you don't ? Really ? Tell me a bit how so?
I'm not poor, the inflation doesn't affect me 'cause at least in my case goes according to my salary raises, I like this current goverment and I don't think they are any more corrupt that any other goverment in World's history and please tell me what you consider to be "dumb" laws, tbh.
Yeah, we all know that you're like Jodelo and like to overrate Zidane.
the golden arrow is likely overrated, maybe
but yes maradona and messi are clearly > zidane
Zidane had a better career than those players, nothing new, you are the one overrating them.
First, having better careers =/= being the better player. If that were the case Xavi > pretty much anybody else.
Second, it's very arguable that Zidane had a better career than those guys, heck Messi at age 25 already has an (very good) argument as having a better career than Zidane in his entire career.
The Golden arrow was the undisputed best player of his generation, same as Pele, Cruyff, Maradona and Messi. Zidane wasn't.
1- ???
2- What argument? Zidane played vs some very stacked Brazilian teams and still was able to win the WC and get to the Finals late in his career. Zidane is one of the smartest/most skilled/clutch players of all time and won everything.
1-Xavi: Three CLs, more domestic leagues than Zidane, 2 Euros, 1 WC. Would you say he's better than Zidane?
2-And Messi has him beat on pretty much every individual stat/award at age 25.
Yea, of the 1950s...60 years ago. I tend to hold the legends from the 70s and earlier with a grain of salt, in most sports, because obviously sports are way different now. The old legends were great relative to their compe ion i.e. their era and environment. The great players of today (Messi, Iniesta, Lebron, etc) are great in absolute terms..the raw player. Obviously they grew up in a totally different environment which makes this so, but I'm more drawn to the best raw players, not the best relative to their era. Place Di Stefano into a current game between Barca and Madrid and he's likely not going to stand out much, despite being an undisputed top 5 player in history. Place Messi into the opposite situation and he scores 10 goals in 1 game. Obviously in such a scenario, it's taking a player made in the 40s and 50s and placing into current sports environment and it's an unfair comparison, but you can't say for sure that a great player from 60 years ago would necessarily flourish had he the advantages of the current sports industry.
I respect the old legends and like many of them, but in most sports the greats from half a century ago did not produce the same thing the current greats produce, it's not the same playing level. Bill Russell won 11 rings in 13 years as one of the most dominant centers in the game, yet he would be dominated by Lebron James in any way you want to compare the two. They're nearly the same height (Russell between 1-2 inches taller), James is probably 30 lbs heavier, stronger, faster and quicker. And can jump like crazy. And can basically do everything on the basketball court. They obviously play different positions and roles, but that's how good of a playing level James is on; he could dominate as a center in the 50s when it's not his natural position, while being likely the greatest SF ever when it's all said and done (clearly he is, it's just a matter of time before he retires and most people start appreciating what he does as a player).
I went on a tangent there, but the above is my justification for placing Messi above Di Stefano, and not being entirely sure with Di Stefano vs. Zidane because I didn't see much of Zidane and none of Di Stefano, the prolific scorer who could score many goals against 2-man back lines and generally weak defenses.
1- So u are saying that Xavi carried Messi in those championships, got it.
2- .......Not a good argument, until Messi win a WC he still in the Baggio/Zico/Figo category.
Place Messi in the 60's and he may have not done 'cause he would have been 4 foot nothing. I understand your point and it's true to some extent but the absolute truth is that Distefano dominated his era, why him and not other from that era? 'Cause he was special, simple as that. Place Distefano nowadays with this new training technics and he would surely have been better than what he was.
1-In football nobody carries anything, you play as a team and win as a team. Zidane certainly didn't carry with that overrated World Cup performance in '98.
2-The WC argument is the one that is "not good", given that 3 of the 5 most populary declared best players in history haven't won it.
1-. Zidane was the centerpiece and scored twice in the finals
2- What? What's your top 5?
All that Zidane did in '98 was score two headers, in '06 he almost misses a penalty and got himself red carded.1-
2- What? What's your top 5?
Not mine, the top 5 that most "pundits" give is:
Distefano, Pele, Cruyff, Maradona and Messi. The only undisputed best players of their generation in football history.
Last edited by DAF86; 04-18-2013 at 11:08 PM.
Right, but you can't say he would be at Messi's level. If the question is greater raw player, I would go with Messi. And despite how much I love Magic Johnson the person and player (and his accomplishments), I would put Lebron over him.
Interestingly enough Zidane fits in the playing period between Maradona and Messi, really the only significant gap in playing years between those 5 players.
But do u truly believe those players are the top 5?
But Ronaldo was there too and in most people opinion (and mine too) Ronaldo was better than Zidane.
The only one I have seen play live at his prime of those 5 is Messi and he's by far the best player I have seen in my life and yes I have seen Zidane play at his prime.
Ok, but based on history/stats/what u heard, do u really think that they are the top 5?
If 99% of the population say that you're the undisputed best player in the World, it's for something. So yeah, I tend to pay attention to that.
Yup, I also think Ronaldo was amazing, but I'm in no way about to say which between the 2 (Ronaldo and Zidane) was the better player as I didn't see them enough at my current level of understanding. I was just pointing out that there's a significant gap in time there, and wonder whether I would try to place one of these 2 players with the other 5 so that the full timeline and all "generations" (very loose term, lol) are represented, or if I would keep the 5 because they aren't good enough to be propped up with the others.
Again, did Zidane and Ronaldo stand out as much as the others relative to their compe ion? For sure either would dominate in Di Stefano's era. This is why it's sort of a conundrum for me. You can keep the terms to relative to compe ion, and history's all-time greats list would omit players that clearly put a better product on the pitch.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
