The natural successor: Has Neymar blown it?

[Le Red]

When it became clear Messi and Ronaldo would not roll over and die so he could have his free Golden Ball, he tried what was perceived as a high risk, high reward move: go to PSG and either win the UCL or else be remembered as the guy who didn't cut it.
Truth is, he had the quality to make it anywhere, but in order to be in the same conversation as Messi and Ronaldo he had to be absolutely professional like them, which he has never been, and probably never will.

 

[BarstoolProphet]

He's a great footballer, easily in the Ronaldinho mould. Some of the stuff he pulls off have been and still is outrageous. The big difference between them is that Ronaldinho was highly likeable, whereas Neymar's antics rubs all of us the wrong way. Also he plies his trade in front of a small audience compared the other greats in the game right now.

 

[Le Red]

What I notice a lot is people somehow manage to downplay CR7's skills as an attacker because they consider him a winger. R9 was a no.9 who was not involved in general play for a large portion of the game just like most other strikers, so people judge his skills as a striker, add that to the skills he demonstrated and call him the best no.9 in history. Yet CR7 scored more goals on a season by season basis, coming from the flanks while managing to display even more skills during the game, but since he is viewed by many as a winger, his skills are deemed ordinary. If people were fair, looked at both of their impact on a game and judged CR7 for what he really is, a goalscorer like R9, then people would actually judge him more appropriately in terms of ball playing ability rather than just goalscoring. He is criminally underrated by people who simply believe being a great player is about being a technical playmaker.

Here's another argument and proof of that, Dennis Bergkamp. Very overrated player who was sound technically and beautiful to watch, but nowhere near as impactful as people would have you believe. People will swear to you that he was one of the key cogs in the 01-04 Arsenal teams, but the reality was he was heavily rotated during that period and in fact was one of the least influential players in their first xi during that period. Another one is Zidane. If you go and watch the old Juventus games, you can see how limited his actual impact on the game was in a lot of matches. He was great at producing at the highest moments but did not have the week to week consistency or the impact of messi and ronaldo. I actually find it disturbing how people so readily downplay these two when they provided more than a decade of consistent week to week excellence. The truth is, noone prior to them did what they did or would have done what they did if they didn't get injured. Ronaldo ( Brazil) even at peak, would not have done that. And assuming he would, simply as a result of him being injured is failing to recognize how much talent and wear and tear it takes to perform at that level every week. Being more pretty to watch than another player does not make you better. Ability does not equal technical skills, and even where that is concerned, CR7 is still as high as those players. Messi is the only reason he seems lacking in that area.

Zidane and Bergkamp overrated lmaof.
Seems like you should spend less time looking at stats (that are not comparable between different ages of the game) and more watching some bloody football.

 

[tjb]

Zidane and Bergkamp overrated lmaof.
Seems like you should spend less time looking at stats (that are not comparable between different ages of the game) and more watching some bloody football.

It has absolutely nothing to do with stats. Watch the actual games instead of Youtube. Zidane does not do a Marseille turn for 90 minutes. And as far as Bergkamp is concerned, I'm disputing the fact that people added way more to his legend than was actually the case. There are people who will argue today that he was better than Henry. In fact i could go further about those 90s stars. Ronaldo de lima for example was voted in the all decade team for the 2000s, despite being injured till 2002 and declining completely by 2006, while having great but not outstanding seasons. Then you have a guy like Henry with absolutely dominant seasons, winning golden boots and taking the game by storm for many years, yet today some people will tell you that in that decade Ronaldo was better than Henry. Imagine Zidane winning the World Player of the Year award in 2003 over him.

 

[RooneyLegend]

Phew, not sure about that, Maradona was a bullet too. I'd say of those three, Messi is the one whose dribbling runs were significantly more about agility & initial acceleration than actual pace (ridiculous ball control & mental quickness left aside for once). I feel Maradona had the most complete high-end package of all these technical and physical qualities.

The difference is Cruyff had real speed. Acceleration and high top end speed. Don't know where the notion that those two could hang with him in that sense comes from. I'd back Best to beat those two in a race.

 

[Infordin]

It has absolutely nothing to do with stats. Watch the actual games instead of Youtube. Zidane does not do a Marseille turn for 90 minutes. And as far as Bergkamp is concerned, I'm disputing the fact that people added way more to his legend than was actually the case. There are people who will argue today that he was better than Henry. In fact i could go further about those 90s stars. Ronaldo de lima for example was voted in the all decade team for the 2000s, despite being injured till 2002 and declining completely by 2006, while having great but not outstanding seasons. Then you have a guy like Henry with absolutely dominant seasons, winning golden boots and taking the game by storm for many years, yet today some people will tell you that in that decade Ronaldo was better than Henry. Imagine Zidane winning the World Player of the Year award in 2003 over him.

Zidane and R9 are both overrated, in the sense that they are frequently compared to the likes of Messi, Cristiano and Maradona.

Neither belong in the GOAT conversation.

 

[Synco]

The difference is Cruyff had real speed. Acceleration and high top end speed. Don't know where the notion that those two could hang with him in that sense comes from. I'd back Best to beat those two in a race.

Not much I can add, I guess. With Messi I agree, as I said, and with Maradona I'm not sure yet, as I also said. Would have to specifically watch out for that.

(Original poster's point was "explosive acceleration" btw, not speed on long distances, so he was talking about a different aspect than we do.)

 

[tjb]

Zidane and R9 are both overrated, in the sense that they are frequently compared to the likes of Messi, Cristiano and Maradona.

Neither belong in the GOAT conversation.

Too true. I understand it a little with R9. He was phenomenal when he burst onto the scene and was different class to any player they had seen back then, literally having players bouncing off him. He was not at their level imo even then, but was at a level noone had seen prior to him aside for Maradona. However, he got injured and you could only say truthfully that he had two season's that somewhat mirrored what Messi and Ronaldo have been doing for the last decade plus. People always oversympathise with players that get career altering injuries too soon so simply assume that he would have replicated that form year in year out. There's no way to prove that would have happened and the blood, sweat and tears it took for both Messi and Ronaldo to do that every year, season after season is diminished when that occurs. A world cup is literally a month of sport where only players from dominant countries have a chance to win. He didn't win a single champions league in his entire career. That says a lot about how injury prone his club career was and how short his peak period and the Ronaldo people try remember really was. This man literally won a ballon d'or for playing a half season due to his reputation, that would not happen today, the standards are too high for that now.

Zidane doesn't even deserve to be in that conversation. Great player, best player to watch for me, but had way too many average seasons and was far too inconsistent over the course of a season. You could debate that Del Piero provided for Juve than he did while they were together ( I do not believe it, but the fact that it is debatable indicates the problem). In France 98, it was the defence that won it for them, rather than his performances that tournament. He did have a Great Euro 2000 and 2006 World Cup, and evidently international tournaments tend to cloud people's judgement in regards to players. He had the one champions league and league title for Real, and after that they consistently flopped year after year.

I will be honest, Maradona was before my time. Watching highlights its impossible to truly understand how great he was. From my perspective, I see a great player in 1986 who at the time was on par with Platini. Wins a world cup with Argentina who were not as bad as people made out to be, usually the case with good defensive teams. I understand that the Italian league was very defensive in the 80s, but his numbers weren't impressive and from an aesthetic perspective Cruyff, Messi and Ronaldinho are more attractive to watch than he is. Napoli did well compared to what they were before him, but if every team in the league had 2 or 3 stars as is advertised about the 80s Serie A, it would be much easier to create a top team than it is in 2020, so adding Maradona to a team would in a league that balanced would infinitely make them better. Of course, there were no ballon d'ors for south americans at the time, so its difficult to determine his best seasons and with the lack of true dominance domestically or in Europe from Napoli, it's hard to decipher his degree of success. This is not a criticism of Maradona, it's simply me saying that I'm clearly missing something and I would like to know what I;m missing.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Too true. I understand it a little with R9. He was phenomenal when he burst onto the scene and was different class to any player they had seen back then, literally having players bouncing off him. He was not at their level imo even then, but was at a level noone had seen prior to him aside for Maradona. However, he got injured and you could only say truthfully that he had two season's that somewhat mirrored what Messi and Ronaldo have been doing for the last decade plus. People always oversympathise with players that get career altering injuries too soon so simply assume that he would have replicated that form year in year out. There's no way to prove that would have happened and the blood, sweat and tears it took for both Messi and Ronaldo to do that every year, season after season is diminished when that occurs. A world cup is literally a month of sport where only players from dominant countries have a chance to win. He didn't win a single champions league in his entire career. That says a lot about how injury prone his club career was and how short his peak period and the Ronaldo people try remember really was. This man literally won a ballon d'or for playing a half season due to his reputation, that would not happen today, the standards are too high for that now.

Zidane doesn't even deserve to be in that conversation. Great player, best player to watch for me, but had way too many average seasons and was far too inconsistent over the course of a season. You could debate that Del Piero provided for Juve than he did while they were together ( I do not believe it, but the fact that it is debatable indicates the problem). In France 98, it was the defence that won it for them, rather than his performances that tournament. He did have a Great Euro 2000 and 2006 World Cup, and evidently international tournaments tend to cloud people's judgement in regards to players. He had the one champions league and league title for Real, and after that they consistently flopped year after year.

I will be honest, Maradona was before my time. Watching highlights its impossible to truly understand how great he was. From my perspective, I see a great player in 1986 who at the time was on par with Platini. Wins a world cup with Argentina who were not as bad as people made out to be, usually the case with good defensive teams. I understand that the Italian league was very defensive in the 80s, but his numbers weren't impressive and from an aesthetic perspective Cruyff, Messi and Ronaldinho are more attractive to watch than he is. Napoli did well compared to what they were before him, but if every team in the league had 2 or 3 stars as is advertised about the 80s Serie A, it would be much easier to create a top team than it is in 2020, so adding Maradona to a team would in a league that balanced would infinitely make them better. Of course, there were no ballon d'ors for south americans at the time, so its difficult to determine his best seasons and with the lack of true dominance domestically or in Europe from Napoli, it's hard to decipher his degree of success. This is not a criticism of Maradona, it's simply me saying that I'm clearly missing something and I would like to know what I;m missing.

Maradona stats were not impressive? Is this serious?

he scored 100 goals in circa 220 games for Barca and Napoli.

 

[MalcolmTucker]

from an aesthetic perspective Cruyff, Messi and Ronaldinho are more attractive to watch than he is.

I love Ronaldinho and Messi but they are far less elegant than Maradona, he's probably the most aesthetic player to watch there is along with Zidane. I know it's all preference but I really don't understand it.

 

[Sayros]

It has absolutely nothing to do with stats. Watch the actual games instead of Youtube. Zidane does not do a Marseille turn for 90 minutes. And as far as Bergkamp is concerned, I'm disputing the fact that people added way more to his legend than was actually the case. There are people who will argue today that he was better than Henry. In fact i could go further about those 90s stars. Ronaldo de lima for example was voted in the all decade team for the 2000s, despite being injured till 2002 and declining completely by 2006, while having great but not outstanding seasons. Then you have a guy like Henry with absolutely dominant seasons, winning golden boots and taking the game by storm for many years, yet today some people will tell you that in that decade Ronaldo was better than Henry. Imagine Zidane winning the World Player of the Year award in 2003 over him.

Henry is one of the most criminally underrated player outside of the Premier League. Neither Zidane nor Ronaldinho the year after should have won before him, but those awards have proven repeatedly to be popularity contests more than based on merit.

 

[tjb]

Maradona stats were not impressive? Is this serious?

he scored 100 goals in circa 220 games for Barca and Napoli.

We're taking Messi and Ronaldo here

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

We're taking Messi and Ronaldo here

they don’t play in the same positions, and this was a different era.

utterly ridiculous to compare goals. Maradona played as a no 10 or attacking midfielder.

He dragged Napoli to two titles and runner up twice - they had never won the league before.

 

[DrRodo]

For a moment i thought i was on a neymar thread

 

[Sayros]

This is the problem with statistics, which I'm a big fan of, but they must be used in context. It's fine to compare players of the same era, playing the same position and even then stats are just one facet of the story. But when you compare different roles, in different eras, with different tactics, and use stats to do so, it's basically a pointless exercise.

Now that stats are so much more prevalent, players are developing with constant assessments from their coaches of what their stats are, what they can improve, how they compare, etc. I expect stats to be far more reliant in comparing different players from this recent era and in the future, but past players? As I said, pointless exercise that will not really draw any solid conclusions.

Edit: Oh and Neymar is a great player.

 

[Infordin]

I will be honest, Maradona was before my time. Watching highlights its impossible to truly understand how great he was. From my perspective, I see a great player in 1986 who at the time was on par with Platini. Wins a world cup with Argentina who were not as bad as people made out to be, usually the case with good defensive teams. I understand that the Italian league was very defensive in the 80s, but his numbers weren't impressive and from an aesthetic perspective Cruyff, Messi and Ronaldinho are more attractive to watch than he is. Napoli did well compared to what they were before him, but if every team in the league had 2 or 3 stars as is advertised about the 80s Serie A, it would be much easier to create a top team than it is in 2020, so adding Maradona to a team would in a league that balanced would infinitely make them better. Of course, there were no ballon d'ors for south americans at the time, so its difficult to determine his best seasons and with the lack of true dominance domestically or in Europe from Napoli, it's hard to decipher his degree of success. This is not a criticism of Maradona, it's simply me saying that I'm clearly missing something and I would like to know what I;m missing.

I think that Maradona was universally considered the best player throughout the 1980s decade. Even Platini himself admitted that Maradona was better than him.

 

[tjb]

they don’t play in the same positions, and this was a different era.

utterly ridiculous to compare goals. Maradona played as a no 10 or attacking midfielder.

He dragged Napoli to two titles and runner up twice - they had never won the league before.

On Napoli, I explained my point. If the reasoning for Serie A being so difficult to win in the 80s has to do with how on par teams were as they all had two to three stars, then it can also be argued that signing stars at the level of Maradona and Careca would have given Napoli an advantage. It would then be like basketball where teams draft players. If you put Lebron James on a team, even as bad as the Chicago Bulls currently are, whilst also purchasing a player as good as Careca...and since the notion is that it was difficult because every team had two to three stars rather than the boatload that Milan would later have, wouldn't it be fair to say that it was not nearly as difficult to drag Napoli to a championship as every superstar pre Sacchi's Milan were doing the same thing in Serie A.

In terms of statistics, you are right. They are not the end all and be all of determining how good a player is/was, but it would be unfair to totally dismiss them. Messi plays like a number 10, whilst producing the stats that he does. Ronaldo was a winger who provided both goals and assists. Both Messi and Ronaldo have also been instrumental in dictating how their teams played. CR7 only recently became more of a poacher.

 

[Sayros]

On Napoli, I explained my point. If the reasoning for Serie A being so difficult to win in the 80s has to do with how on par teams were as they all had two to three stars, then it can also be argued that signing stars at the level of Maradona and Careca would have given Napoli an advantage. It would then be like basketball where teams draft players. If you put Lebron James on a team, even as bad as the Chicago Bulls currently are, whilst also purchasing a player as good as Careca...and since the notion is that it was difficult because every team had two to three stars rather than the boatload that Milan would later have, wouldn't it be fair to say that it was not nearly as difficult to drag Napoli to a championship as every superstar pre Sacchi's Milan were doing the same thing in Serie A.

The problem with your comparison to basketball is you buy a superstar in the NBA, he's one of your five players that are going to be on the court, much easier to have a huge impact. Not quite the same in football.

 

[RooneyLegend]

Not much I can add, I guess. With Messi I agree, as I said, and with Maradona I'm not sure yet, as I also said. Would have to specifically watch out for that.

(Original poster's point was "explosive acceleration" btw, not speed on long distances, so he was talking about a different aspect than we do.)

Irrelevant Imo, Cruyff could explode off the mark himself. I'd say Messi had better acceleration that Maradona but Diego reached higher speeds. I don't think that would be a reason for Cruyff to be considered a inferior player to either. It would instead be them being technically better than him and them being stronger on the ball.

 

[tjb]

This is the problem with statistics, which I'm a big fan of, but they must be used in context. It's fine to compare players of the same era, playing the same position and even then stats are just one facet of the story. But when you compare different roles, in different eras, with different tactics, and use stats to do so, it's basically a pointless exercise.

Now that stats are so much more prevalent, players are developing with constant assessments from their coaches of what their stats are, what they can improve, how they compare, etc. I expect stats to be far more reliant in comparing different players from this recent era and in the future, but past players? As I said, pointless exercise that will not really draw any solid conclusions.

Edit: Oh and Neymar is a great player.

Here is the problem. When people start comparing eras, they cannot watch older players on a week to week basis. What tends to happen as a result is that they generalize some players careers into their peak periods. Players with longer peaks tend to have their contributions diminished in these arguments as a result of being good for so long. It happens to teams too. United have won 48 percent of titles during the premier league era, but when people want to pick great teams from the premier league era, rather than fairly ranking them on a season by season basis, they group their winning years into a period and compare it to the peak of another team, its the reason why 17-18 City could ever be compared with the treble team. Older players are excused for being great to watch without being impactful or consistent, while modern players are criticized on a week to week basis for their lack of consistency. We can look at Ozil today and criticize him for his lack of consistency or impact at Arsenal but praise players on better teams who also did not produce results.

My belief is that there is a reason Messi and Ronaldo are part of teams that win at such a high level year in year out. If a single individual produces 50 goals a season with 15 plus assists, that team is going to most likely win a league championship. Consider that in a 38 game season, it usually take 80 plus points with a 40 plus goal difference to win the league and a single individual is responsible for a goal contribution 65. It simply highlights their level of impact to their team. It's not like every player in this generation scores 50 goals a season. The best strikers still score 25 goals per season and the best playmakers still average around 12 assists a season. It would be unfair not to use it, especially when factors like a world cup, a month long tournament every 4 years in which only 3 to 4 countries have a chance of winning based on the country they were born into is used as a factor aswell, yet Champions League's with some of the same barriers are not as considered.

 

[Synco]

Irrelevant Imo, Cruyff could explode off the mark himself. I'd say Messi had better acceleration that Maradona but Diego reached higher speeds. I don't think that would be a reason for Cruyff to be considered a inferior player to either. It would instead be them being technically better than him and them being stronger on the ball.

Well, acceleration & agility are hugely important for dribbling in tight spaces, which I think is a main advantage of the two Argentinians. Not that Cruijff wasn't great at it, but the other two were simply aliens.

 

[RooneyLegend]

Maradona stats were not impressive? Is this serious?

he scored 100 goals in circa 220 games for Barca and Napoli.

Modern football has clouded people's judgement. What recent fans of football fail to understand is that pre Pep teams weren't dominant enough for attackers to post outrageous stats. In this era itself only players of Bayern, Madrid and Barca would have a chance of posting crazy numbers.

 

[Sayros]

Here is the problem. When people start comparing eras, they cannot watch older players on a week to week basis. What tends to happen as a result is that they generalize some players careers into their peak periods. Players with longer peaks tend to have their contributions diminished in these arguments as a result of being good for so long. It happens to teams too. United have won 48 percent of titles during the premier league era, but when people want to pick great teams from the premier league era, rather than fairly ranking them on a season by season basis, they group their winning years into a period and compare it to the peak of another team, its the reason why 17-18 City could ever be compared with the treble team. Older players are excused for being great to watch without being impactful or consistent, while modern players are criticized on a week to week basis for their lack of consistency. We can look at Ozil today and criticize him for his lack of consistency or impact at Arsenal but praise players on better teams who also did not produce results.

My belief is that there is a reason Messi and Ronaldo are part of teams that win at such a high level year in year out. If a single individual produces 50 goals a season with 15 plus assists, that team is going to most likely win a league championship. Consider that in a 38 game season, it usually take 80 plus points with a 40 plus goal difference to win the league and a single individual is responsible for a goal contribution 65. It simply highlights their level of impact to their team. It's not like every player in this generation scores 50 goals a season. The best strikers still score 25 goals per season and the best playmakers still average around 12 assists a season. It would be unfair not to use it, especially when factors like a world cup, a month long tournament every 4 years in which only 3 to 4 countries have a chance of winning based on the country they were born into is used as a factor aswell, yet Champions League's with some of the same barriers are not as considered.

But the point is that in the previous eras, football was very different, everything was completely different. A guy like Pele is considered the GOAT, but he wouldn't probably even stand out in today's game, at least nowhere near he did back then. Does that take away from what he did? Surely not. As the game, recovery science, tactics, and roles evolve within a team, the comparisons become more and more unrealistic. That's why you can't use the statistics you're using in your argument and apply it across eras. I agree with you that players from previous eras are always going to be judged in a positive light because all we have are stories, shoddy memories, and/or highlights. It's incredibly difficult to see the full games, and even if you did the game and its "athletes" look so different than what we see today that it's impossible to draw any real parallels. You also have the factor that there's fans from different eras and everyone likes to think the player of their time was the best because we all want to say we were there to see the best of all time and tend to diminish the players that are playing now, and young people will do the opposite, it sort of balances out.

Every era has had an outlier or two, and with it the game evolves. The arrival of CR7 and Messi, showing to be able to consistently put up 50+ goals season is not going to be an outlier for long, because now, if I can get a bit metaphysical, it's in the collective consciousness of professional football and the youth growing up watching them, knowing that it is possible, and it will be done again. There are factors beyond that like injuries, etc, but it will be done again. As I said, I believe a player like Mbappe and Haaland are capable of reproducing those kinds of numbers for a team in the very near-future. That's not to say they would surpass either Messi or CR7 as overall players, but those numbers can be replicated and if you fast forward in the future and look at stats without considering the evolution of the game or the pioneers to new eras, it could get lost that it doesn't mean Mbappe or Haaland were better than CR7/Messi.

 

[RooneyLegend]

Well, acceleration & agility are hugely important for dribbling in tight spaces, which I think is a main advantage of the two Argentinians. Not that Cruijff wasn't great at it, but the other two were simply aliens.

Control, they simply had better control than he did.

Henry is one of the most criminally underrated player outside of the Premier League. Neither Zidane nor Ronaldinho the year after should have won before him, but those awards have proven repeatedly to be popularity contests more than based on merit.

Even Henry knows he was inferior to those two. He referred to Zizou as god back in the day iirc.

 

[Synco]

Control, they simply had better control than he did.

Obviously. But agility/coordination is essential too.

 

[matbezlima]

Too true. I understand it a little with R9. He was phenomenal when he burst onto the scene and was different class to any player they had seen back then, literally having players bouncing off him. He was not at their level imo even then, but was at a level noone had seen prior to him aside for Maradona. However, he got injured and you could only say truthfully that he had two season's that somewhat mirrored what Messi and Ronaldo have been doing for the last decade plus. People always oversympathise with players that get career altering injuries too soon so simply assume that he would have replicated that form year in year out. There's no way to prove that would have happened and the blood, sweat and tears it took for both Messi and Ronaldo to do that every year, season after season is diminished when that occurs. A world cup is literally a month of sport where only players from dominant countries have a chance to win. He didn't win a single champions league in his entire career. That says a lot about how injury prone his club career was and how short his peak period and the Ronaldo people try remember really was. This man literally won a ballon d'or for playing a half season due to his reputation, that would not happen today, the standards are too high for that now.

Zidane doesn't even deserve to be in that conversation. Great player, best player to watch for me, but had way too many average seasons and was far too inconsistent over the course of a season. You could debate that Del Piero provided for Juve than he did while they were together ( I do not believe it, but the fact that it is debatable indicates the problem). In France 98, it was the defence that won it for them, rather than his performances that tournament. He did have a Great Euro 2000 and 2006 World Cup, and evidently international tournaments tend to cloud people's judgement in regards to players. He had the one champions league and league title for Real, and after that they consistently flopped year after year.

I will be honest, Maradona was before my time. Watching highlights its impossible to truly understand how great he was. From my perspective, I see a great player in 1986 who at the time was on par with Platini. Wins a world cup with Argentina who were not as bad as people made out to be, usually the case with good defensive teams. I understand that the Italian league was very defensive in the 80s, but his numbers weren't impressive and from an aesthetic perspective Cruyff, Messi and Ronaldinho are more attractive to watch than he is. Napoli did well compared to what they were before him, but if every team in the league had 2 or 3 stars as is advertised about the 80s Serie A, it would be much easier to create a top team than it is in 2020, so adding Maradona to a team would in a league that balanced would infinitely make them better. Of course, there were no ballon d'ors for south americans at the time, so its difficult to determine his best seasons and with the lack of true dominance domestically or in Europe from Napoli, it's hard to decipher his degree of success. This is not a criticism of Maradona, it's simply me saying that I'm clearly missing something and I would like to know what I;m missing.

Ronaldo was Ballon D'or in 1997 too. Anyway, we can't know for sure how his career would be without injuries, but it's a fact that injuries seriously shortened his prime and what he could have been. R9 1996-1998 was a beast of pace and skill that only Messi was able to match and even surpass. CR7's best skills are not at his level, but his career achivements are undeniable and he is undeniably in a higher tier than R9. Honestly, Messi and CR7 have warped our expectations too much, what they do is surreal, akin to Pelé in the 60s, and won't be seen again for a very, very long time, if ever. About R9 never winning a UCL, it's a mixture of injuries coupled with, in hindsight, bad club and transfer choices. Even bad luck too. Never at the right place at the right time.

 

[matbezlima]

It has absolutely nothing to do with stats. Watch the actual games instead of Youtube. Zidane does not do a Marseille turn for 90 minutes. And as far as Bergkamp is concerned, I'm disputing the fact that people added way more to his legend than was actually the case. There are people who will argue today that he was better than Henry. In fact i could go further about those 90s stars. Ronaldo de lima for example was voted in the all decade team for the 2000s, despite being injured till 2002 and declining completely by 2006, while having great but not outstanding seasons. Then you have a guy like Henry with absolutely dominant seasons, winning golden boots and taking the game by storm for many years, yet today some people will tell you that in that decade Ronaldo was better than Henry. Imagine Zidane winning the World Player of the Year award in 2003 over him.

Look at this, a full statistical analysis of The Invicibles' season:
https://footballperformanceanalysis...03-04-analysis-2-were-arsenal-a-one-man-team/

 

[Sayros]

Control, they simply had better control than he did.

Even Henry knows he was inferior to those two. He referred to Zizou as god back in the day iirc.

And yet he should have won over those two in '03 and '04. Zidane is a god to all French people, it doesn't mean he's a superior player to all of them, he wasn't even better than Platini but he's more revered. I love Zizou and he's my favorite player ever, but it doesn't mean he should have won in 2003, if anything, it was in 2000 that he got robbed from the individual awards because of his headbutt with Juventus.

 

[tjb]

Look at this, a full statistical analysis of The Invicibles' season:
https://footballperformanceanalysis...03-04-analysis-2-were-arsenal-a-one-man-team/

That's a deceptive post as Bergkamp did not feature as much as shown in the article if fully read. Pires makes a case in the same vain as any secondary player in a topteam and Veira's contribution would not be shown by this, but good teams have great players. It's like referencing our 08 team and ronaldo's dominance then saying rooney and tevez were also influencial. They were, but ronaldo was still dominant.

 

[matbezlima]

That's a deceptive post as Bergkamp did not feature as much as shown in the article if fully read. Pires makes a case in the same vain as any secondary player in a topteam and Veira's contribution would not be shown by this, but good teams have great players. It's like referencing our 08 team and ronaldo's dominance then saying rooney and tevez were also influencial. They were, but ronaldo was still dominant.

Of course Henry was the main player in 2004, but Bergkamp was still truly great whenever he played, the second best Arsenal player. Still, Bergkamp's prime was probably in the late 90s. He was a truly brilliant player, this is my point.

 

[kaiser1]

Henry is one of the most criminally underrated player outside of the Premier League. Neither Zidane nor Ronaldinho the year after should have won before him, but those awards have proven repeatedly to be popularity contests more than based on merit.

Because Henry criminally underperformed outside the EPL.

I will say he is probably the best player in the EPL history 1993 till date but I doubt will make top 10 or 20 in Europe in the same time frame

 

[kaiser1]

And yet he should have won over those two in '03 and '04. Zidane is a god to all French people, it doesn't mean he's a superior player to all of them, he wasn't even better than Platini but he's more revered. I love Zizou and he's my favorite player ever, but it doesn't mean he should have won in 2003, if anything, it was in 2000 that he got robbed from the individual awards because of his headbutt with Juventus.

2004 Ronaldinho won

Henry's career outside Arsenal was not outstanding, he was a very disposable teammate at the National team when they won in 98, when he was supposed to be the main guy at the peak of his powers in 2002 and 2004, The French team flopped, Zidane retired and Henry struggled to lead France to world cup qualifying in a group of Israel, Ireland, Switzerland, Faroe Island and were at risk of missing the world cup until they had to bring Zidane from retirement to bail them out. That is a major dent on Henry.

Any time Zidane was injured or struggled and Henry was looked up to lead, he crumbled.

He also won the CL at Barcelona when there were like 7 players more important to the team than him.

No notable world cup performance without Zidane, No CL glory until he became just another team player at Barcelona.
He also notably choked at key moments in his career e.g the 2006 CL final, 2002 world cup

 

[RooneyLegend]

And yet he should have won over those two in '03 and '04. Zidane is a god to all French people, it doesn't mean he's a superior player to all of them, he wasn't even better than Platini but he's more revered. I love Zizou and he's my favorite player ever, but it doesn't mean he should have won in 2003, if anything, it was in 2000 that he got robbed from the individual awards because of his headbutt with Juventus.

Nope he shouldn't have. Him and Arsenal choked badly in the CL in those years and at Euro 04 he was nowhere to be seen as Zidane was trying his best to guide France to another title. He only has himself to blame for not winning either the ballon d'or or the FIFA world player of the year.

Why is he a god to them? Because they like his bald patch? Nope, it's because he was an amazing footballer. Whether he was better or not better than Platini is debatable as it has always been.

 

[Sayros]

2004 Ronaldinho won

Henry's career outside Arsenal was not outstanding, he was a very disposable teammate at the National team when they won in 98, when he was supposed to be the main guy at the peak of his powers in 2002 and 2004, The French team flopped, Zidane retired and Henry struggled to lead France to world cup qualifying in a group of Israel, Ireland, Switzerland, Faroe Island and were at risk of missing the world cup until they had to bring Zidane from retirement to bail them out. That is a major dent on Henry.

Any time Zidane was injured or struggled and Henry was looked up to lead, he crumbled.

He also won the CL at Barcelona when there were like 7 players more important to the team than him.

No notable world cup performance without Zidane, No CL glory until he became just another team player at Barcelona.
He also notably choked at key moments in his career e.g the 2006 CL final, 2002 world cup

Hence the 'those two', I meant Zizou in '03 and Dinho in '04.

Henry's career outside of Arsenal includes a world cup where he was France's highest goalscorer on the team at the age of 20. A Euro 2000 (which you conveniently forgot) where he was deadly and at the peak of his powers for the international team. 2002-2006 France was a shell of themselves, and no one man was going to fix that. It wasn't just Zizou coming back, it was also Makelele and Thuram. Zidane is no doubt the leader of the pack, but it was a combination of the three, and the emergence of Franck Ribery, that elevated France enough to qualify and eventually go for a surprise run to the final in '06. It's also the tournament where Zidane officially registered his first assist ever to Thierry Henry after almost 10 years of playing together, so it's not as if Henry became France's greatest goalscorer with massive help from Zidane.

Also, I'd say his run getting Arsenal to the CL final in 05/06 was outstanding, along with his entire season in the Premier league. He didn't finish the job in the end, but his performances all the way up there, including his solo goal against Real Madrid make for an outstanding individual season.

And again, what did Zidane do in 2003 to warrant a PotY? What did R10 do with Brazil since '02? Ronaldinho didn't have, individually, a better season than Henry in '04 either. But his team won la liga while Henry was runner-up in England, both got knocked out in the first KO round of the CL, and they both got their teams to win the league cup albeit Henry had a much bigger impact throughout the season individually. Real Madrid was 4th the season Zidane won his PotY. So again, it's not about team performances for certain personalities. Zizou and R10 won over Henry purely due to popularity along whatever other factors off-the-field that might have contributed to it. Neither of them were better than Henry in that time, R10's time of supremacy came the year after and quickly went afterwards.

 

[Stacks]

I watched World Cup 2014 on Amazon earlier this week. Such an incredible footballer

Neymar should have been recognised as the best player in the world now but the move to PSG killed that sadly

He would have to overtake Messi which is impossible

I love Ronaldinho and Messi but they are far less elegant than Maradona, he's probably the most aesthetic player to watch there is along with Zidane. I know it's all preference but I really don't understand it.

Maradona was a stokck unit. How can he be more elegant than Ronaldinho?

Henry is one of the most criminally underrated player outside of the Premier League. Neither Zidane nor Ronaldinho the year after should have won before him, but those awards have proven repeatedly to be popularity contests more than based on merit.

They are picked by professionals in the game (national team coaches and captains).

 

[Sayros]

They are picked by professionals in the game (national team coaches and captains).

Oh yeah, that objective bunch.

 

[Stacks]

Oh yeah, that objective bunch.

Thats why you use a good sample size. The fact Henry came 2nd suggests they rated him too. I see no reason to dismiss their ratings. They play the game and often to the highest level. I doubt they are biased other than to teammates. E.g. when Ronaldo would just pick the Real players despite Messi being about

 

[MalcolmTucker]

Maradona was a stokck unit. How can he be more elegant than Ronaldinho?

What does his physique have to do with it? When I say elegant I don't mean who would look better in an evening gown.

Maradona was elegant in the way he moved with the ball and how smooth, effortless and stylish he was with it at his feet. Ronaldinho was a master with the ball but he was a bit frantic and jerky with his movements

 

[Salt Bailly]

So has Neymar blown it or what?

 

[Stacks]

What does his physique have to do with it? When I say elegant I don't mean who would look better in an evening gown.

Maradona was elegant in the way he moved with the ball and how smooth, effortless and stylish he was with it at his feet. Ronaldinho was a master with the ball but he was a bit frantic and jerky with his movements

Its called fainting. I found it beautiful