Rio Ferdinand was better then Nesta

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
65,172


That's coming from Nesta himself. I agree completely. Rio hit the genes and talent lottery. He had height, he was fast, he was comfortable with the ball and he had great technique. If he was Italian he would be considered second only to Maldini. It's a shame that England's fans can't recognise talent when they see it. The same happens with Paul Scholes who is criminally underrated in England
 
As much as I love Rio and thought he was our best defender when he was here, Nesta was the best CB in my lifetime. Unbelievable defender.
 
devilish said:


That's coming from Nesta himself. I agree completely. Rio hit the genes and talent lottery. He had height, he was fast, he was comfortable with the ball and he had great technique. If he was Italian he would be considered second only to Maldini. It's a shame that England's fans can't recognise talent when they see it. The same happens with Paul Scholes who is criminally underrated in England
Click to expand...

Not sure what this has to do with Scholes.
 
Rio was a great defender and arguably the best defender ever in United's history and right up there with Moore as far as English centre backs go. However, Nesta was just extraordinary and just that little bit more special. Doesn't make Rio any less of a legend of the game though.
 
I only ever watched Nesta a few times a season in massive champions League games, where he nearly always performed. So it's hard to say, but I will say that Rio was as near to a perfect centre back as you can get.
 
AdNani said:
As much as I love Rio and thought he was our best defender when he was here, Nesta was the best CB in my lifetime. Unbelievable defender.
Click to expand...
I followed them both. Nesta had better positioning which didn't really matter cause Rio was fast. Both were technically gifted and comfortable with the ball but Rio was better in air and stronger
 
Have to disagree, overall counting longevity perhaps but at their absloute peaks nesta was a level higher.

Had fortunes been more kind to nesta with regards to his recurrent injury problems im certain he wouldn't just be considered one of the but simply the best defender to ever do it, he never quite reached the heights he enjoyed at Lazio after those misfortunes.

Ferdinand himself wasn't particularly lucky in that regard or had the best longevity himself but he certainly got more mileage out of what he got.

Either of them would be considered the best in the world were they to play right now.
 
Rio was a better all round footballer. Backs to the wall you'd rather have Nesta in your team, but it's very close. Rio would probably be more highly thought of in today's game.
 
He looks like he's in an old person costume but still 25.

On topic: I think Nesta was the better defender, Rio probably the better footballer, and if Rio had emerged in Italy/Spain/France/Netherlands we'd all be rating him higher.
 
Hammondo said:
Not sure what this has to do with Scholes.
Click to expand...
Scholes is heavily underrated in England as well. I remember carragher and Gaz asking Henry who was better between Scholes and Gerrard. His initial response was that of a person being asked whose better between Gazza and Cleverley. Scholes is the clear winner
 
devilish said:
Scholes is heavily underrated in England as well. I remember carragher and Gaz asking Henry who was better between Scholes and Gerrard. His initial response was that of a person being asked whose better between Gazza and Cleverley. Scholes is the clear winner
Click to expand...
I don't think Scholes is underrated, I think Gerrard is overrated.
 
Bastian said:
He looks like he's in an old person costume but still 25.

On topic: I think Nesta was the better defender, Rio probably the better footballer, and if Rio had emerged in Italy/Spain/France/Netherlands we'd all be rating him higher.
Click to expand...
Rio hit the genetic/technique jackpot. Everything came so natural to him, almost effortlessly. You can feel that when he talks about football as well. That's frustrating and tend to attract critics
 
Yeah tough one. I’d say Nesta edges it but I watched Rio much more closely and I barely watched Nesta anywhere close to 50% as much. Flip of a coin at the end of the day.

On a side note, I really like it when true GOATs acknowledges other GOATs (over themselves). Shows great humility to go with their extraordinary talent(s).
 
devilish said:
Rio hit the genetic/technique jackpot. Everything came so natural to him, almost effortlessly. You can feel that when he talks about football as well. That's frustrating and tend to attract critics
Click to expand...

In terms of physical attributes he had everything. He didn't have the bravery of Vidic and sometimes a lack of focus. But a world class defender for sure. Nesta was a more inspirational player IMV, transmitting more energy to the team and a leader. In terms of mentality he was the better player, but as you say, Rio was pretty flawless physically.
 
devilish said:
If Scholes is being constantly compared to lamps and Gerrard then he's being underrated
Click to expand...

I always think Scholes is a bit overrated, especially by United fans. Scholes himself said that he couldn't have done what Gerrard did at Liverpool.

Back on topic, I think Rio is criminally underrated. He should be in the conversation as one of the all time greatest centre backs.
 
devilish said:


That's coming from Nesta himself. I agree completely. Rio hit the genes and talent lottery. He had height, he was fast, he was comfortable with the ball and he had great technique. If he was Italian he would be considered second only to Maldini. It's a shame that England's fans can't recognise talent when they see it. The same happens with Paul Scholes who is criminally underrated in England
Click to expand...


Baresi was better than Maldini at CB.

His peak was untouchable. The man suffered a serious knee injury in the first WC game, that requires four months rest, and came back for the final and put in the single greatest individual defensive performance in history, in his 30s no less!

I get the Maldini stuff, but it's so overblown with him because he started playing at CB due to his age, and there's no way that CB Maldini was better than Rio, Nesta, or Cannavaro. Now peak Maldini at full back? Then yes, probably the greatest full back in history.
 
Last edited:
MaMa given red said:
I always think Scholes is a bit overrated, especially by United fans. Scholes himself said that he couldn't have done what Gerrard did at Liverpool.

Back on topic, I think Rio is criminally underrated. He should be in the conversation as one of the all time greatest centre backs.
Click to expand...
Gerrard couldn’t do what Scholes did for us.
 
devilish said:
Scholes is heavily underrated in England as well. I remember carragher and Gaz asking Henry who was better between Scholes and Gerrard. His initial response was that of a person being asked whose better between Gazza and Cleverley. Scholes is the clear winner
Click to expand...
Going off on a tangent here considering the purpose of this thread but I've got to say while the English gung ho bias hurt scholes's reputation especially when he was still playing the lack if a truly standout season also did similar damage.

He had Xavi, Iniesta level of talent and football understanding but the team was never really attuned to get the best out of him( perhaps the limitations of then English mindset of football) and so he never played to the full extent of his abilities while kinda moving from one position as a classic number 10 to a fundamentally different regista like role as he got older and the priorities of the team changed.

So it's understandable for him to be ranked behind the xavi, Iniesta and Pirlos of the world even if some of them were perhaps inferior in talent or football iq simply because they enjoyed periods were they were lynchpins of their teams and crucial to their success while Scholes simply didn't.
 
Red the Bear said:
Going off on a tangent here considering the purpose of this thread but I've got to say while the English gung ho bias hurt scholes's reputation especially when he was still playing the lack if a truly standout season also did similar damage.

He had Xavi, Iniesta level of talent and football understanding but the team was never really attuned to get the best out of him( perhaps the limitations of then English mindset of football) and so he never played to the full extent of his abilities while kinda moving from one position as a classic number 10 to a fundamentally different regista like role as he got older and the priorities of the team changed.

So it's understandable for him to be ranked behind the xavi, Iniesta and Pirlos of the world even if some of them were perhaps inferior in talent or football iq simply because they enjoyed periods were they were lynchpins of their teams and crucial to their success while Scholes simply didn't.
Click to expand...
Xavi and Iniesta marked an era with Spain and mainly Guardiola and short after.


However without Scholes, the United Era under SAF which is a longer period of time, changes too. He was crucial during SAF's entire reign, as was Giggs.
 
Red the Bear said:
Going off on a tangent here considering the purpose of this thread but I've got to say while the English gung ho bias hurt scholes's reputation especially when he was still playing the lack if a truly standout season also did similar damage.

He had Xavi, Iniesta level of talent and football understanding but the team was never really attuned to get the best out of him( perhaps the limitations of then English mindset of football) and so he never played to the full extent of his abilities while kinda moving from one position as a classic number 10 to a fundamentally different regista like role as he got older and the priorities of the team changed.

So it's understandable for him to be ranked behind the xavi, Iniesta and Pirlos of the world even if some of them were perhaps inferior in talent or football iq simply because they enjoyed periods were they were lynchpins of their teams and crucial to their success while Scholes simply didn't.
Click to expand...
I think he was ahead in passing ability, but behind in footballing iq. He didn't dictate play like they did.
 
CoopersDream said:
Don't know about that, but Vidic was better than Rio.
Click to expand...
I’m always of two minds with Rio. On one hand he was a Rolls Royce of a defender and definitely one of the most talented I’ve seen play. On the other hand he lacked that ruthlessness defenders like Nesta and Vidić had. He just had a tendency to switch off at times, even on the ball. I think there is an element of holding him to a ridiculously high standard because he was so talented though.
 
Vidic was better than Rio. Vidic dominated with other partners. Rio's passing was overrated. Made more blunders than Vidic. Was also injured more and scored less goals. Vidic was better.
 
Hammondo said:
I think he was ahead in passing ability, but behind in footballing iq. He didn't dictate play like they did.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, he did showcase very impressive regista like qualities much later into his career in a team that was a lot more vertically inclined than what the others had to work with, to me it shows a very impressive footballing iq which we never saw to its full extent compared to how he might have turned out were he to play in Spain or Italy in systems that prioritize control more than fast transitions and physicality.
AjaxCunian said:
Xavi and Iniesta marked an era with Spain and mainly Guardiola and short after.


However without Scholes, the United Era under SAF which is a longer period of time, changes too. He was crucial during SAF's entire reign, as was Giggs.
Click to expand...
While I agree in essence with your points i still think there are distinctions to make here.

Scholes never took the spotlight front and center like the others did, he was second in rank compared to keane( whom I think actually gets even more under rated when compared to the continental greats than scholes) and afterwards never inserted as much influence as those other names did, his international record is an unfortunate blight on his reputation as well even though it wasn't his fault but in these comparisons its hard to not bring it up when the other fellas were pivotal in WC and EURO runs.

Pirlo was very important in 2006, probably the only reason Italy got to the finals to begin with in 2012 and was the catalyst behind Juve's resurgence while xavi and Iniesta were the beating heart of spain's most successful domestic and international sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.