Yesterday I discussing with some of my freinds about Messi vs Iniesta, while me being Messi fanboy was saying he was better, all of my friends were on the opposite side saying Messi is not close to Iniesta, who they consider the second best player in the world afte CR7. Suddenly my friends uncle said Laudrup was better than Messi. Is that true? I have seen laurup's videos and he seems like a brilliant player but better than Messi? Edit: can some mods fix the title. Thanks.
they are bunch of wanker, not exactly my buddies but aquantaines at my work. CR7 fanboys you know. After recent Clasico where Don was brilliant they went on saying he was better than Messi, only next to CR, who according to them is a complete player. Etc etc bullshit, you know.
And the Ronaldo hate gushes forth......You could've saved some time and typed; "I think Messy is teh bestus and sum douchbagz diagree" "Who's wit' me?"
Those are just individual opinion and we should not take them much seriously unless they (your friends or friend's uncle) come up with tangible proof, (intangible) reasons for their criteria, and put them all in to a solid context. In comparison between players (or to rate them) criteria are extremely important, then how you weigh them in points (or value) to make your saying valid (not necessary right) - Messi has everything at least equal or better than Iniesta. (even Iniesta or Xavi playing with him should see that in every game, or in practices) The goodness of Iniesta is that he can play deeper and wider in midfield. He is a great AM. While Messi is more of a great foward. Hence criteria are needed to compare them (for different position and playing style) - Laudrup was a genius in "playmaking" art. He should be mentioned or compared with Zidane, Socrates, Rivelino ,Rui Costa, Enzo, Valderama ... in style. If we only talking about Playmaking, short passing, vision and control midfield then Laudrup was better than Messi in those field. However, in general view or "reality" (goals = winning): Messi looks (like) a better player for he is much more dangerous closer to goals than Laudrup ever was ( like Zidane's style) =================================================== For example, no one took the likes Xavi comment "Messi is the best player ever" or Pele's Neymar is betetr than Messi ... seriously, for they just SAID it - w/o any analytical reasons, and criteria weights to support them!
Agreed. Add long passing to that too. Laudrup's brilliance probably made watching a match an unpredictable experience. We could (and have went) go on and on about his vision... Unmatchable. He had this capacity of perfectly and instantly analyze all of his teammates' movement off the ball; It's hard to describe. Messi's scoring prolificacy, however, elevate him to a level where statistics reign supreme, and rightly so, with goals scored and titles won overshadowing, no matter how great of an assists record Laudrup may have, any other attributes that don't influence winning as much.
Actually any one would have a hard time in comparison with Messi's crazy goals record (with Barca) except Pele. However, we are not only looing at just the number here, but overall assets (passing, control midfield and dicisive pass) and influence to the team (mentally) as the critical point for a midfielder in Laudrup - Otherwise no one would ever remember Zidane if only judging him with goals and assists. The only difference Zidane made his case loud and clear (compared to Laudrup, Socrates, Vaderama, Rivelino Didi ...) was his GOALS in WC final, UCL final and nice FK in Euro04 ...
It is also a problem that Laudrup his career really took off at the age of 24-25 (with the NT as exception arguably) and it lasted well until his early 30s. Messi is now at the age of 25 and yes he has won more, won more personal accolades and so on but that is never the end of the equation. Otherwise Phil Neal and Kevin Keegan would be ranked among the all-time greats. It is anyhow a different comparison because we don't know how Messi his career will develop. Maybe he will play at one day with mediocre team-mates which will shed some further light on his abilities, who knows. Point is that until now their career trajectory is totally the opposite: Messi performed great for his club from the age of 18 until 25 and maybe it'll last longer, meanwhile his NT performances at the big stage are sub-par at best. Laudrup, with some exceptions, never really shone for a few reasons at the club stage until the age of 25, but he did perform for his national team at three occasions at a relatively young age (instrumental in leading Denmark to 1986WC, performing at 1986WC itself and was also vital in the qualification campaign of the 1988 european championships; this should not be underestimated because the presence of Denmark at final rounds is never automatic and certain). I personally prefer a stylish and all-round player like Laudrup, despite his lack of scoring but an argument for Messi is also feasible. For whatever reason, Messi performs quite consistent over the years whereas Laudrup, even in his 'prime', had more often a quiet club-game. That in particular speaks for Messi.
Nevetheless Denmark having it's greatest success ever despite Laudrup's absence is a huge negative point in my book. Interestingly it's rarely mentioned when discussing Laudrup.
It's difficult when discussing favourite players i.e I do rate Laudrup very high yet I'm aware he's a favourite so any argument I make in favour could be seen from a pro-Laudrup viewpoint. Trying to be as reasoned as I can though: I think it gets mentioned a bit but not negatively, moreso by biographers or fans saying it was a 'shame' or 'pity' that he didn't play. Another thing which gets mentioned is not winning a Ballon D'or - I think his poistion that year was harmed by not playing in the Euros - his brother finished ahead and while I do think he was important to a functional Denmark whose team-spirit won them the Cup (along with the decision to ban Yugoslavia from the competition) Michael was the overall more gifted of the two and playing in top form for his Club. Perhaps a more special performance individually in the European Cup Final might have elevated his Ballon D'or position without the Euros as it would be an equivalent stage - even Stoichkov scoring from his assist which nearly happened rather than Koeman's free-kick winning the game might have made a difference though Laudrup would've done nothing different in the season or the Final. I do see the logic in what you say about the European Championships, but if Messi gets injured and Argentina win the World Cup without him (unlikely but could happen) he'd still be Messi and shouldn't be rated lower than he is now when there is already consideration about not shining against the odds in World Cups. By the same token Laudrup was still Laudrup and still played the way he did for his Clubs (and especially Barcelona around the time of the European Championships) and as Puck pointed out he did play very well in other International tournaments in particular '86 (comparing the Pele Mexico '62 video Puck posted recently to Laudrup's vs Uruguay '86 I tend to think he played better - on the other side maybe a player like Pele would've been able to pull something out the bag in a game such as the one Denmark ended up losing to Spain quite heavily in the end; maybe the opposition would be too concerned with him to get forward much etc or if not he'd revel in the space and score 4 of his own in the first hour of the game?). Went a bit off topic with the Pele stuff maybe...
That's ridiculous imo. It's not a 'pity' or 'shame', it just shows us his weak attitude and character quiting his team over whatever dispute he had with the coach. A great leader and person would swallow his pride and settle this feud by performing even better than before. What makes it even worse for Laudrup is that you can't go the 'Raymond Domenech' route on the coach, he clearly wasn't a clueless maniac - they won afterall! Please imagine the impact on Messi's legacy if exactly the same thing would have happned to him. This is not even close to the same thing imo.
Yeah but 'weak' or not I like his character. There are conflicting stories about why he didn't play but he doesn't confirm any feud. But saying this it isn't my intention to fall out with you or anything, I'm just putting the other side for a favourite and IMO genuinely great player. Annoyingly/slightly insanely I can't remember where I read/heard it over the last few days (!) but apparently there was a school survey done in Spain I think in 1996 asking the kids who they idolise as a football player and 89% said Laudrup. I wouldn't be able to verify it even if I found the source but I don't think I dreamt it . Anyway it's cool mate, we all have different opinions about various things. I do agree that Messi would get a lot of 'heat' if he decided not to play in a tournament for Argentina btw.
Just to clarify that last point I was thinking in terms of his abilities as a player being diminished because he didn't play and they still won rather than any sort of assessment of his desire or decision making etc.
Do you know an actual example, or multiple examples, where something similar (or remotely similar) happened but a player decided to stay on the squad? Because mentioning a theoretical possibility appears more plausible with an example in practice. That said, Denmark92 had not the same amount of quality as the mid-80s side. No 'old Simonsen', no Molby, no Lerby, no Nielsen, no J. Olsen, M. Olsen, Larsen, Berggreen, Sivebeak, Arnesen... The 'they were on vacation at the beaches' story is actually a myth but the 1992 win was a bit of an upset. It was not like Brazil 1962 (although that one was also less spectacular as Brazil58) or so, who 'cruised' to victory without Pelé his services. I personally think that Michael Laudrup was instrumental in most of their qualification campaigns - it is doubtful whether they had reached an equal amount of final tournaments without him. Maybe they had still made a few final rounds, who knows, but 6 final rounds between 1984 and 1998, I don't think it had happened without Laudrup. I think it does not speak against Laudrup. However, the point you make in your second post makes sense if it has precedents.
You mean a player disliking the coaches' decisions and staying on the squad? I'd said that happened ten thousands of times.
You're quick to judge. That's unreasonable since neither one of us is dealing with facts, here. Surely some of you also read the other version in which he refused to partake in the championship due to his disapproval of Yugoslavia's ban over political reasons.
The version he gives is that he was concentrating on his Club because the great generation of Danish players had come to the end (except himself being a youngster when they played in '86, interestingly beating West Germany who made the final 2-0 that year too before that at the time 'upset' vs Spain)and when Yugoslavia were omitted he just stuck with his decision . I too did believe it was due to disagreements with Moller Nielsen about style of play which was less open than under Sepp Piontek although Nielsen was Piontek's assistant. There may be something in that but it's not the reason he gives himself for missing the Championships. Brian Laudrup had previously made the same decision but reversed it and played. I'd not heard of him protesting in favour of Yugoslavia but I do think that team was very unlucky to be excluded (without wanting to get into politics as we may end up discussing the reasons for the troubles in Yugoslavia etc which I imagine is a compliacted issue but obviously was sad). The Football's Greatest episdoes are back on Youtube - I got most of this from his episode.
The decision of the Yugoslavia ban was already on the table on January 1992. UEFA used delaying tactics in order to shift the responsibility away from them. Official meetings were convened at January 16th 1992 and many followed afterwards in February, March, April.... until they could say "It is not our blame". [that is my interpretation] His brother also quit the NT in 1990 and a few other players, in order to get rid of the coach. A mutiny like that also happened thousands of times, often with success. In his occasion, it had no success. What happened is that coach Nielsen had to arrange things very quickly. The idea that they were all on vacation is a bit of a myth (most of them were still in training) but in April 1992 all things had to be arranged very quick. Nielsen phoned all of his players, including the Laudrup brothers and the ones who started the mutiny. Brian said 'yes' on the phone, Michael said 'no'. Why? I don't know but I think that M. Laudrup had to made up his mind very quickly - maybe the Yugoslavia ban had an influence.
Sorry for giving another reply but I think this is correct. My sources state that he was incredibly popular among the fans and also liked by the coaches and his team-mates. He was voted as best foreign Primera Division player of the 1975-2000 era as well. Also interesting: you mentioned his 5 years younger brother Brian Laudrup. An euro92 preview mentions him and funnily it is stated that: "The outside world predicts a greater future for the younger Laudrup because he has the professional attitude that Michael and his father Finn lacked at a young age."
Yes, true about the popularity and award. Several Spanish players cite him as their favourite (Iniesta, Silva, Luis Garcia for example). I checked a Youtube video I watched but couldn't find the comment so I'm not sure where I saw it. All I remember is whether it was a Youtube commenter or something more official like a columinst, the person stated that there was some surprise that more kids didn't choose strikers (I know sometimes Laudrup played as a sort of false 9 or a SS but not as the main goalscorer). Interesting quote in the preview - sometimes quotes like that leave the reader wondering what the source of the opinion was ie it lacks a bit of detail. Interesting that the younger Laudrup was possibly the less ambitious at Club level in the end as he was content to stay at Rangers though it could be argued that was more about circumstance/opportunity/prior experience at a more prominent Club. Also, again going off on a tangent a bit sorry, but that reminded me that Italian Clubs that weren't at the top of Serie A could take players off top German (also English) sides fairly easily for a period in the 90's due to the money. Now, it's more like a selection of English and Spanish Clubs and perhaps PSG in France can do that but not half or more of the teams in a league like with Serie A. Now the squads of the Clubs that can buy big are packed fuller with International players though.