oh you mean the guy with 3 league titles (in none of which he was head and shoulders above the rest) despite playing 10 seasons (5 Juve, 5 Real) for arguably the best teams in leagues that were serious contenders prior and after his spells at the clubs. Prior to joining Juve in 1996 Juve finished: 1994/95: 1st 1995/96: 2nd After he left: 2001/02: 1st 2002/03: 1st For Real: 1999/00: 5th (but 62 points, Barcelona were 2nd 64 points, Deportivo 1st 69 points, so they were clearly contenders... plus European Champions) 2000/01: 1st After: 2006/07: 1st 2007/08: 1st .... the overal point is that he had foundations to shine, but he had never made a similar impact on his teams like Ronaldinho did at Barca for a few seasons, let alone something along the lines of Cristiano or Messi.. Yeah, yeah, he had several big moments on the big occasions, but defining player based on 4,5 (or even 10,11) moments is absolute madness. It's not his clutchness that made that penalty go in 2006 WC final, it's pure luck. He was courageous and straightforward player, ill give you that, but he was very flawed player, which clearly manifested itself in his inability to dominate league football on so many occasions and that's by far more important. Few of his insufficiencies are: being slow and everything that comes along with it, inability to operate in different systems playing different roles, average defender for his position, lack of trademark (go to) move/s, etc.
He's quite simply the best footballer I've ever seen play the game ... and I've been a Barca fan since Cruyff joined them ( as a player ) and I also saw Eusebio play in the flesh !! Just my opinion ..
I never understand how anyone can watch someone like Messi and still think someone like Zidane is a BOAT candidate. I can understand favourite players, but when it comes to actual best player, I don't understand the argument at all.
If you had been watching Zidane throughout his career, you wouldve seen him succeed and fail, but failures are usually forgotten so what you end up with are only good memories and then by watching youtube clips you reinforce only positive memories in your mind constructing the idealistic picture of Zidane in your head. To make it really seem as the truth you have to connect it to something tangible and that's where rationalization (confirmation bias) comes into play: He scored 3 times in wc finals, in ucl 2002, this big moment, that big moment,... the more unique moment, the better. That is why someone like Baggio is very rarely considered goat by anyone although he is practically on the same level as Zidane, he doesnt have tangible big moments. There is also bias i found myself falling into often. If you watch long videos of any player, you begin to think that things he does are everything that matters in football, and that that's the only proper way to play. That's why you tend to see people, that think Zidane is the goat, saying he is a complete player, or someone like Maradona, which is obviously a bloody nonsense, so there is also that part of overexposure to someone. It's important to remind yourself that there are different ways to influence the game.. So it's something like: 1. I like football 2. I need some sort of an ideal to orient my perception, else you literally cant make sense of it 3. Zidane happened to fit all my biased restrictions 4. To think otherwise requires too much cognitive effort so ill stick with an easy pick
Dude zidanes panenka against Buffon was 100% intentional and 100% genius If Messi had scored a panenka against a GOAT level goalkeeper and in a game of that magnitude there would be an ongoing wankfest for the next several years/decades
no there wouldnt.. you are so childish. Hitting crossbar literally 1 cm higher would drastically change the angle at which the ball would deflect. It's physics, and i am being generous here, it's probably milimeters we are talking about. You are not actually suggesting he was going for that angle, are you? intentional panenka? yes luck? hell ********ing yeah. No person in history has such precision. At most, id say they can control their precision for 10 cm from the spot or 16ish meters, everything smaller than that is down to chances. You might as well count that penalty as a miss on his resume, because he had no control over the result of that penalty. It's no better penalty than Messi vs Chelsea 2012 Notice angle of the ball when it bounces back. The real difference between the two penalties are literally few milimeters, sentimental difference? huuuge and i am intentionally bringing up Messi because i know you hate that... the bottom line is that there should be nothing controversial about me saying thats a good fortune cuze it undeniably is and unless you live in overly romanticized world where "things happen for a reason", you should have no problem admitting that. Zidane scoring penalty is not an argument for him being a clutch, big game player. You can use 1998 wc finals argument, but not that penalty.. pure luck. And we all know that, subconsciously, it has to be a huge factor in claiming that zidane is goat. Imagine he missed (which could have easily happened) is he still goat?
the fact you are not even trying to reason your way out proves my point you are not that big of a football fan, are you? How doesnt it bother you claiming half, not-thought-through-at-all claims. if you dont care if you are right, why even bother expressing yourself? have some respect for the sport.
Dude all of your pseudo analysis leads nowhere a per usual Luck is a BS excuse used by losers who are jealous of other peoples success. Zidane attempted a panenka in a World Cup final when the stakes were at their highest and he successfully pulled it off. the mere fact that he had the audacity to pull of such a move on the biggest of all stages proves that he is on top of being a supremely gifted footballer also a daring one if everyone “played it safe”football would be a very boring sport. Zidane had that spark of ingenuity that seperates very good players from great ones That is why there are no examples of iniesta/Xavi attempt anything technically amazing in their whole careers. Their greatness comes from their ability to keep it simple and effective(possessions play,short passes,some through balls,and short dribbling) Zidanes greatness stems from his ability to do (on his day)what NOBODY else in the world could stop attempting to quantify the genius of a artist like zidane His impact cannot only be measured by team results that reflect on the whole rather than the individual Zidane won a champions league and league title in his first two seasons for Real Madrid as arguably the star player in both Now tell me which clubs teams R9 Changed the fortunes of(ie made better than they previously were) While your at it find me examples of European club teams Romario improved Now do the same for Roberto baggio,KHR (and others) Why is it zidanes legacy subject to such scrutiny when if we wanted to could pick holes in other legendary players careers all day long
Jesuz get a grip fella ... this a football forum to share views / opinions and info ... you can't start picking someone's opinion apart as it's a personal thing .. there is no right or wrong answer , anyways !! It's also kinda ironic to see you calling that other guy childish when you're the one who thinks he's right with everyone else being wrong. It's interesting that you always try to appear so superior using well honed bullying techniques.... you know who else conducts himself like that !?!? Donald Trump !!! Regards ...
Yes, that's why I said I understand having favourite players. However, when discussing the best player of all time, there should be objective criteria that rules out the vast majority of players except maybe like 10 players, if not less. Then I can understand people having different preferences from there. Otherwise, if personal preferences just carry such weight, we'd have like 20-30 names of players who could be candidate for best player of all time, and that doesn't seem right at all.
I stated nothing but facts. The shot was merely few milimeters lower. You do with that what your heart wants. I also said zidane had audacity and said it in a way thats gives him an argument for goat although thats of no big relevance in the discussion. Well we should criticize every player to the tinniest detail to come to some coclusion else what are we doing? Pros and cons and lets see where that leads us. I cant control the way you take the message over the forum but no i am not playing the superior guy, i am merely provoking a discussion (to the tinniest details, every milimeter). Yours mentality of saying "Zidane is the best ever, end of" is appaling.. My case on Zidane is very clear (and it's not attack on you but rather your statement): Take away wc 1998 final and ucl 2002 final for the moment (lets say he got injred, ill, which is unlikely but possible), he is left with barely any argument for goat. Would you call him goat if finals didnt happen, be honest? Thats some shaky foundation, wouldnt you agree? You can take away the greatest two moments of Messi or Cristiano (lets just stick with these two as refernce points, because if you want to be goat you need to beat the bests, which they are, one of.) they remain as impressive. That tells you that there is something more underneath them rather than few shiny, perhapse, lucky moments. You cant account for luck in any other way than longevity and the equality of results. By that i dont mean you need long career of 10+ phenomenal seasons as the two, but the more the better. Lack of dominant league seasons puts a shadow all over his biggest moments, was he lucky? Why couldnt he replicate that on weekly basis?.... it puts a huge doubt in your head. (saying in my opinion feels unnecessarly becuase it implies, but i guess i need to highlight that so,)... imho.
1. Pelé 2. Diego Maradona 3. Alfredo Di Stéfano 4. Johan Cruyff 5. Lionel Messi 6. Franz Beckenbauer 7. Ferenc Puskás 8. Ronaldo 9. Zico 10. Michel Platini 11. José Manuel Moreno 12. Cristiano Ronaldo 13. Elías Figueroa 14. Lothar Matthaus 15. Eusébio 16. Lev Yashin 17. Paolo Maldini 18. Zinedine Zidane 19. Bobby Charlton 20. Gianluigi Buffon 21...
@tLB Odiseo No source ever listed R9 as a historically greater player than platini Even at the height of his fame/peak he was ranked a top 15 all timer (1999) What did he do in the 2000s to magically climb up the ranks His 2002 ballon D’Or award was also blatantly fraudulent The one that truly takes the cake is lothar matthaus being ranked above Eusebio There is no way whatsoever he can even be considered his equal let alone better than him Eusebio was the best European FW of his era ,a player who reached the level of top 3 player in the world in at least 3 to 4 seasons How many legendary campaigns did the German have Personally I think his legacy is intrinsically linked to the World Cup wankfest syndrome 2 GKs in the top 20 Figueroa but no baresi Maldini but no facchetti Moreno a pre war legend but no meazza or Sindelar So you’ve included one pre war legend to make the list look nice but completely ignored 2 others who were arguably if not certainly held in higher esteem than him during the pre war era And zidane has no place in a top 20 list if the likes of garrincha/best/didi are missing George best was a better player at 22 years old than any version of zidane and that is a fact I respectfully disagree with your list and hopefully you aren’t offended
I don’t know about anti Dutch bias but it is clear as far as I’m concerned matthaus had no place being ranked above players like gullit or Van basten( players who were unanimously considered best European players at their very best) Tbh 1990 was a weak year for the ballon D’Or or you could say a transitional year with many up And coming stars not at their peak yet The Milan/Dutch contingent did fail in the World Cup no two ways about it Maradona was the probably best club footballer that year but wasn’t eligible for the award and even if he was the World Cup winner/captain usually takes all the spoils (it doesn’t even matter if the Germans won the WC under disgraceful circumstances thanks to the dolphin/diver Klinsmann and the ref. Really his 90 ballon D’Or is the sole reason why Matthäus was elevated from one of the best midfielders of his era to a all timer Zico vs platini is a whole different story Yes it is true platini had a standout international performance zico did not have It is also true platini was tested more in tougher leagues In terms of style and end product zico is infinitely greater than platini. we can say the one time they played in the same league whilst both being at their peaks zico outperfomed platini hands down. This is substantiated by DBS calcio which awarded him the highest score in Serie A 83/84 and he led by a clear margin (with platini in 7th position)
@PuckVanHeel I watched this game the other day,I’m unaware of the context of this specific match ,the level/quality of opposition etc but judging it at face value this was a truly phenomenal performance of zico at his peak Playing as a AM (playing very deep in this match)and not as a pseudo playmaker/trequistarta he completely dominated from start to finish with his astonishing array of passing ,finishing,dribbling A complete performance to rival some of the best I’ve seen(particularly the 2nd half) 3 goals+4 assists plus many chances created that were not taken
To be honest, I've seen many different rankings and I've seen several of them in which Ronaldo is as well considered or even more than how tLB Odiseo does. On the other hand, I think there is also a certain logic in understanding how he could be considered historically better in the 2000's than in the 1990's (going through his maximum performance peak). For 1998 Ronaldo was only 21 years old and just had a 6-year career, so despite at that moment he had phenomenal performances that made him be compared to the best players in history at their peaks, he didn't have a long career that would propel him to others with a longer one. Even if after returning from injuries in the 2000's he didn't reach the same phenomenal level of the 1990's, he still played high class campaigns in 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05, in addition to the 2002 World Cup and a good global performance in the 2006 World Cup qualifying stage, so it's obviously a period that should have a positive impact and add points on his historical classification. Personally, I think you're underestimating Matthäus. I agree with how you value Eusébio, but Matthäus is not infrequently considered the best European box-to-box midfielder in history and that's a label that can rival on par of any best European forward of any era. On the other hand, Matthäus was exceptionally consistent long before the 1990 World Cup. He was easily considered a top player in Europe (and in a worldwide range) at least during the second half of the 1980's. During practically all his first stage in the Bundesliga (from 1981-82 to 1987-88) Kicker rated him on international class (and once on a world class), then he reached even a higher level in Italy as the great engine of Inter Milan that for 3 seasons competed as a protagonist in the high competition of Serie A. After his return to Germany he continued close to that high-level edge constantly during the rest of the 1990's and even Kicker again categorized him on world class during the second half of the 1998-99 season playing as sweeper at 38 years old. In my opinion, for when he retired he completed one of the most impressive and consistent careers of all-time even without taking into account the World Cups (and if you want neither the 1988 European Championship). I think it's not unreasonable consider him over Eusébio. That doesn't seem unbalanced (especially if one starts from a premeditated equilibrium by positions, what I know that tLB Odiseo tries). Yashin and Buffon have powerful cases from their eras. I think that can only cause some surprise in some traditional rankings, especially among those influenced by a non-top nationality (Chile) and about those are not so recognized in Europe. I must confess that some years ago I'd have considered it strange, especially because Baresi is probably my favorite and most impressive central defender I saw as contemporary, but while I've found more about Figueroa's career, abilities and consistency, less arguments have remained for me to firmly mantain that the Italian should be considered superior. At this time I could certainly tend more to agree with tLB Odiseo to consider Figueroa ahead of Baresi, although I'd probably be more confident in pointing out them similar. That can't be a bigger surprise, it's common nowadays. Of course, it can be debatable from many points of view, but can't be considered odd. At this point I think maybe you are the one who has not fully explored the opinion of various circles (although it's only a presumption). Among the many opinions about it, I rather think that there is a tendency in naming Moreno as the best player of the pre-war era (apparently it's not uncommon for the late 1940's that he was considered the best footballer of all-time). Based on that I think it's too superficial to believe that Moreno appears on his list just only "to make it look nice", but it can adjust to those trends over Meazza, Sindelar, Sárosi, etc. The common reason that I usually read about the opposite position is about World Cups and the tumultuous era in Europe in the 1940's (when the Argentine was shining). None of them seems me consistent to their contexts. Even coinciding with many that Zidane was somewhat irregular compared to the greatest players in history, I'd say that there is no doubt that in this area he's far superior to Garrincha (who exploded late and declined early) and Best (who reached a high peak, but at the age of 26 he was no longer an elite player). I agree that at his highest peak Best could be considered better than any version of Zidane (in terms of one season), but on the average of their careers (which I think more plausible in terms of a historical comparison) I can notice Zidane firmly ahead of him (and of Garrincha). I had previously reviewed the tLB Odiseo ranking and although I don't agree with some of his advanced positions I've to say that it's certainly very good in terms of logic from a coherent point of view.
It's interesting, I seemingly coincided every season. From the exercise of the thread Historic World Wide Balon d'Or 23 player short lists I've them sorted like that in each top 3 since the 2006-07 season: 2006-07: 1° Kaká, 2° Cristiano Ronaldo, 3° Messi 2007-08: 1° Cristiano Ronaldo, 2° Messi, 3° Torres 2008-09: 1° Messi, 2° Xavi, 3° Iniesta (Cristiano Ronaldo in top 23) 2009-10: 1° Messi, 2° Xavi, 3° Sneijder (Cristiano Ronaldo in top 23) 2010-11: 1° Messi, 2° Cristiano Ronaldo, 3° Xavi 2011-12: 1° Messi, 2° Cristiano Ronaldo, 3° Pirlo 2012-13: 1° Messi, 2° Cristiano Ronaldo, 3° Ribéry 2013-14: 1° Cristiano Ronaldo, 2° Robben, 3° Messi 2014-15: 1° Messi, 2° Cristiano Ronaldo, 3° Neymar 2015-16: 1° Messi/Luis Suárez, 3° Cristiano Ronaldo
I think the comparison between Zico and Platini is very closed from any perspective, but the Brazilian could have a certain advantage only in terms of how spectacular his skills were about what I could see. The humor in that comparison, I think it's out of place.