I've really not seen enough of Fontaine to do the man justice barring the '58 World Cup, however I've seen enough of Jean-Pierre Papin to say he's the best most prolofic and spectacular French striker that I've seen without a doubt in my mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if0ugmDIXDE
He was a great striker. He played at Mexico 86 but it was a shame that he wasn't at his peak yet and also that at Euro 92, the team performed poorly. At Marseille, he was just brilliant.
I would have dreamed to see him play with Zidane (and Cantona !) at EC 96 and still better at WC98. He actually had a good year with Bordeaux in 1998 so why not using him then as a super-sub despite his age ? He would have been a far better choice than Guivarch anyway. Papin was unlucky to start his carreer at the very end of Platini's area and at the very beginning of Zidane's one. He never reaaly had the opportunity to play with a great number 10 with France. If he had that opportunity his association with Cantona would have been lethal.
From what I've read, Cantona and Papin had a great partnership in the Euro 92 qualifiers but once the team arrived in Sweden, the team didn't perform. If Papin, Cantona and Zidane were playing all at once at Euro 96, I'm sure that the French would have had a better campaign. I totally agree with you on picking Papin over Guivarc'h. Along with Argentina's Gustavo Dezotti, Guivarc'h was the worst striker to have played in a World Cup Final.
Absolutely, Papin and Cantona scored respectively 9 and 3 goals in the Euro 92 qualifiers (8 games). France didn't lose one single game. Unfortunately the team didn't perform at EC92 with no wins in three games (despite 2 goals from Papin). Once again France was brilliant up-front but mediocre in midfield with no good playmaker (who remembers Christian Pérez ?) to provide Papin and Cantona with good assists. As I said earlier it's remarkable that in the last 25-30 years when France had a great playmaker (Platini ; Zidane from 1994 to 1999) they didn't have great strikers and that when they had great strikers (Papin, Cantona) they didn't have a great playmaker at the same time. The only exception was the early 00' French team with a peak at EC2000 with Zidane playing behind Henry, Trezeguet, Anelka - coincidentely it's arguably the best French team ever.
lol@arguably. that was the best french team. it was super stacked. even the bench(robert pires, wiltord, anelka, djorkaeff, dugarry, candela, micoud) was stacked. then of course you had that never say die attitude and chemistry.
Pérez was only a youngster at Euro 92 but I think faded after that. He only showed signs but that's it. That was a brilliant French team. They needed extra-time to beat Italy but on paper, the French had a complete team and in each department, there was a class player.
----------Henry Pirès-----Zidane-----Dugarry ----Deschamps-Petit Lizarazu-Blanc-Desailly-Thuram ----------Barthez Jacquet did not maintain Cantona, Ginola and Papin. Too many conflicts between them. He couldn't build a real group, which was absolutely requested for his only objective: the WC 98. He didn't really care of the Euro 96. He had been strongly criticized by fans and newspapers for years, and became a living semi-god when he won the World Cup with Guivarc'h, Dugarry, Djorkaeff, Diomède and Karembeu.
What happened to Patrice Loko? He played for PSG in the 90s and he played at Euro 96. Did he have injury problems?