Nice thought! If there is a thing Laudrup proved to be capable of, is that he could contribute over a longer course of events, and (despite arguable inconsistency) not only in short brilliant/fluky bursts. He has seven league titles for Juventus, Barcelona, Real Madrid and Ajax, in most of them playing a major part (apart from his four continental finals + 0 semi finals) and/or providing a spark for revival. For reference: that is more than über legends Zidane and Maradona combined, more than Zidane and Ronaldo combined, and as many as Beckenbauer and Maradona combined (and Laudrup still 'competes' when counting runners-up finishes). So good ideas there!
Raul himself stated Laudrup was the best player he played with. As a Barca fan, the only thing I didn’t like was that he left for Madrid but I guess even Cruyff did the same thing when he was pissed with Ajax and joined Feyenoord. Nevertheless, I’m a huge fan of Laudrup and he was definitely one of the best midfielder we ever had.
Seems I struck a nerve. What I had written regarding Laudrup was - "maybe his improving the Euro 92 team was not a given". So I wasn't really being categorical, but suggesting an alternative possibility. After all, there have been examples of teams which perform better when they are not required to focus their attacks through a single player i.e. when this responsibility is more distributed. That's a lot of words you've used, just to ultimately agree with my point - that a Denmark team similar to the one that won Euro 92 didn't necessarily do better with the addition of Laudrup. "Necessarily" being the operative word here. And I am not trying to do any revision, since I do agree that that Denmark team greatly overachieved in winning Euro 92 after taking Yugoslavia's qualification spot in the final tournament (as Yugoslavia was in the middle of a civil war). However, the fact that this achievement came without Laudrup and not with him, should not be ignored IMHO. Hmm, but AFAIK Platini himself didn't really play very similar to the way that Zidane used to play, so again ... 3 of those 7 league titles were gifted to his team by their rivals dropping points unexpectedly on the last day (91/92, 92/93 and 93/94). https://www.hindustantimes.com/foot...-in-history/story-AR1DBPvoRJ9fIpbaCnXAtI.html As @Ariaga II mentioned, "the role luck plays in football", really is great. Oddly enough, while guys like Zidane are consistently panned for being lucky, not a squeak about it emerges when someone like Laudrup is being discussed.
You are passive aggressive now but what do you not understand about the part Laudrup still competes if counting runners-up places? That point/observation is obvious. Just as the (important) observation he provided a spark to a few of those teams. Zidane always played for *by far" the richest team of his league between 1996 and 2006 (with the exception of his last season). That is one big reason behind this. Laudrup did not and the 'true' underdog story of Barcelona at the time is well-known. Plus, he is not discussed as a über all-timer, so that naturally attracts also less scrutiny.
In defence of Laudrup (re: good/bad luck) I would suggest this can be a 'bad luck' day (a different kind of bad luck day for Paccione I suppose!): But certainly not wanting to have a 'favourite player vs favourite player' fall-out with you Estel by any means so I'll add that although Carlito made a fair post about Maradona, I wouldn't agree in terms of Zidane not having outstanding technique without his roulettes (also not wanting to fall out with Carlito though lol, especially after earlier re: Henry/CR and Fantasy Football - hopefully that was just helpful info though as it's best to have as good an idea about things as possible rather than just win/lose arguments I think when we post on here):
Is playing for the richest team luckier or is winning the league title 3 years in a row after your rivals unexpectedly drop points on the last match day in each of those 3 seasons luckier? IMHO, the second one is a remarkable enough event to merit quite a bit of discussion. In reality though, I see Zidane's "luck" in playing for the richest teams being discussed countless times but I have never seen anyone bringing up Laudrup's luck in winning those 3 league titles. Zidane being considered an uber-great while Laudrup is not (which isn't even that universal in these forums), doesn't really justify such an approach IMHO. There are similar games for Zidane/Maradona etc. wherein their teammates have let them down. So while I certainly do sympathize, I hope you would understand when I state that I can't treat this as quite that remarkable an example of luck, when compared to the one that I had put forward in my last post. Agreed on the technique part, as I always considered Zidane's first touch as the part of his game which really defined his impressive technique, rather than his ability to execute flawless roulettes. Frankly, I am not a regular enough poster that you should worry about any kind of falling out. Hell, I actually appreciate honest criticism when it makes a point that I don't have an answer to or truly challenges my perception. But almost everything I read these days is so rehashed, that its responses don't require any great thought.
Ok, Estel mate - no probs. I think football is an 11 player game though, and while in factual terms there is no proof that Denmark would still win with their best player playing, there is also no proof that Juventus in 01/02 and Real Madrid in 06/07, if they had retained Zidane, would still win the league if you know what I mean? And there is this season, 97/98 http://inbedwithmaradona.com/journal/2016/5/19/the-great-and-the-controversial-serie-a-1997-1998 So it wasn't a final day decider but 'lucky' either by design or fluke that that situation occurred in the Inter vs Juventus game. I do wonder whether Zidane is under-mentioned in that piece to be fair though, and for example he was great in the away game in Kiev in the Champions League. Nevertheless though Del Piero did have higher Serie ratings, while Laudrup in 91/92 was Barcelona's highest rated player. I'll leave it at that now though, but I guess to an extent I am just doing the same as you (defending a favourite) but I know that you only 'attack' him to defend yours too (at least I think so, due to as you say the fact you feel he gets more harsh judgement in some instances than other players including Laudrup).
IMHO that's a false equivalence as both Juventus and Real Madrid had won league titles with Zidane. Thus it is not comparable to the case of Denmark with Laudrup, since Denmark never won a Euro with him. As I mentioned earlier, most of the arguments are rehashed. Thus I have heard of this one earlier. So to add to what you wrote above, after Inter and Juventus played that controversial match, there were still three match days i.e. 9 points left to play for. Funny thing is, Juventus didn't win all remaining 9 points (winning only 5), but Inter did even worse than them (winning only 4). If Inter had won all 9 points and improved their goal difference slightly, they could have still went on to win the league title (assuming Juventus' results remained the same). Thus, this situation was clearly not quite as last minute and as fortuitous as the Laudrup examples (3 of them). All the hue and cry about it is more of an emotional response to everyone's poster boy of the time (Ronaldo9) not winning the Serie A, in spite of having a spectacular season. The interesting thing though is that Zidane was also at the receiving end of some bad luck, which is mostly left unmentioned. In the 99/00 season Juventus lost the Serie A title on the last day to Lazio, after having to play on a water logged pitch at Perugia, where they ended up losing 0-1. The match was called off at half time due to torrential rain and started back up after an hour's delay, since the refree Collina deemed the pitch to have dried enough to play on. Now rumours about Collina having a soft spot for Lazio aside, obviously the delay and less than ideal conditions of the pitch were not the best situation for Juventus (who needed to win the game as Lazio had already won and secured 3 points by then due to the delay) to play the title decider. To make matters worse, Juventus conceded almost immediately after the restart, had a goal disallowed and a man sent off before the end of the game. Here's a video documentary of that particular controversial game - https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2fybkn So my point is, Zidane didn't always benefit from luck (if you want to call it that when talking about the 97/98 Serie a win), he also had his share of bad luck and lost a league title as a result of it (99/00). When even a guy like you (who typically prefers to sit on the fence) can quickly recall and quote the 97/98 Serie A as a mark of Zidane's luck, but fail to remember and mention the 99/00 Serie as a mark of his bad luck balancing things out, you can understand why I feel the way I do about how Zidane seems to get treated more harshly than most other players.
The main point is a league is a lot less random (post #126), with players having a more prolonged input in theory. It has more games and each opponent play each other twice. My idea was one might say Laudrup showed he was capable of contributing over a prolonged period of time, and also provided a 'spark' at some of those clubs (yes, he was arguably irregular and like Zidane something as GI is not stellar for that reason). You can say Laudrup was lucky in three of his seven championships. The counter-point to this is that distant Tenerife was a tricky place to go to and Real Madrid just happened to play them on the final day in 1992 and 1993. Other strong teams, including Barcelona, dropped points there on that far away island too. Most probably Real Madrid themselves wanted to play there on the very last day, hoping they could settle the championship before this so that the game takes place when it doesn't matter any more. Every team plays each other twice, it is not random any more. Two of Zidane's three championships were also quite close. There is the famous 1998 one, with the 'controversial' Inter match (round 31 of 34). There is also the 2003 title where Real Sociedad dropped the lead in June, two rounds before the end. Real Sociedad had led the table for 22 rounds. So this tends to even it out, and besides, I explicitly mentioned the runners-up. Playing for the *by far* richest team for 10 years and then winning three titles might be seen as 'lucky' by some, but that's a talking point I'm not interested in for now because it's not related to me concurring with Ariaga his general ideas. It goes astray and I'll leave it at this.
Don't anybody get me wrong, I'm not saying Laudrup would have transformed the NT into any kind of bastions of sexy football. That team was first and foremost Moller-Nielsen's team. I have zero tolerance towards NT-quitters, but I'm thinking Laudrup didn't do it lightly. If he felt he could properly impose his abilities on that team, he wouldn't have quit. What I'm asking is how could a player of Laudrup's quality NOT improve the team he's in, especially if it's a modest one overall. Don't be silly, I don't have a nerve. I was just raising a point about the result-obsessive approach that's all over online football discussion. Nothing on you or your views personally, just can't see how it's humanly possible a team would perform better after the loss of their sole world-class player. Would love to hear those examples.
A full league campaign is indeed not random, but what happened in Laudrup's case seems very very random. Else, I assume there will be a few other historical examples of similar occurrences over 3 seasons benefiting other footballing greats. I have already responded to the 1997/98 Serie A title in my above post to @PDG1978. It is so common and people bring it up so often, every time that luck is discussed in case of Zidane, that I feel like I should add the counterpoint to my signature. As for the 2003 title win, well Real Soceidad were yet to play Valencia (incumbent champions),and Celta Vigo (gunning for a top-4 spot) when they went top of the table in April. Real Madrid had the same calendar as well. The difference was that Real Madrid beat Valencia and drew with Celta, but Real Sociedad ended up losing to both Valencia and Celta. Thus, anyone celebrating the title at Real Sociedad after going top of the table in April would have been doing so very prematurely, considering that some stern tests awaited them before they could reach the conclusion of the season. It really doesn't even out IMHO, as per my understanding which I've shared above, but to each his own. Also, yes you did mention runners-up for Laudrup, so I was wondering if the same could be considered for Zidane. And also the fact that Zidane played for fewer seasons overall and also fewer seasons for a league's big clubs/title contending teams (10 vs 12 by my count). Riches do not always or automatically equate footballing success (another something that I should probably put on my signature). And btw, Juventus was selling players in their peak as often as they were buying them during Zidane's time with them and in fact used his sale to finance a major squad overhaul themselves. As for Real Madrid, their issues with not utilizing their monetary strength properly by taking poor sporting decisions during Zidane's tenure with them, are pretty well known. Lastly, the above bolded is the very definition of passive aggressive and it truly shows how deeply the bias is rooted. I don't see how that can still be thrown back at me after all that has been written. It is really surprising.
Sole world class player is a bit of a stretch. I would say Schmeichel was definitely up there and Brian Laudrup too, on his day. As for what you are unable to see in terms of how a team could perform and win a trophy after losing its star player, how about Brazil winning the 1962 World Cup after losing Pele? Or Portugal winning the Euro 16 final vs hosts France after Cristiano's injury? Or if you are interested in sports psychology (and don't mind a change in sport), here's a read about the same phenomenon in Basketball - https://drstankovich.com/lose-a-star-player-get-better-check-this-out/ I agree that I can't recollect a perfect example right now, but IMO it's not as impossible a phenomenon as you seem to think.
You have me on Schmeichel, I was thinking of outfield players only. Brian is a borderline case, and nobody ever agrees on definitions of world class, but I'm sure we'll both agree Michael was a class above Brian? Your examples are exactly what I mean with over-emphasis on results. Yes, those teams won titles after the loss of their star players, but they certainly didn't perform better without them. Or are you saying Brazil would've bottled it against Chile or someone if Pele was playing? Basketball sux.
As I mentioned, they are not perfect examples. Also the question was whether the star player always or necessarily improves the team's performance, not the other way around. Too bad you don't like Basketball.
This comp is literally gold dust.i remember watching it years ago but could never find it until now he was a remarkable technician but his eye for the final ball was one of the best of any 90s playmaker I think purely as an AM he was clearly better than savecivic although the latter was a more potent dribbling threat @PuckVanHeel @PDG1978 @ko242
Yes, that looks to be a really good compilation with plenty of Red Star footage, in addition to World Cup 1990 etc of course. I am familiar with that channel but whether I watched all of that video before I'm not sure. For a relatively obscure player among the 'greats' there is not a bad stash of videos for him on YouTube (including some Marseille game videos, Yugoslavia NT too, Japan era compilations etc). His medium to long passing was really good too for sure IMO. Just in case you didn't see it, this is more an 'entertainment/summary' kind of themed video for him maybe, but definitely emphasises how great his technique could be: It can be hard to define AM sometimes in borderline cases in terms of role in the team I think. Arguably Savicevic might be called an AM at Red Star during the 90/91 season, but then he seems more like a forward player in some ways (if someone operates like a support striker it is him, at least he has overlap with how one would function). At Milan too he did well at times in AM positions, including from wide (as a wide AM I'd say he's a better bet than Dragan for sure, although Stojkovic did play sometimes from wide right midfield when quite young I know). As a classic midfield playmaker and passer then yeah Stojkovic would be better though, and I could go with him being the better playmaker - again maybe it depends how we look at it - Zidane a better playmaker than Hoddle because both qualify as playmakers, or Hoddle the better playmaker (but not better player) for example. Before they sold Stojkovic arguably that Red Star team had 3 playmakers (and 3 AMs if including Savicevic as such too)! Not so different to Brazil 1982 in that respect!
Striker as playmaker: He is past his best here (aged 31), and his touch not as good as it was, but unlike the rest of Milan his level did not decline that enormously. Around this time there was a poll among Serie A managers and players, and he was still valued well. At his peak of fame:
As a playmaking striker would you say he was the best of his era? The lack of goals has always been a mark against him(even without the penalties and set pieces that he didn’t take) There was a discussion on xtratime not that long ago on whether zlatan had surpassed him as a Paris Saint Germain legend I love 90s legends don’t get me wrong but they tend to benefit from a great deal of nostalgia From a neutral perspective I think the 90s has the highest concentration of technical players(moreso in the first half compared to the second half) I just find it strange that if you asked the casual fan over a certain age group they’d say Gabriel batistuta was WAY better than Sergio Aguero Weah better than ibrahimovic Roberto Carlos better than Marcelo Cafu better than dani alves Rivaldo better than Neymar Etc........... Non of this is based on objective analysis, just bias and preference for ones childhood heros
A certain Bergkamp was around at the time There was also Eric Cantona. Does Baggio count? If not, I'd like to suggest another name, someone who's severely underrated imo, given how little he's mentioned: Giuseppe Signori. A goal-scoring machine, but also a bit of a playmaker.
Cantona would be my personal choice although he was more of a SS(half playmaker half striker like baggio) I don’t think he was a atypical number 9 like Andy Cole,Ian Wright,Alan Shearer These guys literally lived for goals and that was their sole objective Signori was more versatile than most strikers I’m aware of In WC he played wide midfielder to accommodate Rbaggio as a FW For his club a more centralised role but with some more involvement than your typical number 9 from that era like papin. Here’s a great piece I was reading up on not so long ago https://thesefootballtimes.co/2016/03/09/the-pint-sized-goalscoring-excellence-of-beppe-signori/ His scoring in the early 90s Serie a was highly unusual and even more impressive considering the added benefits he contributed to his team along with the goals(including wingplay/crossing)
Just a small anecdote to complement: In recent interviews for ESPN Brasil (tv program called "Resenha"), the center backs Julio Cesar (Juventus, Borussia Dortmund) and André Cruz (Napoli, Milan, Sporting Lisboa), they both named G. Weah in their lists of the 3 most difficult strikers/CF to mark that they faced/played with. André Cruz also named Shevchenko and Batistuta. And Julio Cesar said that Weah was physically stronger than the usual strikers from that era and his strength combined with his speed made him one of the toughest.
At his peak he was possibly the best, but not many top teams played with a striker of that type. Baggio and such sometimes played as a striker but it was not their nominal position and many didn't have the strength, the aerial ability or hold play. With his strength and pace on the ball he had a pretty unique skillset for his time. Yes, he didn't have any penalties for Monaco, PSG, Milan or later in the PL. Also no free kick goals. Weah did have a respectable amount of assists and he was also more prolific against the top teams. E.g. 4 goals in 11 games against Marseille, 5 goals in 10 games against Juventus, 3 goals in 9 against Inter, 2 goals in 4 against Real Madrid, 2 goals in 1 game against Liverpool, 2 goals in 2 against Bayern, 1 goal in 2 against Barcelona... This was also the case in 1995-96 when he scored only 11 league goals but 7 came against the top 5 teams. Furthermore, he had 34 goals in 63 matches in Europe (played in one final and four semis). Not many players of his generation had a ratio above 0.50 (of finalists only Papin and MvB if I'm not mistaken). So that are two mitigating factors, without saying you are wrong. Series of articles here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwL4ev1QI1K6VllfdV9jc1dqUUE/edit?usp=sharing edit: He was set up to be the main goalscorer (and outscored Romario, also internationally), but was usually not the center forward or striker. It was called a "shadow striker". The Swede Pettersson was the striker up front. Litmanen would later perform a similar role. Jari Litmanen's cultural legacy in the Netherlands pic.twitter.com/08UdbQ81LM— Mohamed Moallim (@iammoallim) February 20, 2019 Sometimes he played as a center forward, for the national team, in a similar style/role as Weah indeed.
The most inventive passer ever there is literally no pass he did not attempt Outside of the foot passes,long balls,crosses,through balls,lateral passes,flick passes,backheels passes,bicycle kick passes,set piece passes and we can go on and on There is nothing worth doing that he did not attempt and that’s why he remains the one and only true genius of this sport. A flawed one no doubt but technically there hasn’t been anyone better because he personifies technical football at it’s pinnacle There is no higher level than Diego level from a technical perspective at least