Zinedine Zidane - was he all that?

Fromvert

Am not old enough to take players from Maradona's and Pele's generation into account but in my lifetime is Zidane the best player i have seen play? Yes followed closely by Ronaldo(not the lad at Man U),Rivaldo and Bergkamp. Im sure there are a few more I cant think of them at the moment.

eagle eye

eZe^ wrote: »

I actually love when people try to make the argument that either of France's world cup final appearances were solely due to Zidane. It's belittling of the fantastic 98 squad tbh, in both world cups it was a very solid base of good defending that was the main contributor to their successes.

Zidane would still get my vote considering trophies and duration, however in the past 15 years I still think Ronaldo was the most naturally gifted and exciting footballer in the world. However injuries prevent him from becoming a true legend. However talent wise he was closer to Maradonna imo than Zidane. Both would still be a step down from Diego status though.

Interesting, I personally would not have Ronaldo in the very top echelon. Over the last fifteen years it would be Zidane and Ronaldinho for me.

Ronaldo for all his special qualities was too lazy for too long in games for me to rate him in that class.

eZe^

eagle eye wrote: »

Interesting, I personally would not have Ronaldo in the very top echelon. Over the last fifteen years it would be Zidane and Ronaldinho for me.

Ronaldo for all his special qualities was too lazy for too long in games for me to rate him in that class.

I remember reading this post on a different forum a few weeks ago and thought it made some interesting points. I don't fully agree with it, but I believe the essence is right.

"He wont be remembered as a great, the guy has become a joke before the end of his own career. It's sad, because he's pissed down on every footballer since Maradona.

In 2002 he took a team that was struggling to qualify and won them the tournament. People talk about Zidane "dominating" World Cup's and pass it off as fact... well if that's the case then Ronaldo should have the 2002 World Cup named after him. He scored in all the games except the quater final against England. He scored the two goals in the final, and the only goal in the semi final. Hell, you want talk about a vital contribution - he scored the opening goal in over half their games.


I was under the impression the World Cup is the pinnacle of world football. Ronaldo has scored more goals in that competition than anyone. It took him two World Cup's (unless you wish to count '94 in which he didn't play) to score as many goals as Pele did. Y'know... The Pele... And he did it without taking set pieces. He's only scored one penalty at the World Cup. He scored twice in a final, he scored in consecutive semi-finals, he scored in consecutive Copa America finals (and won both) also.

He may not have acheived all which he could have done (that's not in question if we're honest) but what he did acheive makes him the best player of the last 20 years and easily one of the best of all time IMHO. It's just a bloody shame that he played in the era of cynics, where people would rather overlook his contribution to football's biggest tournament and call him fat instead. His legacy is going to be a beer gut and a sex scandal, not being the world's best player.

Just a shame that it'll probably take 50 odd years for people to look back on his career and appreciate what a fabulous player he was. I've no doubt if that was available of what he acheived was the same amount of footage as we have of Pele then he'd be talked about in a similar vein. He's a victim of the era he played in, an era where every performance can be put under the microscope and dissected."

eagle eye

eZe^ wrote: »

I remember reading this post on a different forum a few weeks ago and thought it made some interesting points. I don't fully agree with it, but I believe the essence is right.

"He wont be remembered as a great, the guy has become a joke before the end of his own career. It's sad, because he's pissed down on every footballer since Maradona.

In 2002 he took a team that was struggling to qualify and won them the tournament. People talk about Zidane "dominating" World Cup's and pass it off as fact... well if that's the case then Ronaldo should have the 2002 World Cup named after him. He scored in all the games except the quater final against England. He scored the two goals in the final, and the only goal in the semi final. Hell, you want talk about a vital contribution - he scored the opening goal in over half their games.


I was under the impression the World Cup is the pinnacle of world football. Ronaldo has scored more goals in that competition than anyone. It took him two World Cup's (unless you wish to count '94 in which he didn't play) to score as many goals as Pele did. Y'know... The Pele... And he did it without taking set pieces. He's only scored one penalty at the World Cup. He scored twice in a final, he scored in consecutive semi-finals, he scored in consecutive Copa America finals (and won both) also.

He may not have acheived all which he could have done (that's not in question if we're honest) but what he did acheive makes him the best player of the last 20 years and easily one of the best of all time IMHO. It's just a bloody shame that he played in the era of cynics, where people would rather overlook his contribution to football's biggest tournament and call him fat instead. His legacy is going to be a beer gut and a sex scandal, not being the world's best player.

Just a shame that it'll probably take 50 odd years for people to look back on his career and appreciate what a fabulous player he was. I've no doubt if that was available of what he acheived was the same amount of footage as we have of Pele then he'd be talked about in a similar vein. He's a victim of the era he played in, an era where every performance can be put under the microscope and dissected."

Nice post but quite a few untruths in it to be fair.

Firstly I completely agree that he is one of the greatest strikers of all time. Not in question, not in the slightest bit.
Secondly his goalscroing record is phenomenal.

You mention the fact that people will remember the end of his career better than when he was in his prime, sadly there are people like that.

You mention too many cynics in football, well there are more cynics for the simple reason that football had been on our screens constantly for the last twenty odd years. This means that more people see more games and as a result are liable to have more informed(and some worse off because of it) opinions.

Anyways lets move forward on this. You talk about the 2002 World Cup like he was Brazil's superstar. Well I'll disagree that he was the only outstanding player in that team. Ronaldinho came to the fore in that tournament and provided so much support for Ronaldo and Rivaldo. But Rivaldo was a superstar in that tournament also. That was the Rivaldo and Ronaldo show, and both of them were magnificent. So don't go off with the Ronaldo wcarried Brazil on his back, sure he scored a lot of goals but Rivaldo was there providing and creating space and scoring himself as well, he got five in 2002.
But for me the 2002 World Cup will be remembered for the meeting of three superstars in the one Brazillian team.

Now going back to Ronaldo, forget the last four years or so, but go back before that, and he he was lazy, lazy, lazy. He could turn a game with one role but still he did very little for long periods of matches throughout his career.
But even saying that he is still one of the greatest but for me he is behind Marco Van Basten as a striker.
And of course the greatest of them all Diego Armando Maradona.

LuckyLloyd

If you could take Roy Keane and Zidane with the levels of physical, technical and mental ability that they possessed between 1998 - 2002; and stick them in the same midfield - you would ****ing destroy the game at every level.

redout

redout wrote: »

What, was there a question in that ?

Zizou I am sure played every Les Bleus friendly !

Keano done the simple things with the ball that worked.

Zizou and the galacticos won what exactly ? one liga, one CL in five years.

Keane drove a team to countless titles.

Keano didnt have the skill (what Irish player does ?)but thats all Zizou actually had. Without it he had nothing to give.

the answer to your question is so many great games I dont have a number. Go ask Martin Tyler.

Zizou was inconsistant. Fact brother. Roy Keane was a machine who could be relied on time and time again.

Comparing Zidane to keane is like comparing Budvar to Dutch Gold.

Keane was great for united but Zidane played unreal in a World cup final and a champions league final,something keane never did as he never got the chance to. Zidane was a magician with the ball at his feet, keane im afraid was no magician.

There is no comparison imo

Racing Flat

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If you could take Roy Keane and Zidane with the levels of physical, technical and mental ability that they possessed between 1998 - 2002; and stick them in the same midfield - you would ****ing destroy the game at every level.

I thought that would happen (to a slightly lesser extent) when Utd. signed Veron, but that never really came to bear. Good as 2 players are, they simply may not compliment each other, something you don't know until you try it out I suppose.

Racing Flat

rarnes1 wrote: »

Comparing Zidane to keane is like comparing Budvar to Dutch Gold.

There is no comparison imo

While I'd agree Zidane was a better player, if I'd to pick a team to win a game to save my life, I'd always pick Keane before Zidane.

Keane's attributes overall, while being less skillful and less able to score or create oppurtunities, were more condusive to producing a team that can win IMHO.

PHB

Utterly different players and if you're forced to pick between Keane and Zidane, it's going to be based on what you value in a football team.

I would say though, one comment did annoy me:

Scholes was an awesome player for his club, but was not of the same standard as Zidane, Deschamps, Viera (barely) to name just three French players. If we include other nationalities..........

Zidane was special, I accept that. Scholes however was without a doubt up their in his position with Deschamps and Vieira.

He is one of the best players to ever play for United. He is a sublime footballer, one of the most decorated footballers ever to grace the game. He wasn't as good as Zidane, I can accept that, but he was literally just one step below him.

Collie D

Where's the option for best player of his generation?

Fans in the 70s had Pelé, the 80s had Maradona..both before my time and by the time I started watching footie Maradona was slighlty past his peak (but still a great)

eagle eye

PHB wrote: »

Utterly different players and if you're forced to pick between Keane and Zidane, it's going to be based on what you value in a football team.

I would say though, one comment did annoy me:


Zidane was special, I accept that. Scholes however was without a doubt up their in his position with Deschamps and Vieira.

He is one of the best players to ever play for United. He is a sublime footballer, one of the most decorated footballers ever to grace the game. He wasn't as good as Zidane, I can accept that, but he was literally just one step below him.

Now we are all aware that you have the United goggles on 24/7 and this is proposterous.

You are saying that a player that has not even been Manchester United's own player of the year is one of the best all time. What awards has he won over the last decade and a bit to support your belief?

eagle eye

Collie D wrote: »

Where's the option for best player of his generation?

Fans in the 70s had Pelé, the 80s had Maradona..both before my time and by the time I started watching footie Maradona was slighlty past his peak (but still a great)

Pele in the 70's? I think it was the sixties for him.

eZe^

rarnes1 wrote: »

Comparing Zidane to keane is like comparing Budvar to Dutch Gold.

Keane was great for united but Zidane played unreal in a World cup final and a champions league final,something keane never did as he never got the chance to. Zidane was a magician with the ball at his feet, keane im afraid was no magician.

There is no comparison imo

Wait a minute, did you actually watch the Real vs Bayer game? He scored a magnificent goal, but apart from that he was incredibly disappointing. I can accept people praising Zidane as a legend, but I don't understand how some of his performances are being hailed as godly, especially ones where he was far from magnificent.

Even the game against Brazil in 2006, the highlights of his game have been posted in this thread. People have been orgasming at how excellent he played. Wtf like, he showed an amazing ability to shield the ball, and to prevent opposition players from getting near him.

I don't see what he did in that game as 'dominating'. For all his beauty and grace, in that game he created only one half chance for his team from open play. Obviously he got the assist from his free kick when Henry scored, but frankly, that game was sh*t. It was a war of attrition, and if Zidane was as mesmerizingly brilliant he would have created more chances. It was a horribly scrappy game, that was decided by a well created and well taken set piece, something that if Chelsea had done we would be calling them boring.

How is it that one of the most creative and technical footballers ever to grace the planet can be hailed as a 'magician' in one game where he basically created one half chance from open play? I'll tell you why, because of that move where he did a roulette and beat 3 people. It's actually a shame that world cup will always be seen the one where Zidane was the best player.

Pirlo was a far superior player imo to Zidane in that world cup. He did everything Zidane had in the KO stages, but did them consistently in the group stages also. Pirlo ran the show for Italy in midfield for an entire tournament, whereas Zidane only started showing up in the quarters and semi's. Also, please don't go on about how vital Zidane's goal against Spain was, the injury time goal when France were 2-1 up was magnificent ya?

I know it sounds like I'm Zidane bashing. I'm really not, he is the 'greatest' player that I have witnessed in my lifetime so far. I just have a problem with people putting particular performances up on a pedestal. It's actually not fair on Zidane, who has put in some truly magnificent performances in his time, yet one of the main things he will be remembered for is that fcuking roulette against Brazil.

PHB wrote: »

Utterly different players and if you're forced to pick between Keane and Zidane, it's going to be based on what you value in a football team.

I would say though, one comment did annoy me:


Zidane was special, I accept that. Scholes however was without a doubt up their in his position with Deschamps and Vieira.

He is one of the best players to ever play for United. He is a sublime footballer, one of the most decorated footballers ever to grace the game. He wasn't as good as Zidane, I can accept that, but he was literally just one step below him.

I agree that Scholes was up there with the Vieira's of this world, but I don't agree that he is just one step below Zidane. Zidane would be in the same bracket as Van Basten, Cruyff, Puskas, Kubala, Muller, Di Stefano and Ronaldo. As much as I like Scholes, I really don't think he is just 'a step below' those players. He is an extremely likable, loyal and intelligent player. I just feel that in 20 years time he will be hailed as a Utd and PL legend, but not much more. It's a shame really, but the Guardiola's and Scholes' of this world won't be remembered in the same vein as the Cruyff's and Zidane's.

PHB

eagle eye wrote: »

Now we are all aware that you have the United goggles on 24/7 and this is proposterous.

You are saying that a player that has not even been Manchester United's own player of the year is one of the best all time. What awards has he won over the last decade and a bit to support your belief?

Oh golly gosh, if he hasn't won individual awards he must not be a great footballer.

eZe I think that theres a difference between how people will be remembered and how good they are.

But here are some quotes from people who play the game about him:


“Paul Scholes would have been one of my first choices for putting together a great team - that goes to show how highly I have always rated him. He would have been one of the first players I’d have bought, given the chance”
Marcello Lippi

---

"I'm not the best, Paul Scholes is."
Edgar Davids.

---

"An amazingly gifted player who remained an unaffected human being."
Roy Keane.

---

When asked who was the best player in the premiership, Henry said

"Without any doubt it has to be Paul Scholes, Man United's midfielder.

"He knows how to do everything, and he is the one who directs the way his team plays. "On top of that, he has indestructible mental strength, and he is a genuine competitor."

---

Glenn Hoddle : "There isn’t a player of his mould anywhere else in the world."

---

Alan Shearer : "If you ask footballers to pick out the player they most admire, so many of them will pick Paul Scholes. He can tackle, and his passing and shooting is of the highest level. He’s the most consistent and naturally gifted player we’ve had for a long, long time."

---

Edgar Davids : ""Every one of us (midfielders) is just trying to become as good as him. Everyone can learn from Paul Scholes."

---

Tony Adams : "I really rate Paul Scholes, because he hasn't got the high profile of many of the Manchester United players, he doesn't get too much attention, but he is one very good player. He is an intelligent player, he works hard and he scores some great goals. He is not flamboyant and is a quiet lad off the pitch but he is a tremendous asset to Manchester United and to England. He has already got my vote as player of the year."

---

Cesc Fabregas : "He is the one whose level I aspire to. He is the best player in the Premier League."

---

Patrick Vieira : "The player in the Premiership I admire most? Easy - Scholes."

---

Thierry Henry : "I can't understand why Scholes has never won the player of the year award. He should have won it long ago. Maybe it's because he doesn't seek the limelight like some of the other 'stars'."

---

Zinedine Zidane : "My toughest opponent? Scholes of Manchester. He is the complete midfielder."

---

Zinedine Zidane : "Scholes is undoubtedly the best midfielder of his generation."

---

Sam Allardyce : "There is not a better midfield player in the world."

---

Kevin Keegan : "What United have got that Chelsea haven't is Paul Scholes. I think he is different to anything else in English football."

---

Gordon Strachan : "Paul Scholes has been the best England midfield player for 30-odd years. You'd probably have to go back to Bobby Charlton to find someone who could do as much as Scholes. When the ball arrives at his feet he could tell you where every player on that pitch is at that moment. His awareness is superb."

---

Veron while at Chelsea being asked in an interview who's the best english player : "Paul Scholes."

---

David Beckham said that, among his teammates at Real Madrid, which included Zinedine Zidane, Raúl, Ronaldo, Luís Figo and Roberto Carlos, Scholes was the most admired opponent : "He's always one of those people others talk about. Even playing at Real Madrid, the players always say to me 'what's he like'? They respect him as a footballer, and to have that respect from some of those players is great."

---

George Best : "To be honest I think England have lost their best player. Certainly he's the most consistent and naturally gifted player we've had for a long, long time."

--

Sir Bobby Charlton : "I am sorry for England because they don't have any player like him. You can talk about others but there is no one else like him. He is the best technical player England has without any question. He could have had a lot more caps if he had carried on. And if I was the manager he would have ended up with more than I did – easy"

Sir Alex Ferguson : "Very few players can do that, but Scholes is one of them - and I knew he was one of them. That's why, without question, I think Paul Scholes is the best player in England. He's got the best skills, the best brain. No one can match him."

---

eagle eye

PHB wrote: »

Oh golly gosh, if he hasn't won individual awards he must not be a great footballer.

Petit, Viera, Gerard, Keane, Beckham, Giggs, Lampard, Makelele just for a start are ahead of him and thats only in the Premier League and not including younger players in the League.

redout

eagle eye wrote: »

Petit, Viera, Gerard, Keane, Beckham, Giggs, Lampard, Makelele just for a start are ahead of him and thats only in the Premier League and not including younger players in the League.

In your opinion brother. I already said my piece on Scholes a page or two back.

Theresalwaysone

eagle eye wrote: »

Petit No, VieraProbably, GerardDebatable, KeaneAgree, BeckhamNot a chance, GiggsWinger, Lampardmaybe, MakeleleNo just for a start are ahead of him and thats only in the Premier League and not including younger players in the League.

So I can understand some of them, particularly Viera/Keane but they were both slightly different players. The rest are highly highly debatable. w/ regards scholes btw.

Maybe we shoud start a new thread about scholes. This is going off topic?

JPA

eagle eye wrote: »

Petit, Viera, Gerard, Keane, Beckham, Giggs, Lampard, Makelele just for a start are ahead of him and thats only in the Premier League and not including younger players in the League.

You're in the vast vast minority with that opinion I have to say but carry on.

LuckyLloyd

My personal favorite Zidane moment - and one that I think summed up what made him so great - comes from the 2000 EC semi - final against Portugal. If any of ye remember the game, it was a classic that ebbed and flowed deep into golden goal extra time.

With the game looking like it was sure to go to penalties, Abel Xavier handled the ball in the box in the closing seconds of the second extra time period. Penalty, red card.

Figo (who had enjoyed a blistering tournament and had run his socks off for 120 mins) led a furious protest against the (correct) decision which delayed the taking of the penalty kick for somewhere between 3 - 5 minutes. It really was chaos, ending with Figo tearing his shirt off and walking off the pitch before the penalty had even been taken.

All the while Zidane was standing, ball in hand, waiting to take the kick. When everything had finally died down sufficiently for him to step up and take the penalty, he hit the perfect penalty - in the top corner at pace. One kick for a trip to the European Championship Final, with the pandemonium of arguing players and a whistling crowd. And he ****ing dings it, leaving the keeper (or any keeper, ever) with no chance of saving it.

And that was Zidane. Pure money at the key moments of the key games.

---

As I have written many times before on this board, I feel privileged to have watched Roy Keane play Portugal on his own live in Landsdowne back in June, 2001. In Keane's best performances, it was all about delivering an unmatchable amount of physical and mental intensity and effort for 90 mins. Willing lessor players around him to reach their peak for the one game - and crushing his immediate opponents or area of the pitch.

Zidane's contributions are different in nature, largely because he played in great teams that were looking for that touch of class or moment of magic to put them over the top.

So Zidane's best things are moments like:

The goals to win the 98 WC
The penalty under enormous pressure to send France to the EC final in 2000
The spectacular volley in the Champions League final against Leverkusen
The free kick in the closing minutes to beat England in the opening tie of Euro 2004

Whereas Keane's are blistering all round performances:

Juventus 1999
Portugal 2001
Leverkusen 2002
France 2005

In my opinion, an argument over which is better is redundant. Either type of contribution is exceptional and irreplaceable. But you switch the teams and Keane isn't what sticks France over the top in 1998 and 2000 - just as Zidane would have been incapable of dragging the Irish team to the WC in 2002 by the scruff of their necks.

Different players; different footballing paths - but both equally as class as the other.

Samba

redout wrote: »

Man Utd and Ireland won a monumental amount of games because of Roy Keane. He made a whole team play better. Zidane most certainly did not.

Are you telling me that Domenech and his highly superior management skills got France to their last WC final?

Can you wait until I've stopped eating/drinking to respond to that because I don't want to soil my keyboard all over again!


Alot of people are referring to his lack of consistency.

It's funny because in WC 98 he was one of the most consistent players on the pitch throughout the tournament.

It's odd that this consistency never surfaced at club level, perhaps there were underlying issues which none of us are and will ever be privy to.

But hey, i'm just going to stick to being an arm chair judge.

It's much easier just to assume.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Smegball

PHB wrote: »

Oh golly gosh, if he hasn't won individual awards he must not be a great footballer.

eZe I think that theres a difference between how people will be remembered and how good they are.

But here are some quotes from people who play the game about him:


“Paul Scholes would have been one of my first choices for putting together a great team - that goes to show how highly I have always rated him. He would have been one of the first players I’d have bought, given the chance”
Marcello Lippi

---

"I'm not the best, Paul Scholes is."
Edgar Davids.

---

"An amazingly gifted player who remained an unaffected human being."
Roy Keane.

---

When asked who was the best player in the premiership, Henry said

"Without any doubt it has to be Paul Scholes, Man United's midfielder.

"He knows how to do everything, and he is the one who directs the way his team plays. "On top of that, he has indestructible mental strength, and he is a genuine competitor."

---

Glenn Hoddle : "There isn’t a player of his mould anywhere else in the world."

---

Alan Shearer : "If you ask footballers to pick out the player they most admire, so many of them will pick Paul Scholes. He can tackle, and his passing and shooting is of the highest level. He’s the most consistent and naturally gifted player we’ve had for a long, long time."

---

Edgar Davids : ""Every one of us (midfielders) is just trying to become as good as him. Everyone can learn from Paul Scholes."

---

Tony Adams : "I really rate Paul Scholes, because he hasn't got the high profile of many of the Manchester United players, he doesn't get too much attention, but he is one very good player. He is an intelligent player, he works hard and he scores some great goals. He is not flamboyant and is a quiet lad off the pitch but he is a tremendous asset to Manchester United and to England. He has already got my vote as player of the year."

---

Cesc Fabregas : "He is the one whose level I aspire to. He is the best player in the Premier League."

---

Patrick Vieira : "The player in the Premiership I admire most? Easy - Scholes."

---

Thierry Henry : "I can't understand why Scholes has never won the player of the year award. He should have won it long ago. Maybe it's because he doesn't seek the limelight like some of the other 'stars'."

---

Zinedine Zidane : "My toughest opponent? Scholes of Manchester. He is the complete midfielder."

---

Zinedine Zidane : "Scholes is undoubtedly the best midfielder of his generation."

---

Sam Allardyce : "There is not a better midfield player in the world."

---

Kevin Keegan : "What United have got that Chelsea haven't is Paul Scholes. I think he is different to anything else in English football."

---

Gordon Strachan : "Paul Scholes has been the best England midfield player for 30-odd years. You'd probably have to go back to Bobby Charlton to find someone who could do as much as Scholes. When the ball arrives at his feet he could tell you where every player on that pitch is at that moment. His awareness is superb."

---

Veron while at Chelsea being asked in an interview who's the best english player : "Paul Scholes."

---

David Beckham said that, among his teammates at Real Madrid, which included Zinedine Zidane, Raúl, Ronaldo, Luís Figo and Roberto Carlos, Scholes was the most admired opponent : "He's always one of those people others talk about. Even playing at Real Madrid, the players always say to me 'what's he like'? They respect him as a footballer, and to have that respect from some of those players is great."

---

George Best : "To be honest I think England have lost their best player. Certainly he's the most consistent and naturally gifted player we've had for a long, long time."

--

Sir Bobby Charlton : "I am sorry for England because they don't have any player like him. You can talk about others but there is no one else like him. He is the best technical player England has without any question. He could have had a lot more caps if he had carried on. And if I was the manager he would have ended up with more than I did – easy"

Sir Alex Ferguson : "Very few players can do that, but Scholes is one of them - and I knew he was one of them. That's why, without question, I think Paul Scholes is the best player in England. He's got the best skills, the best brain. No one can match him."

---

lol

Otherwise excellent post.

redout

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

As I have written many times before on this board, I feel privileged to have watched Roy Keane play Portugal on his own live in Landsdowne back in June, 2001. In Keane's best performances, it was all about delivering an unmatchable amount of physical and mental intensity and effort for 90 mins. Willing lessor players around him to reach their peak for the one game - and crushing his immediate opponents or area of the pitch.

I to was at that game and it is one I will always cherish. Not sure if it matches the excitement of the Netherlands clash 3 months later when we qualified which was pure ecstasy but its up there. Roy was monumental on the day. The thing about Keano was that he was never out of place on the same pitch as the likes of Zidane, Figo etc. He rose to the occasion time and time again and on many occasions outshone his supposed better rivals but the thing was that he was always expected to such was the mans level of performance week in week out. The best player to ever grace the premiership is a view which I share with a certain Mr Hansen. There will only ever be one Keano just as there will only be one Zidane. It was a privilige to have watched both in the flesh on several occasions. Two legends of the game.

redout

Samba wrote: »

Are you telling me that Domenech and his highly superior management skills got France to their last WC final?


Alot of people are referring to his lack of consistency.

.

No he most certainly did not. Zidane for whatever reason just shone at the world cup. The two were made for one and other. Very few of the greats perform at the world cup but Zizou was one of them. But I am not going as far as yourself and imply he won a world cup on his own and got a team to a final on his own because that is just bull and all the arguing in the world will not change my mind on that.

Samba

redout wrote: »

No he most certainly did not. Zidane for whatever reason just shone at the world cup. The two were made for one and other. Very few of the greats perform at the world cup but Zizou was one of them. But I am not going as far as yourself and imply he won a world cup on his own and got a team to a final on his own because that is just bull and all the arguing in the world will not change my mind on that.

Don't be daft, I never implied any such thing.

Just like Roy Keane however, he was also monumental and did have a positive effect on other players around him.

Moments such as Thuram banging in two goals spring to mind....

weemcd

eZe^ wrote: »

Pirlo was a far superior player imo to Zidane in that world cup. He did everything Zidane had in the KO stages, but did them consistently in the group stages also. Pirlo ran the show for Italy in midfield for an entire tournament, whereas Zidane only started showing up in the quarters and semi's. Also, please don't go on about how vital Zidane's goal against Spain was, the injury time goal when France were 2-1 up was magnificent ya?

Think you're spot on there, always thought Pirlo never gets enough recognition. He's been there and won it all.

K4t

Smegball wrote: »

lol

Otherwise excellent post.

He didn't make those quotes up you know.

Zidane was a great player no doubt but I cannot for the life of me understand how some people on here are putting him ahead of Paul Scholes. Scholes, at the age of 34, is still the driving force behind a United team who are Premier League Holders (2 years running), Champions League Holders and World Champions. That is what I call phenomenal.

This thread is about Zidane though and he was a fantastic player. And people on here complaining about how he let his country down at the world cup is laughable tbh. Legendary player.

eagle eye

K4t wrote: »

He didn't make those quotes up you know.

Zidane was a great player no doubt but I cannot for the life of me understand how some people on here are putting him ahead of Paul Scholes. Scholes, at the age of 34, is still the driving force behind a United team who are Premier League Holders (2 years running), Champions League Holders and World Champions. That is what I call phenomenal.

This thread is about Zidane though and he was a fantastic player. And people on here complaining about how he let his country down at the world cup is laughable tbh. Legendary player.

I'd imagine that 99.99% of non United fans would have him ahead of Scholes and 100% of soccer fans who have any clue.

Theresalwaysone

eagle eye wrote: »

I'd imagine that 99.99% of non United fans would have him ahead of Scholes and 100% of soccer fans who have any clue.

If you think this includes you, it is laughable.

dreamers75

K4t wrote: »

He didn't make those quotes up you know.
.

Scholes cant tackle

RichTea

weemcd wrote: »

Think you're spot on there, always thought Pirlo never gets enough recognition. He's been there and won it all.

Huge fan of Pirlo, absolute master of the game. His recent form is rubbish though.

If you offered me Zidane or Pirlo, 60% of the time I'd take Zidane.

eZe^

RichTea wrote: »

Huge fan of Pirlo, absolute master of the game. His recent form is rubbish though.

If you offered me Zidane or Pirlo, 60% of the time I'd take Zidane.

But the point I was making was Pirlo was better in WC06, but Zidane won the player of the tournament tag because of his stature more than anything. Pirlo was a more deserving winner imo.

redout

Samba wrote: »

Don't be daft, I never implied any such thing.

...

Well reading what you wrote above would have one believe that you were implying that. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully next time and not leave yourself open to such an interpretation.

eagle eye

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

If you think this includes you, it is laughable.

Your pathetic attempt at an insult fails to hide the United blood thats boiling in your body due to my thoghts on Paul Scholes.

Say you are not a biased United fan and I will prove you wrong in minutes.

So any post on the matter by you is pretty irrelevant.

Try a more constructive criticism next time.

eZe^

eagle eye wrote: »

Your pathetic attempt at an insult fails to hide the United blood thats boiling in your body due to my thoghts on Paul Scholes.

Say you are not a biased United fan and I will prove you wrong in minutes.

So any post on the matter by you is pretty irrelevant.

Try a more constructive criticism next time.

But he's an avid Spurs fan?

PHB

eZe^ wrote: »

But he's an avid Spurs fan?

I think you've missed the point eZe

LuckyLloyd

eZe^ wrote: »

But he's an avid Spurs fan?

Theresalwaysone != Therecklessone

eZe^

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Theresalwaysone != Therecklessone

Hahahaha, oh ya. Fair enough mistake to make no? :pac:

LuckyLloyd

eZe^ wrote: »

Hahahaha, oh ya. Fair enough mistake to make no? :pac:

Look closer at the latter's avatar, sig, etc the next time!

eZe^

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Look closer at the latter's avatar, sig, etc the next time!

Yes Dad. I had sigs turned off today for the record. :pac:

Hank Scorpio

dont forget van nistelrooy or berkamp lads!

Theresalwaysone

eagle eye wrote: »

Your pathetic attempt at an insult fails to hide the United blood thats boiling in your body due to my thoghts on Paul Scholes.

Say you are not a biased United fan and I will prove you wrong in minutes.

So any post on the matter by you is pretty irrelevant.

Try a more constructive criticism next time.

Ummm....

The very fact I support United makes me biased, it comes with the whole "supporting" thing.

I also, never once said that I thought Scholes was a better player than Zidane. I simply said I didnt agree with many of the midfielders you rate ahead of Scholes.

What I find laughable though is that you think you are one of those "football fans that have a clue". The smell of self importance from your posts also makes me laugh a fair bit.

I dont know who told you that you arent clueless, or why you would think so. Im not saying Im clued in either, I just wonder what makes you think you are?

pickarooney

A quality player, it would be impossible to argue otherwise, but for my money only the 3rd best "#10" at Juventus since I started watching them (after Platini and Baggio). His tendency to go missing for stretches of the season, his short fuse and his none-too-impressive goal-scoring prowess mitigate his claim to be the greatest player of his time.

eagle eye

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Ummm....

The very fact I support United makes me biased, it comes with the whole "supporting" thing

.
Fair comment

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

I also, never once said that I thought Scholes was a better player than Zidane. I simply said I didnt agree with many of the midfielders you rate ahead of Scholes.

Another fair comment and I agree with you that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I didn't post back when you quoted the players and gave your thoughts although I do disagree, but we all look at things differently.
Can you tell me where I accused you of the highlighted bit?

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

What I find laughable though is that you think you are one of those "football fans that have a clue". The smell of self importance from your posts also makes me laugh a fair bit.
Well the 'smell of self importance' bit is not intentional.

I dont know who told you that you arent clueless, or why you would think so. Im not saying Im clued in either, I just wonder what makes you think you are?

To your laughable bit. I've played, coached and watched the game for a combination of over thirty years, I'm not claiming to be the worlds leading expert by any stretch but I do feel I have a good understanding of the game.
I don't intend to come across with that 'smell of importance' that you mention.
If you are not saying you are clued in, how on earth can you say I'm not?;)
If you feel I've insulted you somewhere along the line, pm me and I'm willing to discuss it.


Anyways we should leave this about Zidane I suppose who for me is one of the best ever. I put up a list of who I think are my top five during my lifetime. Here it is again.

1. Maradona
2. Ronaldinho
3. Zidane
4. Platini
5. Van Basten

Zatman

Zidane was a very good player but is not one of the greats. I and am not alone always rated Figo as a better and more dangerous player. Zidane had flashes of skill but he never did it every game and in 1 in 3 games for Madrid he was AWOL.
In France 98 except for his goals in the final he wasnt that spectacular. He was good in euro 2000 and for parts of wc 2006