I was referring to the trophies, also, why are you talking like a dick? Did I insult you or something?
Bergkamp is overrated.
- Thread starter Chrisjn
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
No, you didn't, did I insult you? It's just frustrating to hear people bang on about Messi and Cristiano's records as if they were the second coming and everything before them was crap.
They are playing for exceptionally dominant teams against rubbish opposition for about 80% of the season, yet when Ronaldo's record is brought up it is his teams which were dominant.
It's a load of bollocks. If Portugal had Ronaldo they wouldn't be held to a draw by NI
I never mentioned the two of them, just thought it was important to note that he didn't win those trophies all by himself, he was the star man in every team though i'd put Zidane on the same level
Just seen Bergkamp is above Charlton on that list
Ronaldo de Lima was better than C.Ronaldo IMO, had way more power and finesse, not to mention could dribble better and had more invention. Probably the most clinical forward I have ever seen, with Messi. I do think Messi is
Arguably better though.
Arguably better though.
Actually he didn't, the one black mark on his career: never won the Champions League.
I agree with the general assessment though, Ronaldo is still ahead of Cristiano for me, but I think Messi has equalled or even surpassed him this past year (with his insane goalscoring form in a lesser performing Barcelona + improved NT form). Messi still needs a good run in a WC to move up further though.
Why?
European club football and the CL in particular is the strongest competition in the world. Being consistently brilliant in the CL is a greater feat than playing well in a World Cup now. The only people who think the WC is the most vital factor are the old romantics who're out of touch with modern day football.
Yes, Messi is there or thereabouts and the scary thing is he doesn't seem to reach a ceiling. With Cristiano you get he impression he is already at full pelt running on all cylinders trying to keep up, but Messi just keeps raising his level.
He is starting to find some good form with Argentina, who seem to have worked out how to get the best from him. Their defence is pure comedy though, which may hamper them in 2014. If he does pull it off, then all bets are off re: Messi v. Maradona.
He shouldnt even be on the list - I have no idea what he is doing there.Just seen Bergkamp is above Charlton on that list
I don't think he's particularly undeserving. When you think that there's going to be a natural preference towards modern players, it's not a massive surprise and I don't think his inclusion was too unwarranted.
If international football is easier than club football then why is it so hard for our current "superstars" to shine?
--
Also, my point wasn't that the WC was the most vital factor, just another factor to consider in a long list of factors.
International football is all about seeing a player in a different environment and seeing how they cope as individuals in different teams. Nothing more. In many cases it's also unfair on certain players, but it's a factor like any other.
A lot of players find the World Cup harder because they're not overly fresh. Unlike the Champions League, they're off the back of what can often be a long, exhausting season.
It does test them in a different environment, but if they don't thrive then the manager is usually to blame more than the player, unless he has a system which works and only compromises one good player.
Yeah, if Messi succeeds it won't have been in the same way as Maradona; that was one solid as feck team he had behind him that allowed him to be the main man. For Messi it will most likely depend on who scores more.
Well, take George Best or Ryan Giggs for example. Both great players but hampered internationally by the fact they play for countries who just don't produce players of a similar level so it's natural that they won't shine at that level of the game.
While I think that the "Xavi and Iniesta" argument is bollocks when people use it against Messi, it's true that he's better with them than without them. It's only natural. At club level you can go out and buy superstars from all over the globe to bolster your squad but at international level you're stuck with what you've got. Which is also why I think a tournament like the Champions League is harder to win than the World Cup is.
I'd say that's a very important factor in why "superstars" don't always look as good at that level of the game.
Context is everything. As JazzG and Antohan have pointed out, the relative dominance of Real Madrid in La Liga is far beyond what L. Ronaldo had to work with.
Consider the points-per-game ratio of the teams Ronaldo played with:
1994/95 - 1.97pts per game (PSV)
1995/96 - 2.26
1996/97 - 2.14 (Barcelona)
1997/98 - 2.03 (Inter)
1998/99 - 1.35
1999/2000 - 1.71
2000/01 - 1.50
2001/02 - 2.03
2002/03 - 2.05 (Real)
2003/04 - 1.84
2004/05 - 2.11
Then compare with the teams Cristiano has played with:
2006/07 - 2.34 (Manchester Utd)
2007/08 - 2.29
2008/09 - 2.37
2009/10 - 2.53 (Real)
2010/11 - 2.42
2011/12 - 2.63
It's night and day.
highest world cup goalscorer ever, two or three time world player of the year, a phenomenal international and club scoring rate and in his prime simply unplayable. for comparison,much reputed world soccer magazine also voted him 3rd best player of all time. I think his later years dampen how incredible he was, The standouts in the list here i think were ronaldinho and bergkamp both far too high. Ronaldinho bottled his career. Ronaldo returned from 3 separate horrific injuries once to win the world cup golden boot and la liga top scorer. He generally stuck at it until he was spent. Ronaldinho had 2/3 very good seasons and is in my opinion over rated.
Also just seen the list the OP is moaning about and funny how he picks out Bergkamp for criticism yet Paul Scholes is rated the 13th best player of all time......
Exactly. The defence people use for Scholes is that bias towards United players is natural on a United forum, but still, it's a much worse positioning than Bergkamp which has been ignored. You don't see a Scholes overrated thread at the moment.
I'm not sure that's the case. Some of the biggest fans of Ronaldo on this forum such as Spoony and Fortitude for example don't strike me as folk in their early-20s.
That doesn't make any sense: surely the scenario where you're more limited is the harder one?
Re the much vaunted "minnows" argument, then they need to at least achieve something within their range.
Just an example;
N. Ireland managed to qualify for the 1958 World Cup from a group containing Portugal and Italy; can anyone here name more than 2-3 players from that squad? (Gregg, Blanchflower); they even reached the QFs.
Then in came George Best, often proclaimed one of the greatest ever, and yet during his entire international career (1964-1977) he couldn't inspire N. Ireland to qualify for another WC (or EC for that matter), but the first opportunity after he retires from them, they manage to qualify again, in 1982 and reach the 2nd round of the tournament.
Am I crazy to expect a player that many consider one of the greatest ever to do a little better when it's been proven possible right before and after him?
The same applies to everyone. Messi doesn't have to replicate what Maradona did, but at least have one great/amazing WC even if he doesn't win it, seems reasonable enough to me.
Neither should be on there, but odd inclusions will happen when compiled the way it was.
you genuinely dont think scholes bening that high is as bizarre as bergkamp? despite massive amounts of the most respected opinions within the game regarding him easily that highly. put the bias to one side, any player who has been at the heart of the most succesful club side in english football for 17 years running is worthy of that recognition. some players in that list are there based on 2/3 good years max and not an eyelid is batted.
Bergkamp, like Scholes, has received worldwide acclaim from a number of different people too. Bergkamp, like Scholes, was incredibly consistent over a number of years. Scholes' inclusion is no better than Bergkamp's.
Barca didn't play the CL the year he was there, they played the CWC, which they won with Ronaldo scoring in the final.
His first season at Inter they played the UEFA Cup, which they won with Ronaldo scoring in the final.
That was his peak before the injuries started. Thereafter I think he only played in the CL a couple more times due to injury or Inter not qualifying. With Real he had that legendary game at OT but they lost the semi, paving the way to the most boring final ever. Real should have won that CL TBH.
What you modern day football fans don't get is that the CL is a rubbish barometer to compare a player from the 90s from a current player.
There are twice as many teams now, which:
- Almost guarantees a top player to have a go at it every year.
- Reduces quality and introduces more opportunities to rack up goals against poor opposition: Raúl's record is far more impressive than Cristiano's.
- Means the UEFA Cup and CWC were top tournos, much better than the current Channel 5 league.
I've never said anything bad about Scholes but he might not even be in the top 5 Man Utd players for me let alone top 15 players of all time.
Bergkamp is near the bottom of that list so find it odd his inclusion has warranted a thread but the Scholes being 13th is far worse. Anyways the way the list like the guy above me had said is flawed.
Bergkamp is near the bottom of that list so find it odd his inclusion has warranted a thread but the Scholes being 13th is far worse. Anyways the way the list like the guy above me had said is flawed.
i thought the argument was provoked by bergkamps inconsistency and being a fringe player for spells. he was never near as effective as scholes
Bergkamp wasn't really inconsistent and was hardly a fringe player during most of his time at Arsenal either. I don't think that Scholes at his best is anymore effective than Bergkamp at his very best.
Personally I think neither Bergkamp nor Scholes being included in a list like this is in any way bizarre.
I don't think it's surprising since they're modern day players who played in the league which most of the fans on this forum watch most. Whether it's truly reflective or not is a different discussion though and the answer is probably no.
Scholes hasn't always been consistent.
You see why it was important to get the list out pronto be it 25 or 50? Loads of discussion
ya these lists can never be perfect but i just find questioning of scholes typical of his career really. just incredible to even consider him being in the top 20 to be as odd as bergkamp top 25 ( a top player no doubt but as someone mentioned above not in the absolute elite). for example, henry is 15. again i find that high but if henry is 15 then surely scholes would naturally be higher, henry would say so himself. in twenty years his inclusion in these lists will not be questioned. its a shame people cant appreciate fully what is right in front of them. probably the best midfielder ever at one of the top clubs in the world for their most succesful period and in my opinion their best ever player. i dont doubt you rate him but i just dont think he of many in that list should be used as an example of the list being flawed.
Yep, it's quite good actually as it brings some good topics to the forum. I'll get onto the Man United top 20 now.You see why it was important to get the list out pronto be it 25 or 50? Loads of discussion
this has been debated endlessly about endless players. there is no such thing as an ever consistent player. it doesnt exist. its impossible. but in the grand scheme of things to be an key player for 17 years in one team makes you consistent. bergkamp was in an arsenal team for many years but i dont think as influential as scholes has been and was in a team that was not as competitive as the ones scholes has been in. he's a phenomenon,he's 37 and made 152 passes against tottenham the other week, ninety something percent succesful. all im saying is, and its the old classic, scholes isnt exotic enough for these lists yet ronaldinho being 7th doesnt get questioned. it seems mad to me.
It's nothing to do with not being exotic, it's about there most definitely being 12 better players than Scholes in the history of football
thats the beauty of opinion, youre entitled to yours. i think that thats an absolutely crazy thing to say but wont argue it with you, its all down to what you see yourself
Fair enough, but how is it crazy? Bergkamp was a magnificent footballer when he played well, some of his very best goals were sublime for example. Like Scholes, he's up there as one of the most technically gifted of his generation.
I didn't see the Scholes bit when I made the thread.
I'd been thinking it for a while and then saw that.
i think that scholes at his most effective means that he literally makes every single player on the pitch tick around him. all of our greatest preformances in recent years revolved around scholes pulling every string and keeping the team ticking over. his impact on the team is unmatched by any player, even to this season like southampton away, he came on and the entire game changed and every one around played better. imo, the same cant be said for bergkamp, or many players for that matter, so its no slight on bergkamp, its a rare quality
edit: i say all above, i mean majority
feck me. How many times...
Forget the fecking list, you plums.
I am saying IN GENERAL I think Bergkamp is overated and often held in a higher regard due to nostalgia.
Forget about Scholes and forget about any lists.
Forget the fecking list, you plums.
I am saying IN GENERAL I think Bergkamp is overated and often held in a higher regard due to nostalgia.
Forget about Scholes and forget about any lists.