Good call. I think Vicente would've been one of the all time greats as he had everything in his locker.
In a way it’s synonymous to Baggio’s situation.
Owen, Adriano, Sturridge and Torres get mention, but no Marco van Basten? C'mon now. The man is mentioned among the greatest ever despite a proper "career" of just about a decade. He scored for fun in the most defensive league in the world, won absolutely everything (barring the WC) that there was to be won (domestic leagues, cups, CL, Euros), including three BdOs in 5 years and was done by 29 with repeated injury blows and - as per most accounts - poor treatment.
Where's ya team!
Do you think he fits with the OP? Nesta, for my (and a lot of other peoples') money is the best CB of all-time (my first name for a defender in an all-time xi, even over Baresi or Figueroa) capable of dealing with absolutely any type of striker that can be named, even Ronaldo 1on1.
Van Basten is already regarded as arguably the best striker of all time (he's always in the discussion) for the reasons you mention plus his completeness.
He had a serious hamstring injury aged 19 which left him with only two thirds of the strength in one of his hamstrings for the rest of his career. He says that changed him as a player as it killed his crazy acceleration that made him so exciting when burst onto the scene. He also claimed that injury caused all his major ones after because of the imbalance. That type of injury can now be fully repaired.
When an Owen or even a Ronaldo are mentioned, you can’t leave out MvB, surely? R9 is considered by many to be the best striker of at least the generation and by many, among the top 3 of all time. Owen played on too. R9 and MvB lost years to injury and also, almost certainly could’ve done a heck of a lot more if not for these injuries. Ergo my point that just because MvB achieved greatness (as did R9 and Giggs) it doesn’t mean he can be excluded when looking at players who’d be among the greatest if not for injury. Excluding him should also logically mean R9 is excluded.Where's ya team!
Do you think he fits with the OP? Nesta, for my (and a lot of other peoples') money is the best CB of all-time (my first name for a defender in an all-time xi, even over Baresi or Figueroa) capable of dealing with absolutely any type of striker that can be named, even Ronaldo 1on1.
MVB - as stated below.
Van Basten is already regarded as arguably the best striker of all time (he's always in the discussion) for the reasons you mention plus his completeness.
The whole idea is for players whose career path went in another direction because of the injuries - so unless you believe he was going to go on to be the best striker of all-time literally outright, he doesn't really fit with the thread as his legacy is set in stone and he will always be in the most elite echelon for strikers.
Del Piero, pre-injury, was directly compared to and paralleled to peak Baggio - because this was the era of Baggio and he was the supreme #10 of Serie A. He couldn't dribble to that standard, but he was extremely adept at sudden turns and sharp, dynamic actions that got him out of trouble in an instant. What this meant is that he could let defenders get tight on him, and in a flash he was around them or had used them as dummys/decoys to get his shot off, and his shooting was absolute class, not for its power put for its precision and timing. Anywhere inside 30 yards, Del Piero had to be marked fastidiously because he could thread any pass he wanted, but always had a picture of the goal and the obstacles in front of it that, given the opportunity, he would exploit.
I get where you're coming from, but what you will tend to notice with nearly all picks in here is that it was joint injuries or muscle injuries at an early age that 'ruined' them and altered their career path. Van Basten had arguably already played at his peak and got to do a hell of a lot in his 'proper' body before his ankle got butchered and he was forced to retire. He was late 20's when it all started as opposed to late teens, early or mid 20's like the majority of the others, so unless he was due another spurt to another level of brilliance, it's hard to see how he fits in with the others - the whole world got to see Van Basten in 'full form' for years where it wasn't the case for all the others that come to mind.
Can see where you're coming from. For me, the 1987-88 injury (more than half a season missed then with full surgery) probably changed him. It was ultimately this initial one that caused continual pain and with repeated damage ultimately saw him have yet more surgeries and ultimately killed his career just 4 years later. A lot like R9, you wonder if what we saw was the real "peak" or whether what we saw on the grandest stage (1987-88 was before Euro 88) was a player that was this good despite the damage. We know that surgery then almost always left you a lesser player and athlete - so I reckon this will always be down to individual perception.
By this criteria, sure, he'd be inclusive, it's just that when people think Van Basten, they (myself included) assume they saw his peak and him at his full potential before it was cruelly taken from him. If it's looked at from the angle that that wasn't even his peak, then no doubt about his place.
I agree that it would be hard to see him topping his best work in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Happy to be corrected, but I understand ankle injuries affected more of his career than just his early retirement. In his final season at Ajax in 1986/87, he's basically done in but Cruyff demands he plays a couple of key games, including the Cup Winners Cup Final, before he can leave. And his first campaign in Italy in 1987/88 is beset by ankle troubles, to the point where he doesn't even start Euro '88 as first choice. Arguably his injury doesn't affect his achievements there and he is one of the few 'GOATs' who has a godly international tournament to back up his club reputation. Yet there is a great unknown over his World Cup legacy. In 1990 he clearly wasn't fit and in all likelihood it doesn't affect his legacy given how far Holland flagged off the pace that West Germany set. But a peak Van Basten at USA '94, alongside Bergkamp and the rest of the emerging generation, could have been spectacular (the potential was obvious at Euro '92) and further enhanced his legacy especially had they gone past Brazil to win it. And purely in terms of quantity, that shorter career does mean he falls short when you compare the volume of the decade-plus output of Puskas, Eusebio, Cristiano, Muller, Messi and Pele. Even though as an overall no9 his performance level was arguably only bettered by Ronaldo and Pele. As you say, that extension of his peak is what we missed out on.
The World Cups - definitely a great point, actually one I can't argue against. In that context, we definitely didn't get to see Van Basten in his pomp and his placing in the elite striker set is certainly brought down a peg or two in that regard.
@Fortitude
Yeah - just the point I was making above. The man had everything and was so good that most (me, included) don't ever think of how much better things could have been but for that horrific 1987-88 injury. His return at Euro 88 was also "lucky" in some ways (more for Holland than himself, you could argue) and his 1988-92 form was scintillating. But as we've heard from others of that era, playing after such horrific injuries early in the career alters you. He was just 23 when he had that first major injury and I wonder at times what could have been if he hadn't had it. Maybe it would all still have panned out the same way - with just a few more years of him "swanning" around. Certainly though, he'd be higher up the echelon of greats when people start making the "all-time" lists.
Thought of him as well.
I don't know what 'elite' exactly means for you, but he might be the best player in Germany right now.
I expected him to be among top 5 players in the world at one point, as he genuinely seemed to have everything.
Don't think any apologies needed for that. Everything I've ever read about Rob Jones suggests he'd have been an England stalwart for years only for injury.
Aye. Anczok at left-back was somebody who looked like the full package pre-injury - pace, defensive acumen, tidy on the ball - but who was unfortunate to fall by the wayside, like Lubanski, as the Polish golden generation came together in the 1970s.
Can't think of an XI nor do I think one would be balanced in how tragic it is.Where's ya team!
If it wasn't for Del Piero, I'd have had him in my team. Just that Del Piero was something else and I'd have to say the pre-injury version was better than Rooney.
I'm really struggling for FB's, still. I don't know if I've just got a mind block on or if FB's just don't get the same brutal robbery of their abilities that other positions do. All of those [listed] are in my team. I wonder if this can be more diverse or if there's a collective forgetfulness in this department.
I thought the difference between them is Sammer was just reaching his peak, and then it was cut short as opposed to Van Basten, who we [assume] saw the best of?
I really thought that I would be original with Deisler.
Perhaps another 2-3 years at his 1996 level places Sammer on par with a Scirea or Passarella, rather than lacking the fullness of CV to be quite in that bracket?
