Yes, but that's more about overrating those 2 than anything.
Rio Ferdinand was better then Nesta
- Thread starter devilish
- Start date
I think the regista part of his game was one of his weak spots. Very creative, great vision, world class passing, didn't dictate game a huge amount like a xavi.
For about a two year period, I thought Vidic was the best in the world.
Vidic was an absolute gem at games like Everton away where you knew it was a battle and you’d face an aerial onslaught. I remember one game where it actually became funny how many headers he would clear. He was insanely good at winning headers in the box.
Was it not Bolton away where Sir Alex said it was one of the best defensive displays he'd ever seen? He won absolutely everything in the air.
Feel like defenders like Vidic and Terry are appreciated more in this country than ones like Rio, or they certainly were at that time. Don't get me wrong Vidic was a good footballer as well.
Rio at his best was the best defender I'd seen at United really, he was rapid, Strong, good in the air, composed and comfortable on the ball. He made it look easy.
Yes he was.
I remember the 2002 press headline "Fergie flies in for Nesta" when Sir Alex went to Rome to watch Lazio. Nothing came of it and he signed Rio later that year. It was the better outcome as Rio was younger and equally good.
cheers
No.
Nesta is arguably the best CB of all time. Rio is not in that discussion.
Nesta is arguably the best CB of all time. Rio is not in that discussion.
Nesta without a doubt. Rio is a cat's whisker short, but Nesta was the better CB. As was Vidic.
That is very much arguable.
But - yes - maybe arguable (depending on how you define "CB", I would say).
That said, nobody would argue that Rio is the best CB of all time - because that is nowhere near an arguable position to begin with.
As for whether Vidic was better than Rio - nah (he wasn't - and it's a bit of a pointless comparison).
They were an absolute, no-doubt-about-it, first class, top class, world class pair - that can be compared to any pair, really, in a historical context (without looking out of place).
It’s arguable in the context of the other contenders: Franz, Baresi, Maldini, Kohler and <insert from the few others> and for sure; “pure defender” given nobody is going to get anywhere near Franz for the playmaker gig.
The Vidic resurgence is an interesting one over the last few years. I think Rio’s contribution is getting more downplayed by the year.
Agreed.
He's aged a lot for someone who's only 49!
And Nesta was better than Rio.
And Nesta was better than Rio.
I imagine you have barresi and Moore next to him?
Although if we're cheating it's that German fellow.
Between August 06 and May 09, he was the best centre back in the world and a key player in probably the greatest United team of all time and probably the greatest English team ever (three successive titles, three successive Champions League semi-finals and two successive Champions League finals). He was far better than Nesta.
I don't know about better but Rio was such a special defender. I feel lucky having watched Rio, Vidic, Puyol, Maldini and Nesta at their peak. My father claims Beckenbauer was the best.
Differences of opinions are fine, but Rio Ferdinand was not "far better" than Nesta.
No defender in history was far better than Nesta.
I clearly preffer Nesta, this does not mean that there is a great gap between them in real terms, there is just a clear gap because of my personal taste.
As a side note, at the same time there are some Italian defenders that as extraordinary as they were, they tend to be seen as "perfect" and they were far from that like any Huge historical player from anywhere at any period, was and would be.
In the case of Italian defenders few times it's take in account that the Italian teams have a predominant focus on whole defensive systems that would even enhace the already extraordinary talent of a Nesta, Maldini or whomever, this aspect helps quite a lot. Also in general we have a tendency because of nostalgia maybe? to feel that certain periods as if the players could not do Harry Maguire, or was fill with perfect players, like if Bierhoff never was a goaslcorer in Serie A or Almeyda never won a Guerrin during those mighty 90's. There is a bit of everything from an historical perspective.
As a side note, at the same time there are some Italian defenders that as extraordinary as they were, they tend to be seen as "perfect" and they were far from that like any Huge historical player from anywhere at any period, was and would be.
In the case of Italian defenders few times it's take in account that the Italian teams have a predominant focus on whole defensive systems that would even enhace the already extraordinary talent of a Nesta, Maldini or whomever, this aspect helps quite a lot. Also in general we have a tendency because of nostalgia maybe? to feel that certain periods as if the players could not do Harry Maguire, or was fill with perfect players, like if Bierhoff never was a goaslcorer in Serie A or Almeyda never won a Guerrin during those mighty 90's. There is a bit of everything from an historical perspective.
Hard to imagine a better CB than Rio at his best. Had everything. His one weakness was him hardly being a threat on set pieces. Wasn't brave enough.
But I would say I don't think Rio's prime was all that long. Took quite a while for him to mature after a lot of early hype.
But I would say I don't think Rio's prime was all that long. Took quite a while for him to mature after a lot of early hype.
Nah Rio was better, those that played with both tend to choose Rio too.
Vidic came good at the tail end of Rio's prime but Rio used to hold our defence together on his own and make Silvestre look a decent CB. I still remember being top in January and the minute Rio walked off the pitch injured and starting his ban we went backwards, including that game being our first loss of the season. A lot of Rio's good work is quieter than Vidic who is more likely to get physical and throw himself into tackles similarly to how a Carrick is quieter than a Kante. At the end of the day both were exceptional and amongst the best to ever play in this league, Vidic doesn't get the respect he deserves from opposition fans.
You have Beckenbauer, who sits alone on the top.
Then you have Maldini and Baresi.
Nesta, Rio, Vidic, Stam etc. are the next level.
All in all, Rio was equal to Nesta in my opinion.
Then you have Maldini and Baresi.
Nesta, Rio, Vidic, Stam etc. are the next level.
All in all, Rio was equal to Nesta in my opinion.
Franco Baresi had a knee fracture in his second game in the 94 World Cup, missed the entire tournament and immediately had knee surgery.
He miraculously somehow "made it back" in time for the World Cup Final vs Brazil and proceeded to have the single greatest performance by a defender ever, despite practically playing crocked from the whistle.
He blocked, chased and harassed everything and everyone. These aren't even the full highlights of that game. A one man defence that game. They made it to penalties because Baresi was on some otherworldly shit that day. Not only that but he was driving right through midfield with the ball, and spraying it around all game.
No question in my mind, Baresi was better than them all, including Beckenbauer.
He miraculously somehow "made it back" in time for the World Cup Final vs Brazil and proceeded to have the single greatest performance by a defender ever, despite practically playing crocked from the whistle.
He blocked, chased and harassed everything and everyone. These aren't even the full highlights of that game. A one man defence that game. They made it to penalties because Baresi was on some otherworldly shit that day. Not only that but he was driving right through midfield with the ball, and spraying it around all game.
No question in my mind, Baresi was better than them all, including Beckenbauer.
*than
Wish we had bought Nesta back in the day.
Rio is top class though.
Rio is top class though.
I have watched many Manchester United defenders and i did not know how highly rated Ferdinand was. Maybe i see him as bit to relaxed or 'Lazy 'or Maybe I like more of a beast defender like Stam/Vidic.
I’m Utd but to be fair Scholes couldn’t do what Gerrard did for Liverpool.
Where Scholes excelled in technique he lacked in leadership
Always baffles me when people say Vidic was better than Rio. I mean, I think I get why, it's the blood and thunder, the last ditch challenges and blocks etc, they're memorable, but the sheer reality is that Vidic was beatable and when beaten, Rio was there to clear it up with zero fuss almost every time. They complimented one another perfectly and both compensated for the shortfalls in the others game - of which there just were more shortfalls in Vidic than in Rio, but as such they were an outstanding pairing, the best the league has seen and two of the best individual centre backs the leagues seen it goes without saying, but Rio was just a level above for me - at his best he was probably the best centre back I've seen for or against in my nearly 30 years of watching United live.
Scholes was underrated in England due to Sven Goran Erikson. Scholes was scoring for fun under the ferule of Keegan. When Erikson came, Scholes was shifted to the left and went on a double digits dry spell. When asked by a reporter about this, the England manager said that he hadn't even noticed this anomalous stat.
Vidic would have been unable to exercise his craft easily in today's game. I always viewed him as someone who walked the fine line between domination and a professional foul. Rio would be the van Dike of United if he was of this generation.
Rio rarely conceded fouls and once went 27 league games without giving away any. Such outstanding defensive technique.
He was great, but Brazil were really not a good attacking side for that world cup.
Baresi nullified Romario but for a shot that hit the bar. Brazil was more defensive than before, but they had some fearsome players.
Both Baresi and Maldini were amazing defenders among the best in football history. They were legends off and on the pitch, their quality was undisputed and at their best (particularly Baresi) they played among the best players in the world. They also seem born for the role they played in which helped them a lot, particularly Baresi (which I explain later).
However if one has to nitpick by putting them both under the microscope then you'll see slight differences. For example Baresi was 5ft9 ie the same size of Lisandro Martinez. Don't take me wrong, Franco was a clear upgrade in almost everything on Martinez (though passing wise Lisandro is slightly better) but there's a limit to the muscle and the amount of aerial duels a 5ft9 CB could do. That didn't bother Baresi up until the very end and the reason were various. First of all the Serie A of the time hardly had giants. Signori, Vialli, Mancini, Baggio, Schillaci, Maradona and co were shorter then 6ft tall. The few who were taller then 6ft (ex Batistuta and Van Basten) looked like giants there. Secondly crosses were frowned upon in the Serie A. Taibi once said that he was shocked to learn what EPL strikers can get away with in terms of crosses. In Italy the referee will call a foul the moment a player touches the goalkeeper. That wasn't the case in the EPL. Another key issue was that Milan was well covered. The FBs (Tassotti and Maldini) were such amazing defenders that could easily slot as CBs, Costacurta was fast, strong and fairly good in air himself and Rossi was a pound land but more aggressive version of Schmeichel. He was inferior to the great Dane in almost everything but he had the same aura in the box as him. If a striker dared trying to bully himself into his box then Rossi would rip his head off. I am not trying to play down Baresi contribution in the game. His job was to lead and coordinate everything at the back, his positioning was top notch (and made up for not being the quickest) and his leadership was off the charts. Gullit was once asked who would win between Milan's forward line (ie guys like Gullit, Van Basten and co) and defense during training. Gullit said that it was no contest. Defense would crush them every single time. That's how ridiculously good was Milan's defense at the time and Baresi was the heart of it. However the weaknesses were there. He wasn't the quickest, he wasn't the strongest and he wasn't the best aerially. Italy understood that as well. Baresi wouldn't become a first team regular with Italy up until Gaetano Scirea retired from the national side. Also when that defense started shaking, well, Baresi faltered. Anyone old enough to remember the last Baresi vs Vieri duel would wish to unsee it. It was ten times worse then Gaz against West Brom in 2011. A young Vieri literally owned Baresi, tossing him around, outpacing him and out muscling him. It was painful to watch.
If life was a dart game then Maldini hit the bullseye repeatedly from morning till night. He was born with great genes. He had pace, he had height, he had great technique and an almost natural awareness of how football is played that very few has (the latter Baresi had as well). He was a born professional as well. Maldini played football in his debut with the same maturity and professionalism that he ended it. He also had top coaches as well at the early part of his career such as Liedholm and Sacchi. On top of that he also had a top manager as a father who make sure his boy stood in line and of course he was one of the few players that can say that he was literally born at the club. That's because Cesare Maldini was a former Milan player whom by the time Paolo was born was an AC Milan assistant manager. I recently heard an interview of our former goalkeeper coach Eric Steele and he couldn't highlight enough the important that DDG's father was a former goalkeeper himself and how easy it was for the coaching staff to implement certain things with DDG's father having their back. Well Milan had Cesare Maldini, a club legend, who also served as an assistant manager and the manager of the club and who, by the time Paolo made his debut, he was working with the national team. Forget nepotism btw, when Cesare learnt that Paolo was going to debut he barged into Liedholm office demanding if this was down to his surname. Liedholm had to assure him that Paolo's debut was down to him being good enough. Maldini flew past through his career. He debuted with Milan at age 16, he won his place at age 17 (ironically as RB) taking his dad's former shirt no 3 and he debuted with Italy at age 19. I followed the guy throughout all his career and I can't recall him ever being humiliated.
Maldini played as LB because he could. He was two footed, he was tall, he had positioning, speed and technique. That meant that he could play in the positions others couldn't. Tassotti best position was RB cause his technique was better utilized as RB. Baresi was the leader and had to play as CB. Costacurta was versatile but he was right footed. Which lead to Maldini a guy who could play in any role, he could defend and go forward with the ball and do it exceptionally well. Hence why he was played LB.
The British tend to value physicality and intensity over technique and pace. Hence why Vidic is rated more then Rio by them and there's still those who question whether Gerrard was better then Scholes. There was also an uproar when SAF replaced Keano with Carrick.
This thing is often mentioned as is some sort of prove of how good Rio was. But for me, that is the side that makes him a bit less than his Italians compatriots. Rio just lack that aggressiveness all GOAT CBs have.
If I have to make a tackle, then I've already made a mistake.” - maldini
Being aggressive means risking fouls and possibly penalties. It might lead to an injury as well. Now I understand that not every can rely on the pace, positioning, strength and anticipation too had. However if one has all those then he should avoid aggressiveness if he can help it
Anyway. Being aggressive doesn't mean just tackling.