No Virgilinho either. Shithouse team.Another world xi without Stevie Me ??
This is a farse
No Virgilinho either. Shithouse team.Another world xi without Stevie Me ??
This is a farse
It’s the Ballon D’or best team ever, how can you not have a 5 time winner of it in the team? He should be more nailed on to be in the team than every single player except Messi, because he has won 1 more. Ron walks into this team no debate imo.It's a hypothetical team of course, since it would never work in that setup.
I still think that including Cristiano, despite all his stats, is recency bias.
I'm 100% convinced that he won't be included in those lists 50 years down the road, just like they left out arguably the most lethal striker of all time, Gerd Müller. He had even better numbers than Cristiano, but he also lacked that kind of "extra magic/flair" that Cristiano doesn't possess either.
The problem for me is that there is too much shoehorning and I think that it's one of the worst things about best XI, instead of making actual choices that make sense people just decide that certain players absolutely have to be in the team which in my opinion isn't true. For example, I'm not picking Zidane above Ribéry as a left winger and I'm not putting Amoros on the left and Thuram on the right when I have Lizararzu and Amoros available. Also I think that it's accepeted that Vieira isn't above Deschamps and neither are above Giresse.Ultimately though Platini and Zidane are France’s two greatest players of all time so you’d try to find a way to accommodate both. Arguably in a 4231 you need to ‘shoehorn’ somebody in the left sided role, be it Henry as above or Zidane who played there often enough in his career. Equally you could pair him and Platini in a 4222.
Despite Giresse being probably my favourite French player of all, I’d go something like this:
Henry
Zidane - Platini - Kopa
Vieira - Tigana
Amoros - Desailly - Blanc - Thuram
Lloris
Matthaus is arguably the best B2B midfielder ever and definitely deserved in the all-time XI than Keane, Vieira, Makelele, Scholes, and Gerrard.Matthäus was great and all. But does he really make it to the best 11?
I might be colored, but I feel Keane, Vieira, Makelele and others were better players. Not a stretch to say Scholes, Gerrard would fit that role better neither.
It's kind of a stretch when some of these players the french in particular have compatriots above them. Matthäus is recognized has arguably the best in his role since he was very good defensively and technically. Maybe someone like Falcao could be argued in his stead?Matthäus was great and all. But does he really make it to the best 11?
I might be colored, but I feel Keane, Vieira, Makelele and others were better players. Not a stretch to say Scholes, Gerrard would fit that role better neither.
No complaints. Great team.Top 11 are complete:
GK: Yashin
DEF: Beckenbauer, Maldini, Cafu
DM: Matthäus, Xavi
OM: Maradona, Pele
FW: Messi, Ronaldo, CR7
To be fair he's very dedocared too and captained the german side that won the boring World Cup in 1990. I mostly saw the late Matthäus playing as a sweeper so maybe I'm biasedMatthaus is arguably the best B2B midfielder ever and definitely deserved in the all-time XI than Keane, Vieira, Makelele, Scholes, and Gerrard.
Easy:Since there is no thread about it yet, I though it would be worth creating one.
France Football, who are also the guys responsible for the Ballon D'Or, are currently revealing their Ballon D'Or Dream Team.
140 football journalists from all around the world have elected the players.
So far the goalkeeper, defenders and midfielders have been revealed:
GK: Yashin
DEF: Beckenbauer, Maldini, Cafu
DM: Matthäus, Xavi
OM: Maradona, Pele
FW: ?
Actually, not one of those can be accused of having a short peak. I'd still have him near the top, mind, but it would be behind Pelé & Maradona and probably Puskas, Di Stefano, Platini & Zico.As a CM he had no peer. Some of those in that list are hugely overrated and one or two standout seasons. He did it for years, survived a plane crash and went on being great.
Matthäus was head and shoulders above anyone you mentioned. It's not even particularly close tbh.Matthäus was great and all. But does he really make it to the best 11?
I might be colored, but I feel Keane, Vieira, Makelele and others were better players. Not a stretch to say Scholes, Gerrard would fit that role better neither.
But could it survive an onslaught from Rory Delap throw ins at a wet and windy Tuesday night at the Britannia?Top 11 are complete:
GK: Yashin
DEF: Beckenbauer, Maldini, Cafu
DM: Matthäus, Xavi
OM: Maradona, Pele
FW: Messi, Ronaldo, CR7
None of them touch Matthaus especially Vieira.Matthäus was great and all. But does he really make it to the best 11?
I might be colored, but I feel Keane, Vieira, Makelele and others were better players. Not a stretch to say Scholes, Gerrard would fit that role better neither.
Matthäus was great and all. But does he really make it to the best 11?
I might be colored, but I feel Keane, Vieira, Makelele and others were better players. Not a stretch to say Scholes, Gerrard would fit that role better neither.
Are you OK?It's a hypothetical team of course, since it would never work in that setup.
I still think that including Cristiano, despite all his stats, is recency bias.
I'm 100% convinced that he won't be included in those lists 50 years down the road, just like they left out arguably the most lethal striker of all time, Gerd Müller. He had even better numbers than Cristiano, but he also lacked that kind of "extra magic/flair" that Cristiano doesn't possess either.
AgreedEasy:
Messi, R9, CR7
You always try and be different - you try too hard.It will sound controversial for some but Zidane is debatable in France best XI let alone an all time dream team. One could easily argue that this is the best french XI:
----------------Fontaine
Henry-------Platini--------Kopa
----------Giresse---TIgana
Liza---Trésor----Thuram--Amoros
-------------------Bats
I would say that all the positions where Zidane could fit are occupied by players that are better than him in those specific positions, you would have shoehorn him and that's questionable.
For sure. What about you?Are you OK?
I understand what you're saying, and I've posted the same argument myself, but then again winning titles are team-merits. So that's unfair for the likes of the other mentioned, that they simply wasn't born in a big World Cup winning country.I've said it before, I think a lot of these older players are mostly judged on how they did at major tournaments. Not many outside their club teams country saw a lot of them on TV.
I only saw the tail end of his career, so I can't say how great he was at his peak. But he played for Germany for 20 years, 5 world cups, 3 finals, One winners medal and also won the European cup. Along with all he won at club level. He definitely deserves to be somewhere in the mix ahead of the likes of Keane, Scholes, Vieira and Makelele.
That's your opinion, it's not hard to not pick a player because someone else is better in his role. If we were just listing the best 11 players then Zidane would be in it, there wouldn't be any goalkeepers though.You always try and be different - you try too hard.
He is in France best 11 ffs.
He was Germany's captain and best player in that WC, and won the Ballon d'Or that year.I understand what you're saying, and I've posted the same argument myself, but then again winning titles are team-merits. So that's unfair for the likes of the other mentioned, that they simply wasn't born in a big World Cup winning country.
Not that he did it on the back of others, but did he lead Germany to the World Cup? (I simply don't know)
They were all great players in their own right. But none had the longevity or success that Matthaus had. Had Roy Keane played for England or any other top country he probably would have been captain and he probably would have won some international trophies. If he was in that England midfield during the late 90s/early 2000 they might have won a world cup, he was so much better than the rest of what they had in that period.I understand what you're saying, and I've posted the same argument myself, but then again winning titles are team-merits. So that's unfair for the likes of the other mentioned, that they simply wasn't born in a big World Cup winning country.
Not that he did it on the back of others, but did he lead Germany to the World Cup? (I simply don't know)
You can have many roles for the same slot in a 4-2-3-1 though. For instance, Zidane also played on the left in a 4-2-3-1 in Real Madrid, with freedom to start the playmaking from the back and get forward, with either Makelele and Conceicao or Makelele and Guti or Makelele and Helguera as centre midfielders.It will sound controversial for some but Zidane is debatable in France best XI let alone an all time dream team. One could easily argue that this is the best french XI:
----------------Fontaine
Henry-------Platini--------Kopa
----------Giresse---TIgana
Liza---Trésor----Thuram--Amoros
-------------------Bats
I would say that all the positions where Zidane could fit are occupied by players that are better than him in those specific positions, you would have shoehorn him and that's questionable.
I don't think that it was the best Zidane or even a consistent one. The problem with Zidane is that while he was excellent in different roles, when you consider all times selections, he is the best in none of them.You can have many roles for the same slot in a 4-2-3-1 though. For instance, Zidane also played on the left in a 4-2-3-1 in Real Madrid, with freedom to start the playmaking from the back and get forward, with either Makelele and Conceicao or Makelele and Guti or Makelele and Helguera as midfielders.
No. At Real Madrid, that was a role where Zidane was very consistent and very brilliant and where all his virtues shone.I don't think that it was the best Zidane or even a consistent one. The problem with Zidane is that while he was excellent in different roles, when you consider all times selections, he is the best in none of them.
Zidane wasn't very consistent for Real Madrid and Madrid weren't very consistent themselves between 2001 and 2007 though.No. At Real Madrid, that was a role where Zidane was very consistent and very brilliant and where all his virtues shone.
Many of you guys probably don't know about this, but there was a big pressure from the press for Madrid to play with a diamond in midfield and have one extra attacker in the lineup, which only worked to some extent. This shouldn't come as a surprise because Benitez suffered similar pressure in 2016 to play James as an attacking midfielder instead of Casemiro, which he eventually did at some point.
I still remember Jorge D'Alessandro, Atletico fan and former player, having orgasms when describing the Zidane- Roberto Carlos society on the left and Figo on the right. It's normal, it allowed every player to give their best in a very stable formation because of the the massive attacking quality and the two centre midfielders giving balance.
Yeah, stick with watching and voting.Not bad team, i would probably switch to 4-4-2 diamond.
--------------Henry--------------Fontaine
--------------------------Platini
--------------Zidane-------------Tigana
------------------------Makelele
Amoros----Desailly----Tresor----Thuram
-------------------------Barthez
That's fair and I agree that 95% of these types of teams are a collection of names rather than a genuine system. With Zidane I'd still place him as superior to Ribery or Henry or Pires in an inside-left role, given it's where he did a lot of his best work for Real and France, and provided that there is overlapping width in place through a flank-dominating left-back and a forward who can work across the line as well as Henry does.The problem for me is that there is too much shoehorning and I think that it's one of the worst things about best XI, instead of making actual choices that make sense people just decide that certain players absolutely have to be in the team which in my opinion isn't true. For example, I'm not picking Zidane above Ribéry as a left winger and I'm not putting Amoros on the left and Thuram on the right when I have Lizararzu and Amoros available. Also I think that it's accepeted that Vieira isn't above Deschamps and neither are above Giresse.
In 2002 Zidane was 30 years old, but he was good enough to stand out in a team full of world class players, candidates to the biggest individual awards. He obviously declined in his last years, but if you want to judge players when they are declining, which is fair because they are still footballers, I have a few questions for you:Zidane wasn't very consistent for Real Madrid and Madrid weren't very consistent themselves between 2001 and 2007 though.
Not at all. No one in the history has been able to dictate the game the way Xavi did.Xavi over Zidane is criminal
Those are good points. But it illustrates my initial point, Zidane is arguable for France, one may argue in his favor but there is still an argument. Which is why I don't think that Zidane is actually an obvious first teamer in the best team of all time, I'm not even sure if he is in the second or third teams, because they have the likes of Cruijff, Best, Garincha, Figo or Eusebio in the attacking midfielder/winger category.That's fair and I agree that 95% of these types of teams are a collection of names rather than a genuine system. With Zidane I'd still place him as superior to Ribery or Henry or Pires in an inside-left role, given it's where he did a lot of his best work for Real and France, and provided that there is overlapping width in place through a flank-dominating left-back and a forward who can work across the line as well as Henry does.
Depends what you're looking for elsewhere. There's a lot of interchangeability at full-back in particular with Bossis as another option too - and the same in midfield where Vieira has a more dynamic box-to-box game, whereas Deschamps is a more natural holder, while Giresse was much more attack-minded and played for Bordeaux as a 10. Although Giresse too makes a case for where 'shoe-horning' can work, given his right-hand man role next to Platini in 1984 as part of one of the greatest midfields of all time.
You are mistaken here, I'm not judging Zidane the player because he was great. I'm trying to find the best XI possible.In 2002 Zidane was 30 years old, but he was good enough to stand out in a team full of world class players, candidates to the biggest individual awards. He obviously declined in his last years, but if you want to judge players when they are declining, which is fair because they are still footballers, I have a few questions for you:
a) Why don't you do the same for the rest of French players? b) How many French players had a big tournament where they dominated like Zidane had in 2006 at 34 years old? c) How did France cope without Zidane prior to 2006?
The compelling part about Matthäus, and the reason why he is held in such high esteem as a mainstay in a myriad All-Time XIs, is that he could do a bit of everything, and mastered different aspects of midfield play over his long and illustrious career. In a defensive sense, he was extremely dogged when the situation called for it and he got specific instructions from the coaches — for example, consider his man-making job on Maradona in the 1986 or 1990 World Cup finals, particularly the former as Diego was at the peak of his powers. From the heart of the pitch, he could pass and move...and dribble just about as well as any other central midfielder in football history, often like a hot knife through butter with regard to penetrative potential. His end-product as an offensive threat was substantial, even as a young player with Mönchengladbach — and overall, he boasted a comparable goals-per-game ratio in league matches to someone like Lampard (who is exalted for his productivity):Matthäus was great and all. But does he really make it to the best 11?
I might be colored, but I feel Keane, Vieira, Makelele and others were better players. Not a stretch to say Scholes, Gerrard would fit that role better neither.