Revisionism: Which players have had their legacies embellished or reduced since retirement?

[AlecHDR]

When you say Giggs and Keane, do you mean people have been tarnishing their legacies as footballers, or as people? If we are talking legacy as a footballer, I don't think the examples of Keane and Giggs are good ones. I haven't seen many people seriously doubting Keane's or Gigg's footballing abilities/status.

Giggs is universally recognized as one of the best wingers to play the game in recent history. His list of achievements is unparalleled. Not only was he great throughout his career but he changed his game over time and was still great. His mix of longevity and the top level he reached will remain a rare occurrence in football. People love to create heroes to worship though. When some fans pointed out that whilst a great player, Giggs was not the best of people (personal life) or that he shouldn't be anywhere near the United managerial job, that was considered as some sort of insult or belittlement of the man's football status/achievements. It wasn't.

Same goes for Keane. Great player. Fantastic midfielder. Still a bit of a cnut. You can be a cnut and be good at football. Arguably one of football's biggest cnuts of all time might be currently the best striker in the world.

 

[Ishdalar]

The general vibe I'm getting from that old thread is that Figo vs Zidane was the big debate in 2001. This would make sense when you think about what other legends were up to around this time. Ronaldo was in the middle of recovery from horrible knee injury while Rivaldo was gradually declining after 1999 and was underwhelming for Barcelona in his final years.

Nedved won the scudetto with Lazio in 2000 and Totti won it with Roma in 2001, they were the closest competitors but it seems like Figo and Zidane were still seen as a cut above.

Here's another interesting thread from 2003 titled "the worlds greatest playmaker"

http://www.xtratime.org/forum/156-w...atest-playmaker.html#/topics/105514?_k=mkasf6

The general consensus is that's Zidane is number one. Nedved, Totti and Scholes are also getting plenty of praise.

Now, when we talk about Rivaldo's revisionism we are talking about this

The underwhelming Rivaldo:
In the 99/00 Rivaldo scored 10 goals in 14 UCL games, his tally was worse in the league win "only" 12 goals in 31 games
In the 00/01 He scored his 2nd best record in the league with 23 goals in 34 games and 11 in 13 UCL games. he ended this season with 36 goals in 53 games, 0.68 goals per match, his best season ever. He even closed the season with an exhibition


His "decline" was a 01/02 season plagued with injuries where he only played 20 league games, in fact this is the only season Rivo got to play less than 40 games total in his 6 seasons in Spain, this was the year some people started to say he was slowing the team and not contributing in the same way (come on, he didn't score 23 goals in 20 games while being injuried, he surely was washed up) but he even scored some goals while being injured and was the best player in Barcelona's 11 (we're talking of a team with Bonano, Christanval, Rochemback, Gabri, Saviola, Coco, Geovanni... you could save Luis Enrique, Kluivert and Cocu, Xavi an Puyol were still young.)

After his 98/99 season he was a monster for two more seasons, but he had to play in a team with Zenden, Rochemback or Gabri so they obviusly fell behind Real Madrid, even when he got back from his injuries in 2002 he showed an amazing form in the world cup.

They were largely different.

Oh please, by the time Madrid bought we were well and truly in the Zidane era. The price wasn't Pogba'd, we all knew Madrid were buying the best player in the world. You people in spain must be a weird bunch.

If we compare the 98/2001 stint between Zidane and Rivaldo France saves Zidane's ass big time. He won a WC and an EC with one of the best generations this sport has seen, but beyond that it would be fair to remember everyone that between Del Piero's injury in November 98' and Zidane leaving to Real Madrid in 2001 Juventus won NOTHING (well, one Intertoto cup). Zidane's era was the one where he failed to win a single trophy at club level for three straight seasons, I'd like to see what would everyone say of Messi if he failed to win anything or even appear in one final with Barcelona for three consecutive seasons

 

[POF]

Nah would be hard to justify mate Vidic was excellent for most of that period. But Rooney was our best player in 09/10 by a distance was on course for 40 goals, when he got injured our season fell apart. You could maybe make a vase for Vidic being better in 10/11 certainly as Rooney was awful before Xmas that year and only regained form from January onwards. But in 11/12 Vidic only played 10 games while Rooney scored 35 goals he certainly wasn't better that year.

Exactly. And how did 11/12 work out for United? 3rd in CL group, embarrassed in Europa and some costly horrendous defensive displays including 1-6 vs City and 4-4 at home to Everton.

Rooney was (is?) a streaky player who had some spells of amazing form but as an attacker, United won nothing without another forward performing better than him (Ronaldo, Berbatov, RVP). Vidic was the difference maker in defence.

You'll get periods of time where Rooney was great but between 2008/12 Vidic was by far the better and more influential player.

 

[RooneyLegend]

If we compare the 98/2001 stint between Zidane and Rivaldo France saves Zidane's ass big time. He won a WC and an EC with one of the best generations this sport has seen, but beyond that it would be fair to remember everyone that between Del Piero's injury in November 98' and Zidane leaving to Real Madrid in 2001 Juventus won NOTHING (well, one Intertoto cup). Zidane's era was the one where he failed to win a single trophy at club level for three straight seasons, I'd like to see what would everyone say of Messi if he failed to win anything or even appear in one final with Barcelona for three consecutive seasons

How does France save Zidane's ass big time? everyone in those days seemed to be going through a golden generation. While France had lots of quality players so did a lot of the other nations.

Losing a big player like Del Piero was obviously going to have huge consequences for Juve in those days as was the case with any of the other big players around the world. squads weren't as massive as todays where barca loses messi for 8 games and wins 7 of them. These teams weren't streets ahead of the opposition especially in serie a where goals were really hard to come by. To give an example, losing del Piero meant that they had to play with Fonseca. Deschamps was also on the decline which left inzaghi, Zidane and Davids battling against the odds. Same thing happened to inter, they lost Ronaldo to injury and struggled that campaign.

They weren't missing out by a huge margin, they were missing out by a point or two in his last seasons. You cant compare the conditions of today to those days especially in serie a which was ridiculously competitive. It seems some people dont get that players dont win titles, teams do. Same way a player shouldnt get the full blame of a failed campaign, the team instead should.

 

[Jayvin]

Scholes underrated here on the Cafe

It's the exact opposite

 

[Jayvin]

Gabriel Heinze

He was pretty good

Nah he was average, always found it bizarre he was such a fan favourite. Silvestre was better

 

[Revan]

Things he was good at I have not seen anyone better yet at them so no way was he overrated. Incredible midfielder. World class without a doubt

I think he was great and definitely world class, but there is no way in hell that he was as good (let alone better) than Pirlo, Xavi and Zidane. A lot of people here (nowhere else) put him even above Xavi which is absolutely crazy.

In EPL, I think there isn't much difference between him, Vieira, Gerrard and Lampard, and how people rate them is more based on what club they support (which is alright considering that the difference in quality between them is small).

 

[Revan]

Nah he was average, always found it bizarre he was such a fan favourite. Silvestre was better

Silvestre better than Heinze? No fecking way.

 

[LouisDanGaal]

We did have someone on here recently claiming Schneiderlin is a better passer of the ball than Keane.

There's no way that's true, certainly not to the extent of his actual greatness as a player.

A lot of opinions you see about him now would have been laughing stocks whilst the remnants of his actual playing career were still prominent in the minds of the collective.

What you get now is a myriad of posts coming to the defence of the player or in countenance to the detractors he now has. Then the threads escalate and go back and forth before dying down and then being repeated again a few months later.

Many people talk about him as some sort of limited player, destroyer type defensive midfield player who was a great leader but not technically that great. Which is completely untrue.

There are idiots on every topic, they are very much outliers though. Keane is very very highly rated by the majority, people tend to be outraged by how underrated he is in the threads that pop up every couple of months but it pretty much just amounts to picking a fight with just a couple of people who have forgotten him. Those threads to go back and forward though but those who see him as a destroyer with limited passer are very much a vocal minority.

 

[Sammyjunn]

Messi as brilliant as he is, played for the best club team most people have seen (Barca) here he helped them achieve some major trophies. He didn't do much on the international front, some may argue because he was part of a pretty average national side. On the other hand Maradona played for some pretty average Italian clubs and took them up another notch. He was a one man team in many ways and it took many players to try and stop him. He also played for what most thought was a bang average national side and systematically took them to another level.

And you think Barcelona without Messi is still the beat club ever? Barcelona without Messi is a whole level below, whenever Messi doesnt turn up, they dont look like the GOAT of clubs.

 

[Fenomeno9]

And you think Barcelona without Messi is still the beat club ever? Barcelona without Messi is a whole level below, whenever Messi doesnt turn up, they dont look like the GOAT of clubs.

To be fair, I do find it interesting that Messi and C. Ronaldo aren't as dominant with there national team as they are with the club team. It not like they suck or anything but perhaps not playing with the same level of talents has to do with it.

 

[rcoobc]

Nah he was average, always found it bizarre he was such a fan favourite. Silvestre was better

Silvestre was worse than him. Never turned up for the big games. Unreliable in the centre, didnt produce enough on the left.

Heinze was just a dick, and Fergie didn't rate him (like him?). But he ran around like a mad man, much like his compatriot Tevez.

 

[Sammyjunn]

To be fair, I do find it interesting that Messi and C. Ronaldo aren't as dominant with there national team as they are with the club team. It not like they suck or anything but perhaps not playing with the same level of talents has to do with it.

Messi has led Argentina to 3 finals in a row, just because he hasnt won it doesnt mean he isnt being dominant with them. Their midfield and attack is wank. He's done excellent for them, but because he didnt win a trophy it seems to always remain a negative point of his career.

 

[Nuts]

Nah he was average, always found it bizarre he was such a fan favourite. Silvestre was better

You're a crap judge of a footballer then.

Heinze was top quality until he injured himself. He had more talent than Silvestre, Silvestre had the better temperament.

 

[Needham]

That dirty Leeds team of the early 70s was full of great talent. They've suffered collective punishment for being orrible but Bremner, Lorimer, etc were top class individual players in their own right.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Nope, no way, must've missed Milan from the mid noughties, when he was considered to be a pre-eminent European midfielder in his mid 20s (and probably the best regista in football) as the heartbeat of Milan (leading them to European Cup finals), and was arguably THE top midfielder of the 2006 World Cup at age 26.

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/y...he-watchman-italy-s-2006-triumph-2804836.html

http://www.italianfootballdaily.com/calcio-tactics-through-time-carlo-ancelottis-milan-unfinished/

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2005/may/25/championsleague6

One of my all time favourite players and a wine lover to boot, thanks for sharing these great articles.

Wonderful player who plays the game as if on slow motion, no need for pace or power, finesse and intelligence enable a creativity that is so nuanced and sometimes over looked in the game.

Loved Hart's reaction post game when Pirlo hit a Juninho esq freekick against the bar for Italy. I think it was something along the lines of "FU#¥ING HELL!".

I read somewhere Pirlo had been practising how to hit that type of freekick (like any lad who sees something awesome) until he managed to do it regularly. (Christ I remember doing that with RvN penalties, low or high, to the keepers right, buried into the side netting) nice to see a pro have that kind of fascination with another player, shows he clearly a fan etc.

Anyway, enough of my love in, I'll leave this video, gives me chills like a little girl watching 1D!

 

[Client6]

It's the exact opposite

Generally, for every one person who says Scholes is underrated, there are 10 others who says he is overrated, just like you did. I happen to agree with that one person.

Do you really think Scholes's skills/technique/talent on the ball is nowhere near Xavi's?

 

[Fenomeno9]

Messi has led Argentina to 3 finals in a row, just because he hasnt won it doesnt mean he isnt being dominant with them. Their midfield and attack is wank. He's done excellent for them, but because he didnt win a trophy it seems to always remain a negative point of his career.

You made my point. He doesn't have the same level of talent he does at Barca therefore he doesn't score nor assist as much. He is excellent for Argentina contrary to popular belief but he does not play at his Barca level for them though and that could be because they guys around him just aren't that good.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Yes, I have seen them all live.

At the time, you have no idea how electric these three could be to watch, but in different ways.

We were in the times of footballs like medicine balls and pitches like mudbaths. Charlton could hit a ball that weighed a ton [even before the accumulated water and mud] like a rocket. Any of the modern boys would break a foot doing what he did.

The Lawman could turn and strike like any of the worlds best, but he was doing it on a mudbath, half a bottle of scotch and a meat pie.

Georgie just made you smile, and smile, and smile. This was a man who twelve hours before the game would have been gambling thousands away, be pissed out of his brains and have been shagging Miss World. He would turn up late and then score some of the greatest goals one would ever see - watch the Sheff Utd goal.

Bobby and The Lawman were fabulous, but we all desperately wanted to be the Belfast Boy.

Beautifully put Sir! That's the difference, someone like Law playing on a fry up and a pint and still banging in top class goals means it is hard to compare that era to later eras.

Any top team from now would play at a pace and a level of stamina that older teams would struggle to compete against. This is in no way knocking older generations of teams, you have to compare them to what they were playing against.

 

[stevoc]

Exactly. And how did 11/12 work out for United? 3rd in CL group, embarrassed in Europa and some costly horrendous defensive displays including 1-6 vs City and 4-4 at home to Everton.

Rooney was (is?) a streaky player who had some spells of amazing form but as an attacker, United won nothing without another forward performing better than him (Ronaldo, Berbatov, RVP). Vidic was the difference maker in defence.

United being poor defensively had little to do with Rooney. And Berbatov was not better than Rooney in any of his seasons at United.

Rooney was unfortunate in that his best period of form for us coincided with the team not being that great due to under investment in the squad. Much like Van Nistelrooy between 2001-06.

You'll get periods of time where Rooney was great but between 2008/12 Vidic was by far the better and more influential player.

Disagree our fortunes were more closely tied to Rooneys form over that period. He got injured in 09/10 and our season fell apart, when he regained form in the second half of 10/11 we pushed on and won the league and got to the CL final.

 

[SalfordRed1960]

And you think Barcelona without Messi is still the beat club ever? Barcelona without Messi is a whole level below, whenever Messi doesnt turn up, they dont look like the GOAT of clubs.

Barcelona are on a whole level lower while he is still there and others have left. Each to there own, I think he is brilliant, just not as good as Maradona, which is where this all started. Because of the Messi adulation (which is rightly done), the legacy of Maradona imo has reduced.

 

[shamans]

I think he was great and definitely world class, but there is no way in hell that he was as good (let alone better) than Pirlo, Xavi and Zidane. A lot of people here (nowhere else) put him even above Xavi which is absolutely crazy.

In EPL, I think there isn't much difference between him, Vieira, Gerrard and Lampard, and how people rate them is more based on what club they support (which is alright considering that the difference in quality between them is small).

He was definitely better than Pirlo and Xavi.

 

[K2K]

Scholes, atleast on the caf. Many people have stopped considering him the world-class midfielder that he was. Instead some act as if he is only considered a "great" because of his longevity.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

He's basically a deity on here.

And if you disagree, I'll bring out the Scholes quotes.

 

[Revan]

He was definitely better than Pirlo and Xavi.

You would struggle to find non-United fans who would agree with it (especially for Xavi).

It is like saying that Giggs was better than Nedved and Figo. It is absurd and extremely biased.

 

[GifLord]

Yeah Pirlo was amazing even when he was in his early 20s. One of my friends is a big Milan fan and he was raving about him all the time back then despite the fact that that team was ridicliously stacked with so many great players (Rui, Rivaldo,Seedorf,Sheva) he would only talk about him.I'd say Pirlo was really underappreciated in his first few seasons at Milan

 

[MUFC OK]

Certainly Giggs due to how long he played and the more modest role e plies in the latter years of his career, though he was certainly world class in his prime.

I'd argue van nistelrooy, kaka and Ronaldo too, and even shevchenko due to his performances for Chelsea.

 

[ThierryHenry]

Reduced:

• Paul Ince
• Sol Campbell - Both have come out with some absolute madness regarding black managers. Campbell especially seems absolutely tapped and seems to believe in positive racism in that he should be granted positions of power that he isn't qualified for simply on the basis of being black and having played for England.

First name I thought of was Sol. No defender is comfortably ahead him from the Prem era.

 

[shamans]

You would struggle to find non-United fans who would agree with it (especially for Xavi).

It is like saying that Giggs was better than Nedved and Figo. It is absurd and extremely biased.

Well in my circle of football supporters plenty would rate Scholes as higher. I don't think it's absurd if someone says Xavi was better but likewise saying Scholes was better isn't either.

I also don't think there's much difference between players of that caliber. Scholes, Pirlo Xavi etc. so obviously saying one is better than the other will involve a lot of biases.

 

[Joga Bonito]

I also don't think there's much difference between players of that caliber. Scholes, Pirlo Xavi etc. so obviously saying one is better than the other will involve a lot of biases.

He was definitely better than Pirlo and Xavi.

 

[shamans]

Guess I phrased it wrong. In my opinion - not definitely.

 

[POF]

United being poor defensively had little to do with Rooney. And Berbatov was not better than Rooney in any of his seasons at United.

Rooney was unfortunate in that his best period of form for us coincided with the team not being that great due to under investment in the squad. Much like Van Nistelrooy between 2001-06.



Disagree our fortunes were more closely tied to Rooneys form over that period. He got injured in 09/10 and our season fell apart, when he regained form in the second half of 10/11 we pushed on and won the league and got to the CL final.

How on earth did you get that I was correlating United's poor defence with Rooney's performance? Clearly it shows how important Vidic's presence was to the United defence.

Rooney was the undisputed main man in United's attack for 2 seasons (2009/10 and 2011/12) - the only 2 in his United career where he scored 20 league goals. League winners in those 2 seasons were Chelsea and City.

The 3 seasons on either side the main attacking/goalscoring burden was carried by Ronaldo, Berbatov and RVP. Champions? United, United and United.

Yes, the squad wasn't as good in Rooney's best years. However, this was also why Rooney played so well in these seasons because the team was built around him. It wasn't good enough to win trophies. When investment came, Rooney played a different role, the "sacrificed himself" nonsense started again and he ended up being dropped.

 

[POF]

Well in my circle of football supporters plenty would rate Scholes as higher. I don't think it's absurd if someone says Xavi was better but likewise saying Scholes was better isn't either.

I also don't think there's much difference between players of that caliber. Scholes, Pirlo Xavi etc. so obviously saying one is better than the other will involve a lot of biases.

I love Scholesy. He was one of my favourite United players but he is nowhere near Xavi's level. Not even close. Xavi was the heartbeat of one of the most dominant club sides of all time and during his era for Spain they went from a nation of underachievers to the dominant international side.

Based on the comments on this thread, I think Xavi is the clear winner of the "legacy reduced" category.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

How on earth did you get that I was correlating United's poor defence with Rooney's performance? Clearly it shows how important Vidic's presence was to the United defence.

Rooney was the undisputed main man in United's attack for 2 seasons (2009/10 and 2011/12) - the only 2 in his United career where he scored 20 league goals. League winners in those 2 seasons were Chelsea and City.

The 3 seasons on either side the main attacking/goalscoring burden was carried by Ronaldo, Berbatov and RVP. Champions? United, United and United.

Yes, the squad wasn't as good in Rooney's best years. However, this was also why Rooney played so well in these seasons because the team was built around him. It wasn't good enough to win trophies. When investment came, Rooney played a different role, the "sacrificed himself" nonsense started again and he ended up being dropped.

In 09-10 we lost by 1 point(and Rooney's injury late in the season probably cost us the title) and 11-12 lost on goal difference. and Berbatov carried us so much during the 10-11 season he was on the bench late in the season and did not even make the bench for the CL

 

[POF]

In 09-10 we lost by 1 point(and Rooney's injury late in the season probably cost us the title) and 11-12 lost on goal difference. and Berbatov carried us so much during the 10-11 season he was on the bench late in the season and did not even make the bench for the CL

Berbatov's contribution to that title win was significant. Both he and Nani were outstanding early in the season and both were out of the team by the end of the season. It's a long season though and points early in the season are worth as much as those won later in the season.

I am not saying that Berbatov was a better player for United than Rooney, of course he wasn't. But without his goals and that incredible run of form United would not have won the title that season. There is not a single season where you can say that about Rooney.

 

[RooneyLegend]

I love Scholesy. He was one of my favourite United players but he is nowhere near Xavi's level. Not even close. Xavi was the heartbeat of one of the most dominant club sides of all time and during his era for Spain they went from a nation of underachievers to the dominant international side.

Based on the comments on this thread, I think Xavi is the clear winner of the "legacy reduced" category.

He is better cause his teams were better than Scholes'?

 

[shamans]

I love Scholesy. He was one of my favourite United players but he is nowhere near Xavi's level. Not even close. Xavi was the heartbeat of one of the most dominant club sides of all time and during his era for Spain they went from a nation of underachievers to the dominant international side.

Based on the comments on this thread, I think Xavi is the clear winner of the "legacy reduced" category.

And Scholes was an integral part of SAF's era as Man United Manager. How is it then not even close?

 

[CEOZucker]

And Scholes was an integral part of SAF's era as Man United Manager. How is it then not even close?

Xavi was one of the best players in the world in his prime, Scholes was never even close to being the best player in England even when Man utd was dominant.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

I love Scholes but, he was not close to Xavi. I have never seen a midfielder able to impact that match like prime Xavi did.

 

[Eriku]

Zidane's taking a battering in this thread, unbelievable.

The way France faded after his departure is telling. Some may blame the loss of other big players, but what about their stunning exit in the group stages in 2002? No Zidane for the first two matches, where they lose to Senegal and draw to Uruguay, and all this with the likes of Desailly, Thuram, Petit, Vieira and Henry. Yes, they also lost with Zizou against Denmark, but he was man of the match.

His average output throughout his career might not stack up to C. Ronaldo and Messi, but I'd rather have Zizou in a final than those two.

 

[Infordin]

What hurts Scholes in his comparison with Xavi or even Pirlo is his non-existent international career relative to those two. He was played through the middle from 1998-2002, but he never had a tournament even remotely comparable to Pirlo at WC 2006 or Euro 2012, let alone Xavi's dominance of international football from 2008-2012.