*World Cup Game Discussion Thread* (SPOILERS)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Katon

Zidane played in six matches at the tournament. He was Golden Ball/all-time great level in two of them. That's 33%. Add in the '98 World Cup and he gets to three from eleven with three matches suspended. That's 27% or 21%, depending on whether or not you want to hold his suspensions against him. Not 80%, in any case. And there are players who were just as creative who had much better World Cups than Zidane's ever managed. Platini in '82 (or '86). Rivaldo in '02 (or '98).

How can you say that someone who played brilliantly two matches out of seven was better than someone who was brilliant seven matches out of seven? To return to an earlier question, how far do France go if they don't get out of the group stages? Zidane had nothing whatsoever to do with that; in fact, his poor performance was one of the major reasons that France wound up facing Spain instead of Brazil.

Darkiller's post mentioned nothing about Best World Cup players (in which case, Di Stefano doesn't make it at all).

Furthermore, most of the French team played poorly in the opening stages, but the opening stages count for little except seeding in the elimination round. Argentina looked like world beaters in the opening round, but that didn't get them all that far when they ran into Germany and may have lost to Mexico, if not for a fabulous Maxi Rodriguez goal.

I also think you're underestimating France's defence. Three goals against in seven matches while playing Spain, Brazil, and Italy is a terrific record. Italy's was slightly better, but then Italy's defence at this tournament was one of the best in WC history, right up there with France's in '98. Thuram and Makelele would both make my team of the cup, and Gallas was also pretty much flawless. They were the main reason France was able to get away with scoring barely over a goal per game throughout the tournament.

The French defense was indeed great, but someone has to score the goals, or else you end up like Switzerland, unscored on and out in the 2nd round. Henry and Ribery weren't doing much until Zidane started to play like there was no tomorrow (which there wasn't for him after the opening round). If he, say, was hurt for the match against Spain, I don't know if the French offense gets off the ground and probably Spain wins.

[thealmighty]

Originally Posted by Katon

Just winning a World Cup doesn't make someone an all-time great.

It does if you are Materazzi's dad.

[Katon]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Darkiller's post mentioned nothing about Best World Cup players (in which case, Di Stefano doesn't make it at all).

True. On the other hand, if you're talking about his place in history, then his WC performances are definitely relevant. If you stick Zidane up with the top 10-20 players in history, there's going to be Di Stefano and maybe Best (any other candidates?) who never played in a World Cup, and then everyone else has a major tournament at a level that Zidane never reached. Most of them have multiple tournaments at that level. If you want to stay in that company without the World Cup performances, you'd better have an absolutely stunning club record. Like winning five European Cups in a row and turning Real Madrid into Real Madrid, say. Zidane doesn't. He's got three domestic titles and one CL, all won with huge clubs. He was the best player in the world from about 2000-2002, and very good before and after. That's great, but in an all-time discussion it's not particularly remarkable.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Furthermore, most of the French team played poorly in the opening stages, but the opening stages count for little except seeding in the elimination round. Argentina looked like world beaters in the opening round, but that didn't get them all that far when they ran into Germany and may have lost to Mexico, if not for a fabulous Maxi Rodriguez goal.

The opening stages counted for something in 2002. And it's not quite accurate to say that most of the French team played poorly in the group stages. The French offence played poorly in the group stages. Makelele and Thuram both played very well in the opening stages, which is why France conceded one goal in three matches. If it's a choice between someone who'll play well in the group stages and someone who'll play well in the knockout rounds, then yes, I'd rather have the knockout. But for the Golden Ball, or for All-Time XI contenders, you can generally find someone who'll do both.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The French defense was indeed great, but someone has to score the goals, or else you end up like Switzerland, unscored on and out in the 2nd round. Henry and Ribery weren't doing much until Zidane started to play like there was no tomorrow (which there wasn't for him after the opening round). If he, say, was hurt for the match against Spain, I don't know if the French offense gets off the ground and probably Spain wins.

And someone has to prevent the goals, or you end up like the Ivory Coast, who scored more frequently than France but went home in the first round. A good team needs an offence and a defence. If it's a choice between a guy who gave me a terrific offence two matches out of seven or a guy who gave me a terrific defence seven matches out of seven, I'll take the defender. Zidane was vital to France in two matches. Makelele and Thuram were vital in all seven. Or if you want someone who helped going forward, what about Pirlo? He ran the Italian offence (which was better than the French offence, despite having arguably less talent) all through the tournament. No suspensions, no silly reds, no matches where he didn't perform.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Darkiller

He is definitely at these guys level, and certainly more on the Pele/Maradonna level actually since he won a World Cup, a Euro championship and played in another World Cup final while being the tournament's MVP.

I won't go over his records and titles (way to many to list) but I think there is no question that he has to be ranked above Beckenbauer who was a defender (albeit a superb one) and not a midfielder.

Zidane is one of the 5 greatest players of All-time, some will argue he was the best ever based on his magic tricks in the middle.

Anyhow, and however you look at it, he is the game's best player of the last 20 years (say Pelé and other legends)

A stretch... The last sentence is probably right, certainly if you downgraded it to the last 15 years so he completely avoided Maradona's form years.

However, I don't think you'll find many non-French who would rate him as highly as Maradona. And although I'm too young to have seen him for myself, I understand there was a decent Brazilian #10 in the sixties who is sometimes mentioned in the 'greatest ever' debate

[AlexB]

Dola,

And FWIW, as a nominal European (we still don't really think of ourselves as Europeans ), as ISiddiqui seems to have given us all the same voice, thought it might be worth pointing out the following:

I don't care about Materazzi's history - Zidane shouldn't have butted him, regardless what was said. He lost it unnecessarily for a split second, end of.

(Tbh I think Materazzi's problem is that he is an anachronism: a hard-man/occasionally violent centre half that helped get the game going when football used to be a contact sport. It's interesting to note it's only after people have seen a five minute video of his 'lowlights' taken from twelve years of football that he has suddenly become a pariah: he wasn't great at Everton, but I would imagine that in Italy he has Robbie Savage type of image - 'hated' by most, idolised by his team's fans, and if he signed for another team they would love him too. Football is traditionally a fickle, knee-jerk type business.

Twenty years ago Materazzi would be fine, unfortunately for him the game has changed, not all for the better. I have less of a problem with a hard tackling centre half who occasionally goes over the top than I do with players diving, feigning injury and generally being big girls' blouses.)

Will the headbutt affect Zidane's legacy? Probably not. Does he deserve to be castiagted or at least criticised for it? Yes - he put his team in a worse position that could have been avoided, and as the senior pro, captain and most talented player he should have been able to take what in essence are just 'verbals'.

[Katon]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

A stretch... The last sentence is probably right, certainly if you downgraded it to the last 15 years so he completely avoided Maradona's form years.

Depends how you weigh the different positions. He's the best attacking midfielder of the last fifteen years - him or Rivaldo. But would you rather have a great AM who's outside the inner circle at the position, or one of the best keepers ever, or arguably the best left-back ever? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way. I have no idea. The one thing I am sure of is that the earlier bit about Zidane ranking ahead of Beckenbauer because of his position is nonsense. Central positions are generally more important than the wings, but midfielders aren't necessarily better than strikers or defenders. Fullbacks and goalkeepers, though . . .

Depending on how much weight you want to attach to peak versus longevity, you could argue we've also had one of the top 4-5 strikers ever during that period: pre-injury Ronaldo was ridiculously good, and even after the injury he's been one of the best in the world.

[Katon]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Dola,

And FWIW, as a nominal European (we still don't really think of ourselves as Europeans ), as ISiddiqui seems to have given us all the same voice, thought it might be worth pointing out the following:

I don't care about Materazzi's history - Zidane shouldn't have butted him, regardless what was said. He lost it unnecessarily for a split second, end of.

(Tbh I think Materazzi's problem is that he is an anachronism: a hard-man/occasionally violent centre half that helped get the game going when football used to be a contact sport. It's interesting to note it's only after people have seen a five minute video of his 'lowlights' taken from twelve years of football that he has suddenly become a pariah: he wasn't great at Everton, but I would imagine that in Italy he has Robbie Savage type of image - 'hated' by most, idolised by his team's fans, and if he signed for another team they would love him too. Football is traditionally a fickle, knee-jerk type business.

Twenty years ago Materazzi would be fine, unfortunately for him the game has changed, not all for the better. I have less of a problem with a hard tackling centre half who occasionally goes over the top than I do with players diving, feigning injury and generally being big girls' blouses.)

Will the headbutt affect Zidane's legacy? Probably not. Does he deserve to be castiagted or at least criticised for it? Yes - he put his team in a worse position that could have been avoided, and as the senior pro, captain and most talented player he should have been able to take what in essence are just 'verbals'.

I think that's basically a more articulate version of what I was trying to say earlier. Well put.

[MIJB#19]

The problem with the all-time debate is that all those stars came from different decades. Soccer in the Zidane era (roughly 1990-2005) was different from the Pele era (roughly 1955-1970), or the Cruijff era (1970-1985), or Maradona (1980-1995), or whatever era you choose. I picked these particualr names as they are usually regarded the best #10 players of the last 50 years. As you can see, they didn't really have to compete wit each other. Di Stefano can easily join into the mix since his moment of glory were before Pele's. And strange enough there are never names of players from before World War II in there.

Over time, people will try to remember things from players, most notably memorable goals or at least remember short snippets of the actions they made. These four above in particular were players up front with creativity and technique. When you look back over the past 10, 15 years, other names will show up too, but Zidane was the star of the 'golden generation'.

Maybe it seems like he didn't win a lot with Juventus and Real Madrid, but then what did Maradona win as a club player? What about Pele? And then, does Clarence Seedorf's Champions League winning record make him the best ever? Times have changed, especially the world view has changed. Back in 1958, people only knew about the World Cup and their national leagues, Pele was the worldwide star, and thus the best of the world. These days, we can sae all 60 of Zidane's games. The judgement material is so much different.

For what it's worth, Zidane's teams did have European cup runs like:
Bordeaux, 2nd: UEFA Cup 1995-1996 (pre 32 teams CL)
Juventus, 2nd: CL 1996-1997 and 1997-1998, semis: CL 1998-1999
Real Madrid, winners: CL 2001-2002, semis: CL 2002-2003
That's six semifinals runs in his career. Try finding a lot more players who managed that.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

(Tbh I think Materazzi's problem is that he is an anachronism: a hard-man/occasionally violent centre half that helped get the game going when football used to be a contact sport. It's interesting to note it's only after people have seen a five minute video of his 'lowlights' taken from twelve years of football that he has suddenly become a pariah: he wasn't great at Everton, but I would imagine that in Italy he has Robbie Savage type of image - 'hated' by most, idolised by his team's fans, and if he signed for another team they would love him too. Football is traditionally a fickle, knee-jerk type business.

Not to nitpick, but personally I didn't need any five minute video to remember what type of player Materazzi is. He tried to destroy the careers of several Ajax players in a head-to-head Champions' League game. That's where I remembered him from.

[Darkiller]

for those who missed on Zidane, here is arguably the best YouTube video currently assembled of his greatest moments (9 minutes).
It has pretty much everything except the World Cup 2006, where he earned tournament MVP.

enjoy...

hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYUtKKbBTkw

[ISiddiqui]

And, in the end, he IS the best player of his generation. Now some may say Ronaldo or Rivaldo or Ronaldinho, but the consensus appears to be that Zidane towers over the rest of them for not only being technically great and creatively brilliant, but raising the level of his team.

And sure a great team requires offense and defense brilliance, but I prefer to give the WC's best player trophy to the most indispensible player. I think Italy would have done alright without Pirlo, and yes, Cannavaro. France without Zidane, I think would have crashed out in the 2nd round.

[Katon]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

The problem with the all-time debate is that all those stars came from different decades. Soccer in the Zidane era (roughly 1990-2005) was different from the Pele era (roughly 1955-1970), or the Cruijff era (1970-1985), or Maradona (1980-1995), or whatever era you choose. I picked these particualr names as they are usually regarded the best #10 players of the last 50 years. As you can see, they didn't really have to compete wit each other. Di Stefano can easily join into the mix since his moment of glory were before Pele's. And strange enough there are never names of players from before World War II in there.

Over time, people will try to remember things from players, most notably memorable goals or at least remember short snippets of the actions they made. These four above in particular were players up front with creativity and technique. When you look back over the past 10, 15 years, other names will show up too, but Zidane was the star of the 'golden generation'.

Maybe it seems like he didn't win a lot with Juventus and Real Madrid, but then what did Maradona win as a club player? What about Pele? And then, does Clarence Seedorf's Champions League winning record make him the best ever? Times have changed, especially the world view has changed. Back in 1958, people only knew about the World Cup and their national leagues, Pele was the worldwide star, and thus the best of the world. These days, we can sae all 60 of Zidane's games. The judgement material is so much different.

For what it's worth, Zidane's teams did have European cup runs like:
Bordeaux, 2nd: UEFA Cup 1995-1996 (pre 32 teams CL)
Juventus, 2nd: CL 1996-1997 and 1997-1998, semis: CL 1998-1999
Real Madrid, winners: CL 2001-2002, semis: CL 2002-2003
That's six semifinals runs in his career. Try finding a lot more players who managed that.

Good points about the difference between football then and football now. It's easy to underrate modern players since we see them have their off-days; before, unless someone vanished during the World Cup, our image was entirely formed by them at their best. There's also the question of modern fitness training: it's only recently that defenders have become fit enough to press for 90 minutes, which makes modern attackers' jobs harder, but on the other hand attackers also tend to last longer because they're in better shape. Hard to imagine someone flaming out like Best now. No clear solution as to how to handle that.

Returning to the specific question, Maradona won the Argentine league with Boca Juniors, Serie A twice with Napoli, and the UEFA Cup once (Napoli again). I think Maradona's record is slightly better than Zidane's because, really, Napoli? and because Maradona was slightly more central to his teams than Zidane was to his, but the two are clearly comparable. That sums up Zidane's place in history quite well, for me: half a step behind the inner-circle greats like Pele, Maradona, Di Stefano, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Platini, etc., but still definitely a legend.

Seedorf's had a better career than most people give him credit for, but there's a difference between being a supporting actor on great teams (like Seedorf, or Zidane in '98) and being the star of a great team (Zidane for Real, for France in 2000, and to a lesser extent for Juve).

People will certainly remember Zidane more than Maldini or Buffon (to fill in the blanks from my earlier post), and given the relative importance of central midfielders to fullbacks and keepers that's probably fair. Whether you rank Ronaldo ahead of him or not depends on how much you weigh Ronaldo's pre-injury form; either way is defensible. One last question for the Zidane-as-best-of-the-era folks: why not Rivaldo? Played the same position, scored more often, played better at World Cups, and was the key figure on Barcelona's double title-winners just before the turn of the century. I can see the arguments for either side, but the general consensus has Zidane out ahead by a mile and a half. Where does the distance come from?

[Katon]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And, in the end, he IS the best player of his generation. Now some may say Ronaldo or Rivaldo or Ronaldinho, but the consensus appears to be that Zidane towers over the rest of them for not only being technically great and creatively brilliant, but raising the level of his team.

And sure a great team requires offense and defense brilliance, but I prefer to give the WC's best player trophy to the most indispensible player. I think Italy would have done alright without Pirlo, and yes, Cannavaro. France without Zidane, I think would have crashed out in the 2nd round.

Yes, but that's because Domenech was an idiot. Put Henry, Trezegut, Guily, and Ribery on the pitch at the same time and they're going to score at least a goal a game, which with Makelele, Gallas, and Thuram at the back would be enough to get them through. Even without that, Zidane had nothing to do with Ribery's equalizer, so without him you're still 1-1 at halftime against a Spanish team that's not clearly more talented than France.

The problem with "most indispensible" is that it places too much weight on whether or not your team happens to have a replacement for you. To use a club-level example, Petr Cech is a better keeper than Jens Lehmann but Lehmann's more indispensible because Chelsea also have Carlo Cudicini whereas Arsenal have to rely on Manuel Almunia if Lehmann goes down.

Also, Italy had a lot of trouble with their defence - Nesta going down injured and then Materazzi picking up a harsh red in the Australia match. The fact that they stayed solid through all that says a great deal both for Cannavaro's performance and for his leadership and organizational skills. Take him away as well and they get fried by Australia.

[ISiddiqui]

Well Rivaldo ended up being fairly disappointing at AC Milan (though he did win a Champs League with them) and then flamed out. He had 10 good to great years (his time at Barca, Deportivo, and Palmeiras was very successful), but then after that he seemed to hit the wall hard. I believe he's at Olympiakos now, which isn't exactly a European power.

Zidane seemed to be past it this last year but did have some of his brilliance left in the last few years.

[tanglewood]

Katon, you criticise those who say Zidane is the best player of his generation for not winning enough trophies, which I think is the wrong way to lok at it but fair enough. Then you hold up Rivaldo as just as someone who was possibly better than Zidane. Well, have you looked at how many trophies Rivaldo won in his career?

1 league title for Palmerias
2 titles for Barcelona
1 European Cup for Milan (in a season when he barely came off the bench and was far from impressive when he did play)
2 title and cup doubles for Olympiakos (not exactly a challenge, they have won the league 9 of the last 10 seasons)

I predict that if you were to look at plenty of top modern players you'd find that they don't have the haul of trophies you seem to expect great players to have.

[Katon]

He's playing well for Olympiakos, one of the best players in Greece, but point well taken. I think Rivaldo's 98-99 was a higher peak than Zidane ever reached, but Zidane's got him beaten for longevity. Zidane's certainly a good candidate for best player of the last fifteen years or so, just not the runaway winner.

[Katon]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

Katon, you criticise those who say Zidane is the best player of his generation for not winning enough trophies, which I think is the wrong way to lok at it but fair enough. Then you hold up Rivaldo as just as someone who was possibly better than Zidane. Well, have you looked at how many trophies Rivaldo won in his career?

1 league title for Palmerias
2 titles for Barcelona
1 European Cup for Milan (in a season when he barely came off the bench and was far from impressive when he did play)
2 title and cup doubles for Olympiakos (not exactly a challenge, they have won the league 9 of the last 10 seasons)

I predict that if you were to look at plenty of top modern players you'd find that they don't have the haul of trophies you seem to expect great players to have.

I'm holding Rivaldo up as someone who was on the same level as Zidane, not someone who was better, so I think that record actually supports my argument. More generally, if you look at people like Ronaldinho, Nedved, Deco, Carvalho, Keane, Scholes, Giggs, etc. then there are a lot of people who've got three or so domestic titles and one European trophy. Zidane's trophy cabinet marks him out as one of the best of his era, but not as clearly the best or as someone on a par with Maradona/Pele/Di Stefano.

Your main point is a good one, though. Trophies are a useful shorthand for a player's accomplishments, but they're not all that reliably accurate (as MIJB was pointing out with his Seedorf example, I think). I've been overusing the shorthand and not using enough proper arguments. I've got to run to dinner now, but when I get back I'll write a completely non-trophy-related argument for why I see Zidane as being in the outer circle of all-time greats.

[Katon]

Right. Probably best to define what it is that I'm arguing:

Zidane is:
- arguably the best player of the 1991-2006 era
- an all-time great

Zidane is not:
- clearly the best player of the 1991-2006 era
- an all-time great on the order of Maradona, Pele, or Beckenbauer

So essentially I'm arguing that he was just the most visible of a group of all-timers from the era, rather than being head and shoulders above the rest. He might've been the best, he might not, but either way he's part of the group rather than above or below it.

I don't think there's any question he's at least as good as I'm asserting, so I'll just explain my reasons for not rating him as the undisputed #1 of the past decade.

Stylistic quibbles first. Zidane isn't exactly a playmaker - at least not in the Pirlo or Platini style. He tends to drift off to the left wing and try to create something through trickery or vision rather than controlling the flow of the game. He's also not a great goalscorer; compared with Rivaldo or Nedved, his closest modern equivalents, he doesn't score that many, and if you go further back for Maradona or Platini then it gets worse. The upshot of all this is that he needs a fairly good team around him so there are people to control the tempo, people to get him the ball, and people to finish the chances he creates. He'll make a good offensive team great, but he can't drag a side through a tournament by himself - stick him with mediocre attacking talent ('98) or good talent poorly arranged ('06) and he'll be sporadically brilliant at best. His only truly great major tournament was also the only time France gave him talented teammates without screwing them around tactically - the 2000 European Championships. Obviously this isn't a major objection, because you'd never want to rely on anyone to carry your offence single-handedly, but if you compare him to pre-injury Ronaldo or to Rivaldo or Nedved in their best seasons then it does count against him.

My other concern is that his peak wasn't quite as high as some of the others. He never quite reached the heights of Barca Rivaldo or pre-injury Ronaldo. His best years were probably 2000 through 2003; in each of those years, he was one of the best players in the world, but he was never #1 by any more than a slim margin. In 2000 he won the World Player of the Year award. He was a reasonable choice; Rivaldo and Luis Figo were his main competition, and while they were probably slightly better at club level he had the killer summer. Probably the best player in the world that year, but you could make a good case for third. 2001 was a kind of messy year with nobody really standing out, but it's tough to argue for Zidane over Figo in particular. 2002 is a two-horse race between Zidane and Ballack; this one's the opposite of 2000, as Zidane's CL final winner puts him ahead at club level but it's Ballack who has the big summer. In 2003 he was excellent in the Primera Liga and the CL, and probably the best player on the planet with Henry and Nedved his only real competition.

That's four years at the peak of his career, and while he was always one of the best players in the world over that spell you can make a case that he was never the top player on the planet during that spell (first Figo, then Nedved). I don't think that case is true - 2003 - but it is defensible. You can't play that game with Ronaldinho the last couple of years, or with Maradona at his peak, or Platini at his, or Pele at his, or with Ronaldo before he was injured, or even with Rivaldo. How can Zidane be the one dominant player of the last fifteen years when he was never even the one dominant player of any single year? He probably moves back ahead of Rivaldo when you take longevity into account, but Zidane's peak isn't quite as impressive as the other players in the discussion.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I would take a good midfield with great strikers on the level of Best and Muller than a great midfield like Zidane (unless of course it's Maradona) with only good strikers. I think the Zidane fans are really overweighting the midfield position. Don't get me wrong, it's damn important, but so are other positions. I second the fullback/centreback argument. It's an absolute killer when your team is controlling the midfield getting shots on goal and then your defense makes a couple of mistakes and your done for. This is why dismissing Beckenbauer in the arguments because he was a defender is just wrong in my opinion. If the other team can't score, you can never lose.

[Desnudo]

Then why isn't Lev Yashin being mentioned as well?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

I would take a good midfield with great strikers on the level of Best and Muller than a great midfield like Zidane (unless of course it's Maradona) with only good strikers.

I realize I'm not comparing all time greats to all time greats, but an argument can be made that in the Premier League last year, Chelsea had a great midfield and good strikers while Arsenal had a good midfield and great strikers (or striker at any rate).

Just showing that it really isn't always that simple to say one way or the other is better.

[Desnudo]

Although a more apt comparison might be Man U. since they finished 2nd. Lousy midfield and great strikers.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, but we were going for good MF and great strikers .

Though, no matter what we think of Christiano Ronaldo's flopping, he is a damned fine midfielder.

[Desnudo]

I really think of C. Ronaldo as more of a wing forward/attacking player rather than a side midfielder though.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I really think of C. Ronaldo as more of a wing forward/attacking player rather than a side midfielder though.

Well, he is an attacking player... but that doesn't mean he isn't a MF. He plays an attacking winger from the midfield and isn't expected to do too much defending, but every once in a while he is supposed to track back to the MF.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I realize I'm not comparing all time greats to all time greats, but an argument can be made that in the Premier League last year, Chelsea had a great midfield and good strikers while Arsenal had a good midfield and great strikers (or striker at any rate).

Just showing that it really isn't always that simple to say one way or the other is better.

This is different than what I was talking about. I wasn't discussing it in terms of the better club teams around now but in terms of historically great players. That's why I said "great" strikers like Best and Muller. Henry is no Best or Muller - not even close. So my point is if I had to fill out a team of greats and I could take Zidane and some good strikers or Best and some good midfielders, I would take the latter. Of course, I did say Maradona was an exception. And I still maintain Zidane is no Maradona. That guy singlehandedly (including from God) beat teams at the top level.

[ISiddiqui]

I guess that would mean the "good" strikers or MF would be historically good strikers or MF? For me it'd depend on who was in the 'good' catagory. In the great MF catagory, I guess it'd be Zidane, Socrates, Zico, Bobby Charlton, Cruyff (though I guess his position is a bit tough to pin down), and I assume Ronaldinho will join one day, etc... if the good strikers are someone like, say, Cantona or Shearer (would Roberto Baggio and Klinsmann be 'good' strikers?), then it depends.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yes, that's what I'm talking about.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I guess that would mean the "good" strikers or MF would be historically good strikers or MF? For me it'd depend on who was in the 'good' catagory. In the great MF catagory, I guess it'd be Zidane, Socrates, Zico, Bobby Charlton, Cruyff (though I guess his position is a bit tough to pin down), and I assume Ronaldinho will join one day, etc... if the good strikers are someone like, say, Cantona or Shearer (would Roberto Baggio and Klinsmann be 'good' strikers?), then it depends.

Platini is a major omission from your midfield list

[Darkiller]

Zidane always came up big in big games.
For some reason, although he was a "creator" and not a "striker", there is a pattern with him of scoring magnificient/Decisive goals at the biggest of stages:

- Two goals for the legend in 1998 World Cup final Vs Brazil to give France it's first World title.
- Amazing volley with Real Madrid in 2002 Champion's League final to give Real the European Title.
- huge free-kick + penalty at 91st and 93rd minutes Vs England at Euro 2004 (I'll remember that sequence for a long time)
- "Panenka" kick Vs Italy in 2006 World Cup final (become only 4th player in history to score in two WC finals)

I could go on and one but these goals really stand in anyone's memories...and they were not done in weekly "league play" or what...done in Champion's league final and World Cup final...
(and I haven't counted here his decisive goals at the quarter & semi finals levels of Euro 2000 and WC 2006)

This goals will stand the test of time and that is the stuff of legends.

[Darkiller]

To give you a better idea of his fabulous resume, here are -among other things certainly- his main team & individueal achievements :

- 1996 European SuperCup Winner
- 1996 Intercontinental Champion
- 1997 Italy Champion
- 1998 Italy Champion
- 1998 World Cup Winner
- 1998 World Cup final MVP
- 1998 Ballon d'Or
- 1998 FIFA World Player of the Year
- 2000 Euro Cup Winner
- 2000 Euro Cup Player of the Tournament
- 2000 FIFA World Player of the Year
- 2001 traded from Juventus to Real Madrid in biggest deal ever (still is, to date)
- 2002 Champions League Winner
- 2002 UEFA Player of the Year
- 2002 European SuperCup Winner
- 2002 Intercontinenal Cup Winner
- 2003 Spain Champion
- 2003 FIFA World Player of the Year
- 2005 Elected by FIFA as the best player of the last 50 years (!)
- 2006 World Cup finalist
- 2006 World Cup Player of the Tournament

The amazing thing is that THIS, is only a resume...it doesn't show how "magic" Zizou was on the field, in each and every game he played...His resume is insane but his play was even more amazing.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Darkiller

2005 Elected by FIFA as the best player of the last 50 years (!)

Really? Wow.

[tanglewood]

UEFA actually, so it obviously doesn't include Pele, Maradona, Garrincha etc. etc. etc.

Still, above Cruyff, Bekenbauer, Platini and do on is controversial. I'd say that Cruyff is the best ever European player quite clearly, not necessarily by a long distance but certainly he stands out from the others I think.

FWIW, here was the full top 50 (with votes next to their name):

 1 Zinedine Zidane         (France)         123,582
 2 Franz Beckenbauer       (Germany)        122,569
 3 Johan Cruijff           (Netherlands)    119,332
 4 Marco van Basten        (Netherlands)    117,987
 5 Dino Zoff               (Italy)          114,529

 6 Alfredo Di Stéfano      (Argentina/Spain)107,435
 7 Eusébio                 (Portugal)       103,937
 8 Lev Yashin              (Soviet Union)   101,862
 9 Michel Platini          (France)          99,380
10 Paolo Maldini           (Italy)           95,497

11 Ferenc Puskás           (Hungary/Spain)   94,361
12 Paolo Rossi             (Italy)           91,194
13 Ruud Gullit             (Netherlands)     91,001
14 Bobby Charlton          (England)         89,921
15 Lothar Matthäus         (Germany)         86,798

16 Karl-Heinz Rummenigge   (Germany)         86,649
17 Franco Baresi           (Italy)           83,800
18 Gerd Müller             (Germany)         82,668
19 George Best             (N. Ireland)      79,036
20 Kevin Keegan            (England)         78,840

21 Frank Rijkaard          (Netherlands)     71,333
22 David Beckham           (England)         71,299
23 Bobby Moore             (England)         70,884
24 Roberto Baggio          (Italy)           68,239
25 Michael Laudrup         (Denmark)         67,484
26 Ronald Koeman           (Netherlands)     66,661
27 Peter Schmeichel        (Denmark)         66,463
28 Gheorghe Hagi           (Romania)         62,383
29 Sepp Maier              (Germany)         62,375
30 Oliver Kahn             (Germany)         58,151

31 Luís Figo               (Portugal)        58,078
32 Raúl González           (Spain)           56,880
33 Berti Vogts             (Germany)         55,398
34 Johan Neeskens          (Netherlands)     54,796
35 Gianni Rivera           (Italy)           53,874
36 José Antonio Camacho    (Spain)           53,873
37 Marco Tardelli          (Italy)           53,732
38 Just Fontaine           (France)          53,612
39 Peter Shilton           (England)         50,841
40 Bernd Schuster          (Germany)         50,247
   
41 Raymond Kopa            (France)          49,504
42 Eric Cantona            (France)          48,436
43 Stanley Matthews        (England)         47,915
44 Ruud van Nistelrooij    (Netherlands)     47,398
45 Valentin Ivanov         (Soviet Union)    46,022
46 Gary Lineker            (England)         44,787
47 Alessandro Nesta        (Italy)           44,667
48 José Emilio Santamaría  (Uruguay/Spain)   43,690
49 Alessandro Del Piero    (Italy)           43,227
50 Alessandro Costacurta   (Italy)           42,511

Personally I think including Di Stefano and Santamaria is a bit dodgy, but UEFA make the rules so...

My brief thought on the list at first glance:

Too High - Van Basten, Beckham, Rummenigge, Laudrup, Hagi, Raul
Too Low - Matthews, Neeskens, Best, Puskas, Cruyff

[AlexB]

OK - by excluding all of the South Americans, I can see how Zidane could be top of a poll like this. There is a HUGE difference between ZZ being voted as #1 by UEFA as opposed to FIFA.

My own top list would be between Cryuff, Best, Zidane, van Basten, Beckenbauer, Platini, Maldini - largely because I have seen a lot of these guys (either live or footage): anyone pre 1970s I just don't have the evidence of how good they really were.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Platini is a major omission from your midfield list

It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list .

[Critch]

Voting polls always end up with the more recent players winning, just like when Man Utd asked their fans to vote for the best Man Utd player and Ryan Giggs got more than twice as many votes as George Best. People vote for who they've seen.

I'd put Zidane as best of the last 10 years, though it's not been a great 10 years for individual talent. He's still behind Cruyff, Platinin and Beckenbauer for me.

[daedalus]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

an argument can be made that in the Premier League last year, Chelsea had a great midfield and good strikers while Arsenal had a good midfield and great strikers (or striker at any rate).

Just to hop off-topic for a moment, Arsenal had *a* great striker (not trying to push him into the "all-time" debate thingie) who was in need of a proper partner, a dodgy midfield (that got push around by less talented but more physical team -- needed a Makelele to partner Cesc) without much contribution from the outside and a relatively mediocre defense until around February (or whenever the African Nations Cup ended).

Now back to your regularly scheduled WC/Zidane argument.

[Darkiller]

Originally Posted by Critch

though it's not been a great 10 years for individual talent. .

I respectfully disagree with this comment.
The influx of great players over the last 10-15 years has been very important and likely more than in any other decade.

[MIJB#19]

The UEFA best player of the last 50 years was a pure internet poll. Whether you like it or not, that will always give a tainted result. The main criticism at the result was that it is unlikely to expected 'older' people to be internet users meaning votes for 'older' players are left out, while 'younger' people won't recognize all the 'older' players meaning even more votes are left out.

And then there's the national bias, meaning the 80M Germans have an advantage over the 16M Dutchmen.

[Katon]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

UEFA actually, so it obviously doesn't include Pele, Maradona, Garrincha etc. etc. etc.

Still, above Cruyff, Bekenbauer, Platini and do on is controversial. I'd say that Cruyff is the best ever European player quite clearly, not necessarily by a long distance but certainly he stands out from the others I think.

Definitely. Unless you want to count Di Stefano's full career (and I can't see why UEFA are even counting part of it; he was Argentinian really, not Spanish) Cruyff and Beckenbauer have to be 1-2.

Originally Posted by tanglewood

My brief thought on the list at first glance:

Too High - Van Basten, Beckham, Rummenigge, Laudrup, Hagi, Raul
Too Low - Matthews, Neeskens, Best, Puskas, Cruyff

Fascinating list. I'd agree with everyone on your list of too high/too low, but I'd add Muller (best finisher ever) to the list of underrated players and Zidane (should be around 20 with Baggio, not top) to the list of players who're a bit too high. I'm also a bit puzzled by Cantona and Van Nistelrooij, and by the absence of Keane and Desailly.

[Katon]

Originally Posted by Darkiller

To give you a better idea of his fabulous resume, here are -among other things certainly- his main team & individueal achievements :

- 1997 Italy Champion
- 1998 Italy Champion
- 1998 World Cup Winner
- 1998 World Cup final MVP
- 1998 Ballon d'Or
- 1998 FIFA World Player of the Year
- 2000 Euro Cup Winner
- 2000 Euro Cup Player of the Tournament
- 2000 FIFA World Player of the Year
- 2001 traded from Juventus to Real Madrid in biggest deal ever (still is, to date)
- 2002 Champions League Winner
- 2002 UEFA Player of the Year
- 2003 Spain Champion
- 2003 FIFA World Player of the Year
- 2005 Elected by FIFA as the best player of the last 50 years (!)
- 2006 World Cup finalist
- 2006 World Cup Player of the Tournament

The amazing thing is that THIS, is only a resume...it doesn't show how "magic" Zizou was on the field, in each and every game he played...His resume is insane but his play was even more amazing.

Yes, but everyone in the top twenty of the UEFA vote was an amazing player with an insane resume, and there are quite a few after that. What singles Zidane out?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Katon

Fascinating list. I'd agree with everyone on your list of too high/too low, but I'd add Muller (best finisher ever) to the list of underrated players and Zidane (should be around 20 with Baggio, not top) to the list of players who're a bit too high. I'm also a bit puzzled by Cantona and Van Nistelrooij, and by the absence of Keane and Desailly.

Did Zidane spit on your mother or something?

Below Kevin Keegan? Paolo Rossi? Bobby Charlton? Ruud Gullit? Nah.

I'd put him right above Eusebio, probably.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by daedalus

Just to hop off-topic for a moment, Arsenal had *a* great striker (not trying to push him into the "all-time" debate thingie) who was in need of a proper partner, a dodgy midfield (that got push around by less talented but more physical team -- needed a Makelele to partner Cesc) without much contribution from the outside and a relatively mediocre defense until around February (or whenever the African Nations Cup ended).

Now back to your regularly scheduled WC/Zidane argument.

Before Quincy Awabalabala got hurt he and Henry looked fantastic together. Obviously too early to call him great, but he looked very good.

[MrBigglesworth]

Instead, he squared up to him, took one purposeful step and gave him the old "Marseilles handshake." How Materazzi was caught totally off-guard is more curious than why the head-butt was delivered in the first place.

It was inelegant. It was wrong. But it was a far sight more manly than a sneak attack or a kick in the privates.

Yes, that is the same question that I had when I first saw it: why wasn't Materazzi expecting to be headbutted in the chestplate by the opposing team's best player with 8 minutes to go in extra time of the World Cup final? How could he not be ready for that? Wasn't the coach screaming, 'watch the headbutt!'? That's Futbol 101, people.

And it was totally more manly than a 'sneak attack'. You could read Zidane's lips in the exchange right before the incident saying, 'I'm going to headbutt you now.' It's not like he just came with his head out of nowhere attacking an exhausted player that was calmly walking back after a play. That would have been unmanly! He warned that Italian he was coming. I don't know why he wasn't ready for it.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

And it was totally more manly than a 'sneak attack'. You could read Zidane's lips in the exchange right before the incident saying, 'I'm going to headbutt you now.' It's not like he just came with his head out of nowhere attacking an exhausted player that was calmly walking back after a play. That would have been unmanly! He warned that Italian he was coming. I don't know why he wasn't ready for it.

Possibly because he was trying to draw a card?

[Katon]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Did Zidane spit on your mother or something?

Below Kevin Keegan? Paolo Rossi? Bobby Charlton? Ruud Gullit? Nah.

I'd put him right above Eusebio, probably.

No, he headbutted her .

Seriously, I'm arguing this side mostly because it's an interesting discussion and the other side is very thoroughly covered. It's not like saying that someone's the twentieth-best player in European football history is a huge insult, you know.

Running through your list of players - don't know much about Rossi apart from the '82 World Cup; judging from a quick look at Wikipedia, apart from that one tournament it's hard to see him as better than Henry or Shevchenko, neither of whom even made the list.

Keegan was a terrific player, European Footballer of the Year twice in a row. Best player on the planet a couple of seasons, a great player on very good teams the rest of his career: he's got the same resume as Zidane. If Keegan's 20th, then Zidane's got to be in the same area.

Charlton's underrated by a lot of people. He was a superb long passer, a much better tackler than Zidane, and he scored a lot more often, five or six more goals per season. He also stayed out of disciplinary trouble much more reliably than Zidane. Over a full season, Charlton's going to be fit more often, score far more, and contribute more defensively. Zidane will create more chances for his teammates, certainly, but it's not like Charlton was a slouch in that department either.

Gullit was one of the most versatile players in recent history. Most of the time he was an attacking midfielder, but he also could play libero (which is how I remember him from Chelsea) or as a winger in a pinch. Again, if you compare him to Zidane he's not going to create quite as much, but he's still going to set up a lot of chances as well as scoring himself and being much more effective defensively.

Eusebio is arguably the most complete striker in history. Great shot with both feet, ridiculously fast , good in the air, tricky dribbler, lethal from distance and a good team player. He was the star on a Benfica team that was one of the best in Europe, and dragged Portugal to third place in the '66 World Cup. People actually started calling him the European Pele; that was an exaggeration, but the fact that they were making the comparison in the middle of Pele's career just goes to show how great Eusebio really was.

[ISiddiqui]

Zidane and Keegan probably fairly similar technically. He played on great teams as well. Granted all that, but Zidane has some edges of Keegan, which end up being huge in the end. Zidane has better vision than Keegan and is more creative. The statement after the Brazil game in this WC that Zidane was the only Brazilian on the pitch is not far from the mark of how he was in his prime. Zidane has a very malandro style sometimes. He is one of the few "European Brazilians" as I like to put it.

The combination of great technical skill and Brazilian creativity and ingenuity, combined with great vision (probably could be folded into the Brazilian creativity part), and his ability to hold/protect the ball (perhaps unparralled in the sport's history) elevate him beyond Keegan and Charlton (as well as Gullit).

I also know how good Eusebio is, so by putting Zidane ahead of him, I am making a bit of statement as to how amazing I think Zidane is.

I think this quote for Gerard Houllier speaks well of him (though I am dubious of the Gerrard comparison... Houllier did manage Gerrard though and perhaps has an inflated view as a result... not saying Gerrard isn't a great player, btw):

http://wc2006.telegraph.co.uk/Docume...8-177C74D1CCB9

Platini may have scored more, but few players have made as many for other people as Zidane. Few have been as creative. A wonderful inventor of the play, he has an instinct that enables him to unbalance a packed defence. That's a characteristic of the top players: they can always surprise you. When you are expecting a short pass, Zidane can play a long, diagonal ball to a player nobody has seen. He is a master of what we call the blind pass: you expect him to play it one way and suddenly he delivers a very clever ball in the opposite direction. Or he opens up space for an attempt on goal when everyone is expecting a pass backwards.

Zidane belongs to the category of Johan Cruyff and Platini - among the very greatest of all European footballers - and I must say that such a mantle could not fall on a more admirable man.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Yes, that is the same question that I had when I first saw it: why wasn't Materazzi expecting to be headbutted in the chestplate by the opposing team's best player with 8 minutes to go in extra time of the World Cup final? How could he not be ready for that? Wasn't the coach screaming, 'watch the headbutt!'? That's Futbol 101, people.

And it was totally more manly than a 'sneak attack'. You could read Zidane's lips in the exchange right before the incident saying, 'I'm going to headbutt you now.' It's not like he just came with his head out of nowhere attacking an exhausted player that was calmly walking back after a play. That would have been unmanly! He warned that Italian he was coming. I don't know why he wasn't ready for it.

I think this subject is exhausted, but anyway. You skipped the lead-up to the exhausted Materazzi with the halo calmly walking to the play which involved Materazzi giving Zidane a titty twister and generally being an ass. Materazzi of all people should be least suprised that someone finally did him in.

[Katon]

The "around 20" comment was off the top of my head, rather than a precise judgement. He's probably a bit higher. I still think his resume's fairly similar to Keegan's, but you're right that all the narrow differences favor Zidane. He's probably a few spots above 20.

Houllier's quote kind of glosses over Zidane's biggest flaw at this level. Saying "Platini may have scored more" is like saying that Barcelona might be a better team than Bolton. Zidane scored essentially one goal every five matches over his career; Platini scored one every two. That's equal to a three-goal difference every ten matches, or twelve to fifteen over a full season. And Platini was one of the best ever both at passing and at taking set-pieces - he made a lot of goals for his teammates as well. Zidane might have a slight edge in creativity, but not a twelve-to-fifteen goal edge.

That's also the problem with putting him ahead of Eusebio. Eusebio was probably the best #9 ever, him or Muller (who was a different kind of #9). Zidane isn't the best ever at his position, because historically there have been a couple of guys who could create just as well for their teammates while scoring much more often. So unless you want to argue that attacking midfielders are much more important than strikers, how do you put the guy who's at the top of his position ahead of the guy who's further down the list at his?

Charlton and Gullit . . . Zidane's creativity puts him ahead offensively, but they both scored enough to keep fairly close and they were both better defensively. Who you'd rather have really depends on what role you were looking for your attacking midfielder to play - and when that's the case, how do you put one far ahead of the other two?

[SirFozzie]

Saw this over on the Register:

This is how various nations saw the incident in the 2nd half of Extra time:

The Germans...



the French..



The Italian..



The Americans




The Press..



Then there's the Ultra HeadButt..



The Video Game HeadButt..



and the Commercial HeadButt..