Henry should have been made footballer of the year. Henry scored 24 goals for Arsenal last season in the Premier League and seven goals in the Champions League. Ronaldo had a good World Cup but he has played very few matches this season whilst Henry has had a fabulous season. Does anyone know who decides who gets the award? (other than Ronaldo's mother).
I agree and so does Johan Cruyff so we must be right. http://football.guardian.co.uk/breakingnews/story/0,1273,-2255349,00.html
An Inter friend of mine had this interesting stat on Ronaldo: He scored only 7 goals for Inter and started fewer than 30 matches for his club and country combined last year. Hardly the mark of a man who should be winning the most coveted individual prize in football.
I don't agree that Henry should have won the award, neither do I think Ronaldo was a worthy recipient. For my money, Raul should have won it, easily. He's the complete striker, scores shed-loads of goals, but can join in the play like a talented midfielder and comes up with the goods when he's needed. Hierro may be the captain, but Raul is the real leader of the team.
Ballack should have won it. The man single handedly took Leverkusen to the champions league final, a point away from the bundisliga, and if he was not suspended for the WC final, I do firmly believe Brazil would have hard to work harder for thier win. With Ballack in, Hamman would have played in his natural position. In the champions league final, too he was suspended. I also think after watching that game that Real were lucky ( hold on that goal by Zizu was sublime) So Ballack has in my mind achieved more that goofy!