I think Seedorf being a bit more eye catching and people watching him in these veterans games colours the opinions. Davids was a much better player for me.
Seedorf vs Davids
- Thread starter The holy trinity 68
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
Was at Ajax for 6 weeks training back in the early 90s.
You guys realise they had played in different positions, right? :P
Seedorf
This.
Brilliant, that's one to tell the grand children.
Davids for me. He was amazing in 98.
But it is a bit like Scholes & Keane.
But it is a bit like Scholes & Keane.
Seedorf has become very overrated. People remember his manchester game and his many Cl trophies. But in reality he was wildly inconsistent. He had so many games where he was absolutely terrible in a season. People who watched him in serie a know this, he was often a big element of frustration for the Milan fans. I rate Davids higher. He won less prizes for Juventus or Barcelona, but he was consistant and instrumental for them. Seedorf was more of a luxury player.
Depends on what you are looking for, as said by almost everyone in the forum, one is a box to box, another is a creative play maker.
Let us check the pros and cons of their game, their achievements and how good where overall in career.
Seedorf:
Pros: There is no denying there are very few who can outshine Seedorf as "big game player", on form he was always one of the best players in the field. Technically fantastic, creativity was excellent, was valuable when it came to contribute defensively, was a versatile midfielder and also had a great shot(when on form).
Cons: As said above when on form, always one of the best in the field. but that form was inconsistent, his bad games were terrible.
For a player of his stature, he used have absolutely horrendous games. It was like Rooney at his worst games, too many miss passes, turnovers, also used to slow down plays at wrong times and god mighty terribly amateurish shooting. He was a player of extreme, his best games were outstanding, and his worst games were terrible.
Also his NT career was not as great as it could have been. Although he did had a fine 1996 Euros, despite the penalty miss.
Achievements: Well the only player to win CL with 3 different clubs, and was also the starting member, and not a sub or fringe player. Is a big up. Although always underrated when it came to individual awards, but it is understandable given his lack of consistency, especially post Ajax. But well he is in Pele's 100(yes it is kinda farcical but still), so that means something.
Overall: I will say, Seedorf was a player who performed great when it mattered, as a basic talent he was outstanding with the ball and also contributed hugely without it. One top of his form, he was legit one of the best midfielders of his time.
If I had to rank him, I would rank him as top 40 midfielder of all time.
Davids:
Pros: He was a pitbull in the center, great ball winner, outstanding technical finesse, tremendous energy, explosive pace and also could create and chip in with goals. Plus his aggression was the think which made him standout. He was a model Box to Box midfielder. Plus he had the one of the coolest look of all time. I mean who did not wanted those cool glasses.
Cons: His game definitely did not had any weakness, maybe his height. His only low point was his downfall post Juventus(apart from the period he was in Barcelona where he was outstanding and one of the key reasons along with Ronaldinho for the turnaround of Barcelona), he was really poor in Inter, nothing special in Spurs, and after that he was basically a has been. Plus his ban during early 2000s is a blemish in his otherwise glorious career.
Achievements: He had a fairly excellent resume, won almost all the major titles a footballer has to win at club level. Plus he also had far better NT career than Seedorf.
Seedorf vs Edgar Davids: It is definitely an odd battle. But if we have to take it as a player vs player regardless of the position. I will take Davids, simply because his prime he was a more consistent player who used to put regularly good performance after good performance.
Seedorf was way too inconsistent IMHO. It is like choosing between a player who is 8/10 most of the times, or a player who will give you many 10/10 performances but most of the other times he is 4/10 or 5/10.
Let us check the pros and cons of their game, their achievements and how good where overall in career.
Seedorf:
Pros: There is no denying there are very few who can outshine Seedorf as "big game player", on form he was always one of the best players in the field. Technically fantastic, creativity was excellent, was valuable when it came to contribute defensively, was a versatile midfielder and also had a great shot(when on form).
Cons: As said above when on form, always one of the best in the field. but that form was inconsistent, his bad games were terrible.
For a player of his stature, he used have absolutely horrendous games. It was like Rooney at his worst games, too many miss passes, turnovers, also used to slow down plays at wrong times and god mighty terribly amateurish shooting. He was a player of extreme, his best games were outstanding, and his worst games were terrible.
Also his NT career was not as great as it could have been. Although he did had a fine 1996 Euros, despite the penalty miss.
Achievements: Well the only player to win CL with 3 different clubs, and was also the starting member, and not a sub or fringe player. Is a big up. Although always underrated when it came to individual awards, but it is understandable given his lack of consistency, especially post Ajax. But well he is in Pele's 100(yes it is kinda farcical but still), so that means something.
Overall: I will say, Seedorf was a player who performed great when it mattered, as a basic talent he was outstanding with the ball and also contributed hugely without it. One top of his form, he was legit one of the best midfielders of his time.
If I had to rank him, I would rank him as top 40 midfielder of all time.
Davids:
Pros: He was a pitbull in the center, great ball winner, outstanding technical finesse, tremendous energy, explosive pace and also could create and chip in with goals. Plus his aggression was the think which made him standout. He was a model Box to Box midfielder. Plus he had the one of the coolest look of all time. I mean who did not wanted those cool glasses.
Cons: His game definitely did not had any weakness, maybe his height. His only low point was his downfall post Juventus(apart from the period he was in Barcelona where he was outstanding and one of the key reasons along with Ronaldinho for the turnaround of Barcelona), he was really poor in Inter, nothing special in Spurs, and after that he was basically a has been. Plus his ban during early 2000s is a blemish in his otherwise glorious career.
Achievements: He had a fairly excellent resume, won almost all the major titles a footballer has to win at club level. Plus he also had far better NT career than Seedorf.
Seedorf vs Edgar Davids: It is definitely an odd battle. But if we have to take it as a player vs player regardless of the position. I will take Davids, simply because his prime he was a more consistent player who used to put regularly good performance after good performance.
Seedorf was way too inconsistent IMHO. It is like choosing between a player who is 8/10 most of the times, or a player who will give you many 10/10 performances but most of the other times he is 4/10 or 5/10.
At their peak, Davids is an easy pick.
Despite his record and longevity, seedorf never became quite the player his talent suggested he should have been.
Despite his record and longevity, seedorf never became quite the player his talent suggested he should have been.
That is actually a good similarity of comparisons. For me Seedorf is better than Davids and I would prefer Keane in my team over Scholes.
waiting for @devilish ...
I've already gave my contribution to this thread ie they were different type of players. Its like comparing Keane with Zidane.
David's only faded when his legs were on the wane. Before that, he was a nightmare for any opposing team and a boon for his own. He outshone Seedorf when they played together and he was a bona fide top tier performer for club and country and in any big game. For the entire time of Davids' non-declining career, he's an easy choice over Seedorf.
Seedorf has latter years over Davids' by a distance, however, so at the point Davids' tailed off, Seedorf went from strength to strength and played in a manner his talent always suggested he could. Seedorf was mentally fragile when younger and doubted himself a lot. He was erratic because of this trait and was not seen as the elitist bracket player he became regarded as during his Milan spell for a good portion of his career.
You can point to moments of spectacular play in the young Seedorf, but he couldn't maintain it like Davids' could and in that way, his mind took years to catch up to his talent, which is something Davids' never suffered with.
This thing about them not being players who should be compared because they had different roles/positions misses the notion that one was a peak performer who extracted every sinew of talent, mental fortitude and defiance from himself until his body faded, whilst the other did not for the majority of his career before his Indian Summer came and altered the general perception from that of nearly-man to someone regarded as a premier player in his position, which is not associative of Seedorf in the way it had been for Davids. This is also why a Scholes/Keane like-for-like doesn't work as both of those two were premier performers until their body (Keane) or age (Scholes) caught up with them.
Seedorf has latter years over Davids' by a distance, however, so at the point Davids' tailed off, Seedorf went from strength to strength and played in a manner his talent always suggested he could. Seedorf was mentally fragile when younger and doubted himself a lot. He was erratic because of this trait and was not seen as the elitist bracket player he became regarded as during his Milan spell for a good portion of his career.
You can point to moments of spectacular play in the young Seedorf, but he couldn't maintain it like Davids' could and in that way, his mind took years to catch up to his talent, which is something Davids' never suffered with.
This thing about them not being players who should be compared because they had different roles/positions misses the notion that one was a peak performer who extracted every sinew of talent, mental fortitude and defiance from himself until his body faded, whilst the other did not for the majority of his career before his Indian Summer came and altered the general perception from that of nearly-man to someone regarded as a premier player in his position, which is not associative of Seedorf in the way it had been for Davids. This is also why a Scholes/Keane like-for-like doesn't work as both of those two were premier performers until their body (Keane) or age (Scholes) caught up with them.
Davids was better up till the early 2000s, after which Seedorf was better.
Seedorf's best football at club level came when he was no longer being picked for the Netherlands national team.
Seedorf's best football at club level came when he was no longer being picked for the Netherlands national team.
They were a little different as far as i recall. I remember Seedorf as more elegant, fine attacking type of player whereas Davids was more like a defensive, energetic beast type. Both of them amazing players tough. They even shared a wife at some point if i'm not mistaken?
The Keane - Scholes duo similarity written a few posts earlier is good i think.
The Keane - Scholes duo similarity written a few posts earlier is good i think.
Seedorf was by far the better player imo.
Davids at his peak absolutely was dominating. Seedorf more talented and longer career, but no doubt I'd choose Davids at peak.
Davids was a more important player for his clubs and nation than Seedorf.
Better player at what?
If you're talking about from the perspective of ability, I don't think anyone picking Davids would disagree; if you're talking about the fortitude and competence to go out there and do the job they've been given to do that most affects the opposition, then there's a distance between them for the main body of their respective careers.
The Milan forum back then seemed to hate Seedorf. Only turned up for CL games apparently.
Prime Davids > Prime Seedorf.
Overall career Seedorf > Overall career Davids.
Overall career Seedorf > Overall career Davids.
This is very cool
A draw for me. At the peak of their powers they were equally as key in their respective roles. I still marvel how the Dutch failed to unit those two Roald De Boer and Cocu in one midfield fulltime.
This thread makes me wanna discuss those mid-to-late 90s / early 2000s CM players like Guti, Redondo, Cocu, Makelele etc.
Seedorf is probably the most ripped player you'll ever see. Even at 40 he had abs like a professional bodybuilder. Just fecking jacked.
Amazing player. His longevity was ridiculous. Loved Davids too. His partnership with Zidane at Juve was pretty damn immense.
Amazing player. His longevity was ridiculous. Loved Davids too. His partnership with Zidane at Juve was pretty damn immense.
Lol yep. Some great names there. Prosinecki and Sammer were two more favourites of mine.
Wow I didn't know this was a debate. Seedorf!
This just makes me want to play FIFA 2003 again
Enjoyed Davids on his day more. Overall I think it’s pretty equal.
You realise this deserves a 5000 word thread/post, don't you?
What about Saviola, Aimar, Mihalcea, Petre, Riquelme??
I suppose if it's talking real life or CM...as the Argies were pretty good in RL
It was bad. I remember you used the Spacebar to perform skills (roullette, push ball forward). Pes 2 on PS2 was miles ahead of FIFA back thenThis just makes me want to play FIFA 2003 again
The more I think about it, the more I think it has to be Davids.
Originally it was Davids for me. I think he was better when he was younger than Seedorf. He was an absolute beast.
Seedorf got better and better though with age in my opinion. He was unbelievable and I think ended up the better player.
Seedorf got better and better though with age in my opinion. He was unbelievable and I think ended up the better player.
Reflecting on Davids, has any player married that level of finesse and grit into their game. I can't think of anyone. Perhaps younger Rooney.
Seedorf was my favourite non-United player before he retired - so him. Loved Davids too, though.
Arturo Vidal.
Of that youthful Ajax team that won the Champions League, Seedorf had been the star prodigy in the academy. He was seen as the one to watch over Kluivert even. I feel he had a great career, starting for many great teams, but he was never among the three most important players though.
Davids was mentally a great player, but much more limited. No real scoring ability, limited passing, but he was great when the opponents had the ball and awful to play against. It was Zidane that once said that the best thing about having Davids on your team was never having to play him.
Davids was mentally a great player, but much more limited. No real scoring ability, limited passing, but he was great when the opponents had the ball and awful to play against. It was Zidane that once said that the best thing about having Davids on your team was never having to play him.