Lionel Messi..

[grecian]

With regards to above points, Zidane > Platini by far, Cruyff as well. Beckenbauer mayber less so, but still ahead. Imo.

Disagree with all that, TBH. Liked Zidane, but to say he was far better then those two, seems a stretch. Michel could do pretty much all Zinedine could, but scored a lot more goals, and would of probably won a World Cup, if it wasn't for a joke reffing decision.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Gerrard better than Zidane? Now I've heard it all.

 

[grecian]

Messi did play well - or as well as he could really. His team was set up crappily by Maradona. It had only one real midfielder IIRC. People tend to underestimate how incredibly hard it is to single-handedly (however that may be defined) make a team win. Most of these great players played in great teams and won a lot of titles. Very very few of them played in much smaller, weaker, or unfavoured sides and won.

IYO, he played well, I thought he was average. Argentina aren't a pish side either, were shockingly managed, I'd agree though. Yet Greats can overcome that stuff.

 

[Ikki]

Get away from me you religious zealot

Look, I have always (I mean always) had problems in discussing this topic with people because my mind is geared differently when I look at football. I look at it how I would want to play it and in the myriad of facets my skills as a footballer would help my team. That is why for me the players who were far more complete (i.e. Gerrard/Mathaeus) are better players.

I recall a few months ago that Barca/Real fans were arguing who is more "complete" between Ronaldo and Messi. Frankly, that word should never be used to describe them. They are fantastic attacking players, but that's where it stops.

 

[vcs]

Disagree with all that, TBH. Liked Zidane, but to say he was far better then those two, seems a stretch. Michel could do pretty much all Zinedine could, but scored a lot more goals, and would of probably won a World Cup, if it wasn't for a joke reffing decision.

Yes, I think Platini and Zidane are very close. Platini maybe slightly lacked Zidane's grace, but could get goals regularly like Lampard.

 

[grecian]

Get away from me you religious zealot

Look, I have always (I mean always) had problems in discussing this topic with people because my mind is geared differently when I look at football. I look at it how I would want to play it and in the myriad of facets my skills as a footballer would help my team. That is why for me the players who were far more complete (i.e. Gerrard/Mathaeus) are better players.

I recall a few months ago that Barca/Real fans were arguing who is more "complete" between Ronaldo and Messi. Frankly, that word should never be used to describe them. They are fantastic attacking players, but that's where it stops.

You'd of loved Bryan Robson then, because he was twice the player Stevie G was.

Yes, I think Platini and Zidane are very close. Platini maybe slightly lacked Zidane's grace, but could get goals regularly like Lampard.

Comparing Lampard to Platini, after Gerrard to Zidane, I think I'll leave this thread now, before it does me damage

 

[Ikki]

I can't. It's just too obvious that Zidane is better than Gerrard. It's like trying to formulate a mathematical proof for the statement "2+2=4."

It's a cop-out. You can have perfectly valid reasons and I am more than sure than others will agree with you. But let me at least rebut and show why I think Zidane is overrated.

For me, from 04-09 no player has done what Gerrard did and I would take that Gerrard over pretty much any player. He was awesome in attack and defence and lead from the front. He carried a relatively poor Liverpool side to two CL finals and won one. He was a juggernaut and single-handedly won games - even in the downturn of his career he is still doing it.

Zidane has always been in a star-studded side and rarely was asked to do much in defence. Even in terms of attacking, he doesn't have a great record of goals and assists. Yes, the game of football is not just about that but a player so highly lauded, with little other responsibility than to get his team to attack, should have much better numbers. I think he was a very talented playmaker, pretty consistent but it was his finals performances that took him to another level. His WC98 a prime example - really didn't contribute a whole lot until the final.

I'll put it this way, if you had one player to pick to start a brand new team and had no idea who else would be his teammates (could be Bangladesh national team) would you pick Zidane over Gerrard?

IYO, he played well, I thought he was average. Argentina aren't a pish side either, were shockingly managed, I'd agree though. Yet Greats can overcome that stuff.

How many greats have overcome that? I can only really think of one guy who played in a somewhat unfavoured side and made them win the WC...Maradona.

You'd of loved Bryan Robson then, because he was twice the player Stevie G was.

He wishes.

 

[Jarquis]

They are fantastic attacking players, but that's where it stops.

Ronaldo's not half bad at defending set pieces tbh.

 

[vcs]

You'd of loved Bryan Robson then, because he was twice the player Stevie G was.



Comparing Lampard to Platini, after Gerrard to Zidane, I think I'll leave this thread now, before it does me damage

Nah, just said he had that aspect to his game. Zidane/Platini >>> Lampard obviously.

 

[Uppercut]

Don't think it does him justice to describe Zidane as an "attacking" player, he started out box-to-box with Juventus.

The team that has Zidane generally runs the match from start to finish. It's that simple.

 

[Ikki]

Don't think it does him justice to describe Zidane as an "attacking" player, he started out box-to-box with Juventus.

The team that has Zidane generally runs the match from start to finish. It's that simple.

Back then you may have described him as a CM but he really didn't do much in defence. He had Deschamps and Davids covering for him and they were the ones that sat back. Sure, as he progressed he defended less and less but even during that stage of his career calling him a box-to-box midfielder is really stretching it. Guys like Vieira, Matthaus, Effenberg and Gerrard are box-to-box. Throughout his career, whether in club or country, he always had at least one (sometimes two) players holding for him.

When I describe Zidane as an attacking player I mean in that sense that his skills really only contributed to attack. He could score, assist or generally keep possession but his influence was with the ball. And for a player blessed with such star-studded teams, his stats aren't that impressive. They're not the be-all and end-all but it's a glaring thing if you are going to say he is the best player of all-time or thereabouts.

And really, I am not sure what you mean about Zidane running a game. Zidane was a fine player, could keep the ball well, but he is nowhere near the likes of Scholes or Xavi in terms of running a game - if that is what you are referring to.

 

[Uppercut]

Bollocks, he did everything Xavi does for Barca, plus more. Still have nightmares about his performance in this game. Look at the positions where he typically picks up the ball. I honestly just think you probably didn't see enough of him to accurately assess the type of player he was

Not really up for debating this, the guy was a god, if you can't see it that's not my problem.

 

[vcs]

Ikki, you must love Schweinsteiger.

 

[vcs]

Bollocks, he did everything Xavi does for Barca, plus more. Still have nightmares about his performance in this game.

Not really up for debating this, the guy was a god, if you can't see it that's not my problem.

He had games when he played like that. This is still my favourite midfield display ever. I don't think he did it as consistently as Xavi manages to do it these days, especially with Madrid in his latter years. In fairness, his team wasn't as settled in those days are Barcelona are now. Barcelona and Spain pretty much have the same core of players and that is a big benefit for Xavi.

 

[Uppercut]

He had games when he played like that. This is still my favourite midfield display ever. I don't think he did it as consistently as Xavi manages to do it these days, especially with Madrid in his latter years. In fairness, his team wasn't as settled in those days are Barcelona are now. Barcelona and Spain pretty much have the same core of players and that is a big benefit for Xavi.

I love how every time he gets the ball his teammates set off because they know if they find some space in a dangerous area he'll get the ball to them.

 

[Ikki]

Ikki, you must love Schweinsteiger.

Fantastic holding midfielder but was a pretty ordinary winger IMO.

The reason I love someone like Gerrard is that no matter which position he played he was always amongst the best in the league, if not the world. As a youngin' he made his name as a DM and won the PFA young player of the year and treble. He moved to CM where he carried Liverpool on his back to a CL title and won UEFA club footballer of the year. He moved out wide and scored 20+ goals and many assists winning the PFA player of the year. He moved up behind the striker and took his team to runner-up scoring 20+ goals and many assists winning the FWA player of the year and PFA runner up (to a sentimental choice in Giggs). He's also had amazing longevity - took something like 10 years to have a bad year. And, to be frank, he played with many teammates that didn't deserve the privilege of being on the same pitch as him. The only other player IMO that was capable of that versatility, to that level of skill, was Matthaus.

Bollocks, he did everything Xavi does for Barca, plus more. Still have nightmares about his performance in this game. Look at the positions where he typically picks up the ball. I honestly just think you probably didn't see enough of him to accurately assess the type of player he was

Not really up for debating this, the guy was a god, if you can't see it that's not my problem.

Revisionism. Plain and simple. Sure he may have had the odd game like that but a possession based game was not Zidane's forte. Zidane not only did not pass as much as Xavi he was even less accurate. A better player than Xavi, but in terms of running the game? I am sorry, but no. Xavi pretty much guarantees your side having the lion's share of possession. Scholes to a lesser extent but still in that echelon.

 

[Teja.]

I don't know how footballers are rated on an AT scale traditionally. Reading on some forums and talking to fans, it seems it's different from cricket in that people consider how good a player was at the peak of his career over anything else unlike in cricket. For instance, If a player was one of the greatest in history for 3-4 years, He's up for consideration for consideration as an ATG but you wouldn't say the same about a player who was merely good for 10-15 years. Interesting really.

Must add a disclaimer that I know close to nothing about football and it's history and on seeing the last WC, I thought Arjen Robben was the most skillful player in any team.

 

[Ikki]

You're right, that is peculiar. I'd say the way I judge football players is much different to cricket players. Probably, primarily, because I think whilst cricket is a team game it is a set up of 1v1 duels. In football, it is a true team game and for one player to have so much effect on a team's success it takes a serious amount of ability and drive. It's why, as I mentioned before, that lots of the best players (which are traditionally considered the best) were in star-studded sides.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I think coming from the BBC gives the view a lot of credibility.

Was a Beeb article starting that 'classic' debate in CC...

Messi now vs Ronaldo '99, who'd you take?

I think it's ridiculous to suggest that you can't be one of the best players of all-time if you don't win a World Cup. If he had happened to be born Spanish, he probably would have. Would having a different nationality make him a better player?

I can't compare him to Pele or Maradona, but he's definitely the best player I've ever seen. Even Zidane was never this good. I don't see why his age is of any relevance. If he's insanely good, he's insanely good. And he is.

Not even 'happened to be born' though. He moved so early to Spain that he could easily have played for them.

 

[vcs]

I don't know how footballers are rated on an AT scale traditionally. Reading on some forums and talking to fans, it seems it's different from cricket in that people consider how good a player was at the peak of his career over anything else unlike in cricket. For instance, If a player was one of the greatest in history for 3-4 years, He's up for consideration for consideration as an ATG but you wouldn't say the same about a player who was merely good for 10-15 years. Interesting really.

Must add a disclaimer that I know close to nothing about football and it's history and on seeing the last WC, I thought Arjen Robben was the most skillful player in any team.

Arjen Robben's not a bad shout at all, though he's a selfish, diving ****. I thought he was even better in Euro 2004. He was stunning in that tournament.