How Brazil performed in WC 2006 is not relevant for this thread. We're talking about the overall quality of players in this era compared to previous eras. We're not comparing national teams. To make the comparison easier, some posters have chosen to compare country by country. So what matters is the quality of players on paper, not how well or poorly the NT plays as a unit.
Between Euro04 and WC06 they REMARKED the new "weaken era" in HIGH quality (overall) of football ... that's the END of the so called "Zidane Ronaldo" era if you like or if I shall put
.. and starting with new disappointment of Ronaldinho, Kaka CR7 Rooney Messi in big games ... (we'll see how CR7 and Messi will do in next big events as their last call) A newer generation on the horizon is with Neymar, Gotze, Hazzard, Lucas ... are YET to be seen
^^ That's some serious nostalgia there. The 2004 versions of Ronaldo and Zidane were nothing out of this world. Messi & CRonaldo are superior versions of the '04 Ronaldo, and Xavi & Iniesta replaced Zidane for those who like that type of player that also perform in big matches! I would say those are fine trades, but I guess it'll take another 10 years for some to realize that. A winning goal in WC 2010 simply doesn't count as much as a winning goal in 2002 in this forum!
Imagine the threads in this forum when current Real Madrid or Barcelona would have finished the season 3-2-7 to slip to 4th in La Liga. No problem for Zizou and Fenomeno.
again i think you guys are looking at this the wrong way, the average player is better in africa than what it was in the past to compare era's its no good looking at the top ranked players, the key to me lies in the middle pack, since they form the majority of players of that era
There are some basic (and obvious) logical errors that occur whenever this topic gets brought up. I only barely started watching football in the late 80s, but my older friends always talk about how weak this era is. When I ask them why, they make the same reasoning fallacies as the folks in this thread make, including the obvious one of not accounting for an increase in quality in several regions. For example, you can take Italy's recent loss at home against the US to mean that it's the weakest Italian side ever or you can acknowledge that the US has gotten much better than 20 years ago (both could be true, but it should at least be a factor that's discussed). In other words, you can't call modern players and teams weak for not accomplishing the same things as players and teams from earlier eras since those same accomplishments may well be much harder now.
But the elite professionals are also better prepared than 30 years ago. And they play in better teams. Besides, as mentioned, most only know the legends from international and European Cup games. So not so much their performances in average league games.
You are as always turning around in circles, that is pretty annoying. And you give an explanation for it, a theory that was brought up by him. You are evading this and that is annoying. No, it is crucial for his theory. If: a) the upper 1% hits a right wall b) the scoring averages of this 1% drops (is this by the way true for football? we see an overall inflation of goals in all leagues) and and c) the overall averages remain the same Then he comes to the conclusion that the masses have simply improved. The variation is not as big as before. This theory does not hold if the overall averages have changed. And I think/know that that is the case with football. You are again evading the point: an concentration of wealth and talent in teams is a force that tends to make the variation larger, not smaller. Two things have to be seperated here: 1) I said that to apply Gould his theory, you should look at the "balance" between teams and not individuals. Teams are composed of individuals of course. 2) It is of course still in theory possible to measure the individual improvement of football players - or any other athlete. As you mentioned yourself: the viewers did not see the legends standing out against cannon fodder but in World Cups or European Cup finals.
And what about the CL finals and el clasicos? Overall Messi has done very well in big games. One bad week every 3 years doesn't change that. Ronaldo was also Madrid's best player against Bayern and the more recent clasicos, even if they didn't win many of them. Also I disagree that Holland is much weaker now than 10 years ago. Perhaps in defense, but they are much stronger in attack now. 10 years ago they had Pierre van Hooijdonk on their NT. And an ageing PvH at that. The team in general was a bit long in the tooth.
Messi was not the best or second best player in the 2009 final, and not in the semi-finals either. Messi was not good in both legs versus Internazionale in 2010. The first leg against Arsenal was dominated by Ibrahimovic, his nemesis, and not Messi himself. In 2011 there were games against Arsenal (second leg) and Real Madrid (second leg). Last but not least the el clasico hyping shows precisely what went wrong. The current stars simply don't carry a team. The teams carry them. And if the stars do not deliver, someone else will step up. Past greats had not this safety valve. That is also the reason why I never understood the Zidane bashing. Zidane delivered more often in big games for club and NT than those two current stars did so far. Disagree. Apart from that one: remember the 2008 final. Or the missed penalty-kicks (plural) in various knock-out stages. Because 10 years ago, between 2001 and 2004, Van Hooijdonk was at his peak. And he wasn't the starter by the way, he was used as pinch-hitter and was a damn good one. I remember the qualification game versus a strong Czech Republic in 2004 (one of his last games in an NT-shirt, and a rare one where he started instead of being subbed in) where he played very well. He scored two times. And that was just a few months after the high-profiled loss in euro2004 (where he did not play by the way). It is true however that some had doubts about his inclusion in the 1998 squad, just as with Hasselbaink. But then we are talking about 15 years ago (the Hiddink-era), not 10 years. By the way, 10 years ago a Dutch club won for the last time an international prize, and Van Hooijdonk had a big share in that prize. Again, he was rarely used as starter for the NT. Instead of comparing him with Van Persie, you should compare him with Van Wolfswinkel or so. Makaay, Van Nistelrooij and Kluivert were all ahead of him in the pecking order (example: during euro2004 Makaay was granted more playing minutes than him). So do not compare him with Van Persie but with Luuk de Jong or so.
Which past greats? Oh so you say an alltime greatplayer who's career is over already had more big games than a 24 and 27 year old? How did Zidane's career look like at Messi's age?
Never equate prizes with greatness. The 1996 Uefa cup campaign was incredible, they had not an easy road. Zidane was incredible and scored 9 goals. Which other fellas of Bordeaux do we remember today? Dugarry? Karembeu? Two good players but they had never the quality to carry a team. Zidane had also done many great things for the national team at that age (most famously versus the Czech Republic), and helped them to qualify for euro 1996. Remember: France was absent in 1994 and failed at the final tournament in 1992. The French coach rejuvenated the team, of which Zidane was a vital component. And he did not disappoint. Zidane was already a sought after star in 1993. By the way, I don't see how you can make an age-comparison between a player that started his career at a big money club and an player who started his career at a lower table Ligue 1 club (his transfer to Bordeaux came when Cannes was relegated, maybe he had stayed for even a few more years if Cannes had kept on muddling through).
Well, Iniesta has delivered as much as Zidane for club and NT in half a career. He's even managed to get through a World Cup without being red carded.
In his first full season Cannes reached their highest ranking ever. Isn't that impressive? Just looking at prizes is pointless.
Correct, Iniesta is the one who steps up in big games. Semi-final and final of 2009. Was also great against Bayern Munich. Was absent versus Internazionale etcetera etcetera. I wouldn't say though that he delivered for the NT as much as Zidane did but here we see the difference between you and me: you are a known Spain-lover, I'm a Spain-hater. Iniesta is an attacking player. Spain became World Champion with the lowest goal amount ever, and that is remarkable if you consider the continuing expansion of the world cup. Don't see how that is better than what Zidane did.
It's more in the 'Magico Gonzalez scoring a hattrick at Bernabeu' range of being impressive. Not even in the same ballpark what CR and Messi did.
It's better because he never threw his Spain NT-mates under the bus by getting stupid red cards. Spain also conceded the fewest goals ever for a champion and Iniesta, along with Xavi, are Spain's best defenders. The way in which they defend is unusual. The "expansion" of the WC gave Spain little benefit since when the tournament had 16 or 24 teams you still had to play 7 games to win the tournament.
Whether the standard of average players has increased or decreased im not too sure. But i dont think there is much doubt the quality of the top players has been at a low point for a while now, regardless of whether the "masses" our closer to them thus preventing them from standing out. I would think the increased protection for attacking players would play a bigger role regarding that issue anyway
It's so freaking amazing when someone DARES to compare Iniesta to Zidane. 1- Zidane was a main conductor for France NT (meaning = Iniesta + Xavi combined) 2- Believe it or NOT? NO TEAMS would BOTHER to send a man to guard Iniesta, so? Even though he took the situation (advantage well) but it's FAR OFF to compare to Zidane in affection to the games on pitch 3- Iniesta and Xavi were LUCKIER to have grown up (and learned) from Barca greats (Ronaldinho. Deco, Giully, Rivaldo , Figo ...) and INDEED they played constantly side by side - NOT like Zidane never played with Henry, Vieira , Djorkaef in same team ... ============================================ Last and not least ... does NOT MATTER how you HYPE UP Iniesta and XAVI, the fact remains to see: ZIdane is and will be in TOP10-15 best all times , while the SPanish pair would be LUCKY to be included in any TOP100 ---
This statement makes a lot of assumptions. For starters, it implies that Zidane's France controlled matches as well as Xavi's & Iniesta's Spain. It also assumes that France didn't have much other talent in its midfield. I disagree on both counts.
If am correct, Magico Gonzalez scored never an hat-trick in Bernabeu. But even then it is not a fair comparison. Gonzalez moved to Spain when he had the age of 24. We are now talking about the early stages of Zidane his career. Zidane did not start his career at a traditional giant of French football. He helped Cannes to reach the fourth place (highest ever finishing) in his first full season, and yes, I consider that as a great achievement. Is it enough to build a whole career on? No, but it is a nice part of the complete picture. Furthermore, Zidane was sometimes criticized for his low scoring, but at the age of 23-24 he scored 9 goals in the UEFA Cup campaign... And remember: how often did a French club reach a European final? Not often, it is in fact fewer than a Dutch club did and about on par with the Belgians. Just to keep that in mind. Rather than looking at prizes, I look at the complete picture. It is not his fault that he started his career at a lower table team, and he did well at that team. And after his first full season, the press already knew his name. Tapie already tried to contract him in 1991. I searched in the database today and a mainstream newspaper over here already mentioned him over 50 times in the 1991 calender year. Again, also his two goals in his debut match for the NT (coming in as substitute) is legendary. It were two high quality goals by the way.