Bigger gap in quality between the following

In technical 'quality', probably R9 to Henry, even though in some technical aspects Henry probably wasn't inferior (so I'd mainly be thinking of the manipulation of the ball when dribbling and suchlike, and some quality tricks and skills that prime Ronaldo could pull off very fluently), just because Laudrup might not be inferior to Cruyff at all in that respect (though it's arguable I guess).

Even as a Laudrup fan (not that I'm not a Cruyff fan too), for overall effectiveness as a player at peak, maybe I'd choose Cruyff to Laudrup as having a bigger perceived 'gap' than R9 to Henry though, just about.

 

Without a doubt the first two IMO

Micheal laudrup never scored more then 13 league goals in a single season
Laudrup played league football in Denmark,italy,Spain,Japan and the Netherlands

Johan Cruyff had 6 consecutive seasons with 20 or more league goals
In a sub par league but it dont matter to be honest as laudrup played everywhere himself

90s la liga was no difficult league to put up real numbers
Hugo Sanchez got 38 league goals in 1989/90

Romario got 30 league goals in 1993/94

Pizzi got 31 league goals in 1995/96

Ronaldo nazario got 34 in 1996/97

Even Bebeto had a season within this range but i forgot the season

Laudrup wasn't a killer
He just never had that instinct

One of the best creative players but he couldn't mix it up to anywhere near the same degree as Johan Cruyff

Finishing/scoring at the highest level consistently across all formats is the hardest thing in football
Compared to laudrup at least Cruyff was a master in this

Short passing is the only area where an advantage could (and in fact would) IMO go towards Laudrup

It cant even be said laudrup was a complete playmaker
I always thought his long passing game was 'lacking' a bit compared to the ATG playmakers
similar to Dennis bergkamp in this regard


Overall
Cruyff was arguably a world class finisher On the lower spectrum but there nonetheless

A world class crosser
A world class ball distributor
Generational dribbling talent
World class athlete for his era
World class long ball specialist( in his latter career for sure)
And a world class defensive player relative to his position


As always it returns back to...
Its not how fancy your YouTube compilation looks
Lacking the ability to score on big stages is a crticism levelled at many players percieved to be world class

If you are a elite dribbler who cannot impact the flow of big matches with your dribbling ability there is a question mark

Twice it happened to Neymar
https://www.whoscored.com/Matches/9...Champions-League-2014-2015-Juventus-Barcelona
https://www.whoscored.com/Matches/1...e-2019-2020-Paris-Saint-Germain-Bayern-Munich






It never happened to Laudrup because he wasn't even trusted to start in a european cup final to begin with
Ironically by the exact same player who he is being compared to in this thread

 

To be fair, I'll just pick you up on that (I guess it's just the way you worded it and you probably already know yourself what I'm going to say)....

He was...and he nearly provided the winning assist (1:33), and set up another opportunity to seal the game (3:55)
FIRST CHAMPIONS LEAGUE!! Barça 1-0 Sampdoria | EXTENDED HIGHLIGHTS - YouTube

It's true that for the 94 Final he was the omitted foreign star player while Koeman, Stoichkov and Romario were chosen to be the allowed 3 to line-up though (according to the rules of the time).

 

I'd say Cruyff vs Laudrup presents the bigger gap. Cruyff is possibly better and more consistent at everything compared to Laudrup whereas Henry has some advantages here and there if we were to make a list of attributes.

 

Everything except short passing no doubt


I'd say its possible but extremely unlikely that anyone could be as good as Micheal laudrup at breaking the line passes

To be better is impossible
Laudrup gained complete mastery over one sub category of technical ability

Cruyff was world class at many more but never mastered one single thing like laudrup

 

That's fair. Laudrup sits at the top of the list when it comes to that particular pass for sure.
I wonder if due to the pitches they played on, Cruyff probably would have had to improvise and used other types rather than the 'slide rule' that Laudrup used so masterfully.

 

Laudrup was a phenomenal passer of the ball but I would also rank Cruyff very high in that area of his game. This compilation showcases his brilliant passing range from approx 2:10 onwards 2:14, 2:31 against Liverpool are particularly impressive passes IMO.

 

Ralf Rangnick in 2015 (and 2016) says Cruijff was his idol:

"Rangnick's football ideas have their boost in 1984 when he was a sparring partner with his amateur club Viktoria Backnang for Dinamo Kiev, which at the time had set up a training camp in Germany. The Russians were trained by Valeri Lobanowski, the so-called father of turbo football. During the 1974 World Cup, Lobanowski was impressed by the total football of the Dutch national team and then studied countless Ajax and Orange duels. With the help of Soviet mathematicians, he converted his findings into training models and game patterns, resulting in an exciting kind of counter football, with which Dinamo Kiev won the European Cup for cup winners in 1986.

Rangnick remembers how he didn't trust his eyes two years earlier as a player/coach for Viktoria Backnang. “I counted the figures twice, because it seemed as if Kiev was continuously on the field with two more players.” Later, when he had taken a breather as a coach, Rangnick bolstered his football philosophy by visiting trainers and clubs that he admired. In 2001, for example, he went for an audience with Fabio Capello, then coach of AS Roma. In the same period, he was a guest at Ajax for a week, where he chuckled at the creative penalties that Co Adriaanse handed out and enjoyed the Amsterdam way of playing.

That begs the question of how much Ajax actually is in Rangnick's football philosophy and therefore in RB Leipzig? Quite a lot, as it turns out. "Ajax was, is and remains interesting because of its training structure, because of the opportunities given to young players and because of the positive style of play. Unfortunately Ajax loses many young promising players before they reach first team level" Rangnick replies. "But, with all respect to others, to me Ajax is primarily defined by Johan Cruijff and when it comes to football, Johan is anchored in my thinking."

"When I was fourteen or fifteen years old, I was for a few years an idol of the football player Johan Cruijff," continues Rangnick. 'I remember asking the coach of my youth team if I could have the number 14 on my shirt. Why do you want to play football with the jersey number of a substitute?, my trainer asked. ‘No, I corrected him, fourteen is the jersey number of the best of all, Johan! When the coach finally agreed, it felt like the greatest gift I'd received in my life at the time. For me, Cruijff was like the first modern, attacking midfielder in world football. He provided assists, scored goals and dominated games with his personality. Despite his enormous class, Cruijff was also a real team player. With Günter Netzer we had a comparable number 10 in Germany at the time. When his team had lost the ball, Netzer promptly raised his hand. "I'm out and I'm not in for a while! Call me when you have the ball again.' However, Cruijff also defended, even by graceful slidings.'

"As a coach of Ajax and Barcelona, Johan has fundamentally changed football. However, that was in a different time. If you have the ball, the opponent cannot score, was a wisdom of his. The possession principle on which that decision was based no longer applies. It means nothing to me that a team has 70 percent of the ball possession. What matters is what you do with that ball. Football has become a vertical game, in which you create space and move the ball to the opponent's half as quickly as possible. When RB Leipzig is dominant in a match, we sometimes only have the ball for ten or eleven seconds. After that, a targeted action must already follow. That was also a major reason why Germany lost in the semi-finals of the European Championship against France. After the ball was captured, it took an average of twenty-two seconds for Germany to attempt a goal. That is much too long, because then an opponent has enough time to reorganize.'

"Another wisdom from Johan is that you almost always win a match if you have seven or eight players in your team, who have more individual qualities in their position than their direct opponent. That also no longer works. Teams like Bayer Leverkusen will attack you with two or three players if you are the player in possession of the ball. Over and over, for ninety minutes. In my experience, Dutch clubs have difficulty making that translation to modern football. The Dutch mainly still look at the game with the eyes of What can we do when we have the ball? That's the first question they ask. We reason according to the principle: What should we do if we don't have the ball?”

There are more interfaces between Ralf Rangnick and the Netherlands. He remembers that in 1999 in Nottingham, hidden in a park, he was secretly watching a training of Pierre van Hooijdonk. Later, Rangnick visited the Dutch striker at home. “I really wanted to bring Pierre to VfB Stuttgart, but chairman Mayer-Vorfelder thought he was too expensive for his age. Roy Makaay was my second choice at the time. Who the hell is Makaay?, said the chairman. So it didn't go through either.'
https://www.vi.nl/pro/ralf-rangnick-johan-cruijff-zit-in-mijn-voetbalziel-verankerd



For some reason this aspect gets almost completely pulled out of the foreign/British press, unlike the namedropping of say Sacchi or Lobanovskiy.

Although of course there are much worse things by the half-free press, like spreading the lie around of "third in the world for Qanon conspiracists", a claim supported by zero actual experts on the subject.

If only the hiring of world class coaches to the borderline police state (the multiplier effect of dirty money) was followed in every other sector.

N.B. interesting is how the Soviets couldn't put Gullit into a model, as the only euro 1988 and WC 1990 player..

Take a break again now (and for a long time I've also placed carlito on ignore). I think btw the 'difference' with Laudrup is not so much about quality or ability, really.

 

I think Laudrup was one of the select few players to be legitimately compared that way when he was a teenager. In the Benelux.

https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=KBPERS01:002998011:mpeg21:a00164

In light of later (fair/unfair) criticism; he was even seen as a potential 'leader' (not one in the Roy Keane style)
https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=KBPERS01:003002019:mpeg21:a00067

I don't think this was really the case for any native player in the 1980s and 1990s, but of course World Soccer (an English-Irish writer) wrote about an eighteen years old and yet uncapped MvB that he is probably the best to come out of the country since Cruijff and a real "New Cruyff".

For Laudrup that possibility was held open I'd say (maybe helped by knowing him less well?). It is a bit like how Haaland is seen now by a few (including MvB himself and Van Dijk).

In general: Laudrup was listed in the BdO ten times, and I had/have him in that #2 to #5 group of his generation.

There is actually a friendly game where they played together and both scored (5 september 1989, just three days after a league game):

BARCELONA-SELECCION DE BULGARIA 3-1
Barcelona: Zubizarreta, Rekarte, Migueli (Serna), Koeman (Eusebio), Julio Alberto (Sergi), Roberto (Geli), Rexach (Valverde), Aloisio, Cruyff (Amor), Laudrup (Salinas), Begiristain (Soler).

Bulgaria: Valov, Dimitrov, Ivanov, Vasev, Bankov, Dochev, Kostadinov (Penev), Stoichkov (Danov), Iordanov, Petkov (Simeonov), Balakov (Sirakov).
Arbitro: Mazorra Freire.
Goles: Laudrup, Cruyff, Eusebio.


Many Barcelona players at the time and later have indeed said Cruijff was often one of the best in training (or in every training "the best" in the eyes of Gary Lineker), in the sense of pure quality (not in the sense of lasting 90-120 minutes of course). Romario, Hagi etc. Laudrup too but I regard his perception as a bit colored and slanted in this regard.

 

@PDG1978 I saw this yesterday, video of a month ago.



Interesting is him saying they didn't do pressing, despite various videos and analyses pointing out the contrary. But yeah, in terms of dynamism, verticality and ferocity I see what he means, and execution moves on. It was maybe also less of a defining feature and attribute for the overall style, with the spacing and passing more glaring to the eye (compared to many contemporary teams). For pure relentless pressing you maybe need more physically blessed players.

edit: here is the full Laudrup interview on YT I see

 

He even says it now on the official Manchester United website and the match programme of past weekend game (but it is glaring e.g. The Athletic and Wilson filters that out completely):

"Somebody who also influenced my approach as a coach because I think he was the first modern no.10 in football was Johan Cruyff. He also had a big influence, not only as a player, but as a coach later on when he worked for clubs like Ajax or Barcelona. I remember when I was 13, 14, playing for the youth team in my home club. I asked my coach if I could play with no.14 [Cruyff’s number]. At the time, it was completely unnormal because you had numbers from one to 11 and the coach allowed me to play with the reserve-team number 14 on the back of my shirt. I would name the two of them but obviously there are quite a few more."

They had a league decider just a few days before, in which Laudrup played.

The league was at that point not that much inferior in importance as the Champions League (won just two years earlier).

 

Can you prove that?

 

@PDG1978 (I know you follow this more closely as I do)

In light of above and showing/demonstrating what I mean; I see now the London Times has dumped this article (in there an infographic he and his dad have been the only ones of his country to ever land on the podium in a race):
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-how-the-dutch-reacted-to-title-win-h0nh9trkk

Although the question has been liberally raised as early as february 2015, I don't think though this (just as some other very bizarre pieces) is a fair and complete reflection of what they cite/quote. The Willem Vissers journalist The Times piece mentions and quotes in fact ultimately rejects the comparison:

"Champion Max Verstappen is included in the gallery of the greats of Dutch sport. Only: comparing him with Johan Cruijff, what happens here and there [not only in Holland] is nonsensical. Millions of boys play football, from all walks of life, on all continents. Once every ten or twenty years, a Cruijff stands up, if all goes well.
In comparison, Formula 1 is a tiny sport in which those without money or contacts can forget it in advance, with few exceptions. If former racer Jos Verstappen, the first [of his country] to gain a foothold, hadn't taken his son to the go-kart track, Max as his father's better version may never have been heard of."

The Times leaves that part and conclusion out.

He also mentions that nearly 5 million viewers (in times of quasi-lockdown) is a lot but is nothing compared to when Oranje or Ajax plays a semi-final (10-13m), or even noticeably lower as the 500m at speed skating on ice at the Olympics. Yes, I've seen the race too this time and I sided with the other one.


The Times concludes with this section (the home event could only continue after several court cases and after several successful drastic measures, banning car traffic of visitors etc.):

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

"Negatives can be found. Trouw is a newspaper founded in 1943, an organ initially of the Protestant resistance against their German occupiers which prides itself on a moralistic, faith-based outlook. “In the battle with Lewis Hamilton, people unabashedly put on chauvinist glasses and everything Verstappen does is excused,” John Graat wrote on Saturday. Graat said that all around Verstappen was behaagzieke polonaisejournalistiek – “coquettish polonaise-journalism”. (Polonaise is a communal dance, implying that reporters dance to the same overly positive tune.)
Yet even Trouw has felt the Verstappen effect, noting the oranje ecstase when he won in Zandvoort. “Until recently, Trouw had little interest in this branch of sport, of which we wondered for a long time whether it was even a sport,” Cees van der Laan, the paper’s editor-in-chief, wrote before the finale. “We thought it was a multimillion-dollar, environmentally polluting circus that was dominated by technology, aerodynamics, rubber and fast engines. And somewhere far back a driver who steers and presses the gas but in the end was not decisive.
“Until Max Verstappen entered Formula One in 2015, then everything changed: a young talented Dutch lad with unbridled ambition who would make a name for himself in the glamorous Formula One circus.
“This was accompanied by a number of discussions in the editorial office. What should Trouw do with this money-consuming, environmentally polluting display, was the question regularly during the evaluation the day after the weekend. The answer was, in summary: the newspaper reports about everything that is relevant to our readers, including the rare achievements of a Dutchman in the premier division of motorsport, even if we have little interest in the sport itself.”
Therein lies the crux of the Verstappen effect: transfixing those with little interest, and writing history for his country.

What they miss here however is the daily editorial by the newspaper of record, the premier quality paper, which always tries to weigh its words.

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

Max Verstappen writes history in a world sport

Formula 1 The dramatic apotheosis in Abu Dhabi, in the very last round of the season, but actually the entire Formula 1 year, will be discussed for decades to come.

With the first Dutch world title in the premier class of motorsport, Formula 1 driver Max Verstappen has written sports history after a thrilling finish. The dramatic apotheosis in Abu Dhabi, in the very last round of the season, but actually the entire Formula 1 year, will be discussed for decades to come. There will be books about it – and the premiere of Max v Lewis, the movie, seems only a matter of time.

Yes, there are many things to criticize in Formula 1. The sport has countless opponents, fiercer, polarizing and more outspoken than other sports – and coming from all corners and wings of society.

Motor racing is seen there not only as an elite sport for millionaires, but above all as an energy-guzzling circus that is also bad for nature and the environment, with the races also increasingly being held in countries where democracy and human rights generally are not too high on the agenda. For the discerning follower, last season was a veritable parade through countries where sportswashing is used to legitimize controversial regimes: from Azerbaijan to Saudi Arabia, from Qatar to Bahrain and Russia.

But Formula 1 is also absolute top sport and requiring athleticism, followed by countless fans on all continents. Races are watched worldwide by tens of millions of television viewers eagerly awaiting spectacular overtaking maneuvers by drivers who seem unafraid, in cars that have evolved over the decades into marvels of engineering ingenuity.

Max Verstappen crowned himself world champion in the insane final kilometers of the season. Even seven-time world champion Lewis Hamilton, and his powerful Mercedes team, could not prevent the Dutchman from grabbing the final straw, and with it the world title.

Seen over an entire season, that title is more than justified, and says everything about the wonderful racing talent of the Limburger who is still only 24 years old. Verstappen won the most grands prix, had the most pole positions, led by far the most laps, and during the eventful year not only battled Hamilton on the asphalt.

Many arbitral decisions fell in the wrong direction for Verstappen. Whether that has to do with the power of Mercedes [and managerial tentacles of Toto Wolff... says another NRC piece...] - for years undisputed sole ruler in Formula 1 - is food for discussion among fans and pundits in the coming time.

Indeed, in the final race, Verstappen had nothing to complain about luck on Sunday. But it speaks for his complete imperturbability that week in, week out he kept his focus on the next race, and didn't bite into the temptation for energy guzzling retrospectives on prior setbacks.

With his world title, Verstappen acquires a prominent place in the Dutch sports canon. Nothing is more arbitrary than comparing different sporting achievements, but Formula 1 is an enterprise with world resonance. This puts Verstappen's title in the category of achievements by greats such as Max Euwe, Fanny Blankers-Koen, Jan Janssen, Pieter van den Hoogenband and Sifan Hassan – all individual champions in world sports.

For many worldwide racing fans, Max Verstappen was already a sports hero who made things more lively. With his world title, he has now also acquired materially a place among the best car racers in history.

[The Times writes down Zoetemelk his name when they cite NRC, but that's wrong, it is Janssen, the other TdF winner and world champion]

They deliberately deleted Cruijff his name (and that of other footballers?).

To come back to the theme of comparisons though, this was a strong observation by that same Vissers in the very same piece (as quoted in The Times): "He is eager to win, but also to entertain the public, which, according to both, is/was one of the most important aspects of commercial top sport.” And I think that arguably also applies to Laudrup, which at times cost him in his career (most famously euro 1992, with him dropping out for precisely that reason).

 

Yes, on the football winning/entertainment point (maybe a nuance is to say 'style' rather than entertainment - perhaps Laudrup thought he wasn't suited to Moller Nielsen's way of playing and/or it wouldn't lead to success - the latter was not true obviously in summer 1992 though), it's interesting, but I guess one is a preference based on principle and a feeling of enjoyment/satisfaction about how the team is playing football, and the other an instinctive thing that can be enhanced when feeling very good about the team and how it is playing (hence the enthusiasm in the celebration of Cruyff vs Brazil after the Neeskens goal in which he played his part in a flowing and precise, and efficient in a stylish way, passing move, or the celebration of Laudrup when Koeman scored vs Sampdoria - going ahead in that big game meant something in itself obviously even though, while it was an excellent strike it was not a flowing passing move).

It's always a bit questionable when a big gap is closed down, but it's the same in every race when a safety car is used. I'm not enough in the know to know whether Masy really had permission via his options to do what he did in terms of only letting a few lapped cars go past - it was surely a tricky situation (in theory better to sort the order out carefully all remaining behind the safety car maybe, but it seems that is never done). I did feel Verstappen was hard done by when Hamilton went off track and didn't have to give the place back on the other hand, although I also felt Hamilton's initial post-race comments were very good this time.

 

Yes, I think that makes some sense, to an extent. There are some big goals where he doesn't celebrate all that much or penalties won that he doesn't celebrate at all. There are also famous instances where he complains against the referee for something going in favor of his own team.

At the same time Platini et al. famously described Laudrup of course as not hungry for a goal enough, not selfish enough, and enjoying a good move or pass as much as a goal (by himself or the team).

Yeah it didn't sit well with me, and it is also noticeable the often enthusiastic commentator was fairly muted this time (switch on the subtitles). Very different to his fairly wild commentary at Barcelona in 2016 (which I saw live and made me also enthusiastic and thinking it is truly phenomenal; Gazzetta dello Sport immediately compared him to other teenager wonders like Pelé or Lebron, given his insanely quick learning curve).

Like I said I find neither of them particularly sympathetic right now (example) anyway though his technical knowledge is phenomenal and transfixing (as acknowledged many times over by top class colleagues/competitors, very early and yeah maybe that's not a luxury skill in the end as Horner implied); from that angle the comparisons with JC14 are also made I think but needs to be proven over time and perhaps post-career. And of course someone like Alonso, who often stands out as possibly the best of the post-Schumacher era in 'objective' attempts and by international commentators, has been saying such stuff for some while. He might become the compatriot with the most L'Equipe covers.

(by accidence, Fernando Alonso drove for many years an orange car with #14 as his personal number - to round the circle )

 

I have to say there have been a few really good and interesting discussions about the nature of sporting achievements and (technical) excellence (prompted by international takes I'd say and the 'question' what to make of that - with many 'haters' around):

Wijffels [senior editor of the largest daily newspaper section on sport] finds it difficult to place drivers on the same exceptional level of sports legends as Pelé, Jordan or Johan Cruijff. "How much is the person, and how much is the equipment?" he wonders. However, Kalff always considers equipment and material conditions part of sport: "Eddy Merckx would not have won the Tour de France on a baker's bike… [Would not have broken the worldwide resonating hour record in Mexico on anything other than his own factory bike and on ordinary nutrition]"
https://www.nporadio1.nl/nieuws/spo.../regels-formule-1-onbegrijpelijk-en-oneerlijk

Kalff (pit reporter on television for English speaking section of Eurosport in the 1990s) also makes a further observation that in team sports it is always a (difficult) next step to separate the individual contribution, and that this leads to "coffee table talks - an objective of sport - and colored takes".

Although it is not 'his world', he does as a football fan value Cruijff at the age of 24 as the more significant influence after all. But, as he says, when Krol and Neeskens arrived he started to win finals rather than losing them (though created a penalty in '69 against a team that only conceded four goals at home that season). "There are many great and wonderfully gifted players that don't have a Krol as team-mate, so there you have already one problem to disentangle."

He has referred interestingly to something I wasn't aware of, and that is a thought-out statistical model by the Daily Telegraph ("there is more than the Daily Mail, Damon Hill or Sky Sports") to separate the individual from the car and circumstances. In there MV has been the #1 for the last three years and in the 21st century ranking at the beginning of this year he was #7 but comes out as "the best driver in the list pound-for-pound, but has just lacked a vehicle at the very front to prove it."

 

I'm curious about this, because my kneejerk is to think Henry was not technically inferior at all and if so, not by a large gap, but I'm sure people are more knowledgeable about both players than myself. By far I've seen more of Henry and really have seen little of R9 aside from international matches and highlights. In my mind, Henry showed a broader variety of strikes, long-range strikes, impressive volleys and even FK goals. But again, I could simply be biased as most of the videos of R9 focus on him almost dribbling directly into goal or finishing inside the box.

 

Yeah, it's difficult to compare sometimes (also for example if comparing Messi and Van Basten 'technically' there would be some give and take between different technical qualities I think), and of course I made the comment in the context of IMO Laudrup and Cruyff being pretty similar in terms of technical ability, maybe Laudrup not inferior at all in that respect, although arguably not definitely (Cruyff I'd say was for sure better using the outside of his right boot to pass, cross etc for example, although Laudrup did use that kind of technique at times).

Maybe this is a good video for you to see in terms of the general technical ability of Ronaldo in controlling and manipulating the ball, but one of his free-kick goals (perhaps his best, although it wasn't the only one he scored for Inter even if right now I'm not sure of how many there were altogether, or in his whole career overall) at 1:49:
97/98 Home Ronaldo vs Parma - YouTube
Henry at his best was for sure skillful and smooth in terms of controlling and moving with the ball himself. Like I say, I was thinking Ronaldo was bit better in terms of intricate skills (at pace or from static positions) and his overall feel for the ball in his prime. Leaning towards shooting technique though, I'd tend to agree that could be in favour of Henry, albeit Ronaldo did score some goals from outside the box, even if not many as a percentage of his goals (I'm showing an example of number 15 here but it's the only one at Barcelona, though there are some for Real Madrid I'm pretty sure for example - number 32 is also one to see for you I guess as it's a sweetly struck volley)
Ronaldo Phenomenon All 35 Goals For FC Barcelona - YouTube

 

Thanks for sharing those. I'm inclined to stick with my initial impression, which if anything is probably reinforced, that Henry showed a lot more technique in finishing. After all, aside from dribbling he's somewhat renowned for his elegance and composure around the box. Even looking at a compilation of Henry's Barcelona goals, I see a much broader diversity of strikes, even headers, in roughly the same number of goals. I'd be inclined to say Henry was a more technical shooter (and passer, probably) even if Ronaldo might be superior in other areas.

 

Yes, it's hard to define 'quality' as per this thread or 'technical ability' etc satisfactorily and come down in favour of one player over another sometimes I think. On another thread called 'best technique' we were talking about passing technique, shooting techniques, ball control, technical ability to move/dribble with the ball....and I was erring to Ronaldo Nazario as top 40 all-time and hadn't included Henry as such, but I thought/think that it would be extremely borderline and arguable anyway between lots of candidates to be in or out of a top 40.

I would tend to agree on Henry over Ronaldo for shooting (without being flawless or mega reliable maybe, he could score impressively a variety of ways), and perhaps passing/crossing yes just about (maybe not by a clear or big margin though). On the other hand in terms of controlling and moving with the ball Ronaldo would be ahead I'd say, though Henry could still be very effective both running with the ball at pace, and slaloming past opponents at times too.

 

Congrats, three months of British campaigning has him removed, which will remind everyone in sports what can happen, even after favoring multiple times the other guy.

The very same things, and type of preventive deterrence, happen in football, to be clear (no way he gets replaced if it was the other way around). The Islamic president replaces the director with a Brit and a German... with a long standing history of controversial decisions and Merc favoring decisions in other classes.

It is not only Russia at figure skating in sports (the past weeks are a good reminder for why defense spending needs to be increased, before you know and can blink Berlin will let the Russian tanks pass through).