads for children, something like that). Also, as always, he says that he was contacted by Bayern between Marseille and Bordeaux but that it did not work because of the OM directors who asked for too much money against his remaining 6 months of contract. Whatever the reason is or the range of resons are, it did not happen anyway.
Well let me accuse then While I think Desailly was (with Weah) one of the better players when Milan was in a weak phase (1996-1998), he was of course beaten at times at that phase. Both individually and collectively. That's inevitable with the club in a difficult time. He could be rash and too pro-active (as shown at 4:50 in the post-prime 2003 Chelsea video when defending a 2-2 against mighty United), with at times yellow (or red in some big matches). For the national team he, in comparison to Blanc, also lost more matches in the 'invincible' phase (1996-2000) and he was sent off in the final (not a sign of 'unbeatenness' as an individual). In euro 2000 he conceded 7 goals in 6 matches... Everything has an end but Blanc was probably missed after 2000. Agree with the idea of Milan's system and machinery, but would add Desailly 'only' did this in one major match or final (and only for Milan vs tired opponent; Rijkaard did it before Milan, after Milan and in semis for the national side). Desailly has 24 goals in his entire top level career, after all. He was above all a great protector of the defenders behind him... if it all worked out, in the 1997 video vs Juventus (6-0 loss) he looks pretty fine on the ball (also some awkward moments) but completely forgets what happens around and behind him... But that's almost inevitable with a team in a difficult phase. His first match/matches for Chelsea in 1998 weren't a success, too (directly at fault for some goals). This sounds too negative perhaps... don't mean it like that. It's about 'the goals' and 'unbeatable' in those years.