I think as United fans we have a mutual soft spot for Del Piero, but I've always seen Totti as the better player.
Totti vs Del Piero
- Thread starter Hamadovich86
- Start date
Del Pierro, he actually win stuff
Totti is like Gerrard, good player, one team and all that, but he hasn't actually won much.
Del Pierro on the other hand, although I'd argue Del Pierro didn't have the best exits
, close to being marginalised and forced to move near the end .. IIRC
Totti is like Gerrard, good player, one team and all that, but he hasn't actually won much.
Del Pierro on the other hand, although I'd argue Del Pierro didn't have the best exits
, close to being marginalised and forced to move near the end .. IIRCAs if these players alone were responsible for their teams winning/not winning. I mean I perfectly why some would choose Del Piero over Totti because he was a cracking player, just that using titles to judge between is unfair.Del Pierro, he actually win stuff
Totti is like Gerrard, good player, one team and all that, but he hasn't actually won much.
Del Pierro on the other hand, although I'd argue Del Pierro didn't have the best exits
Not fair perhaps, but they're close matched ability wise, and as such the trivial things would be the tie breaker
Of course Totti was more instrumental to his side. He played for Roma. They were never nearly as good as the Juventus team that Del Piero played for. How come you say Del Piero was more of a goalscorer when Del Piero has a better league scoring record? They're about the same in goalscoring and almost any aspect. It's a matter of
Take dribbling, passing, goalscoring and being instrumental to your side, apply it to Scholes vs Gerrard with Gerrard being more influential, the better dribbler and goalscorer and Scholes being the superior passer, then Gerrard would come out on top. But that 'being more influential' bit is relevant to the team they played in.
Del Piero and Totti scored the same kind of goals. Volleys and chips with both feet, curling it into the corner, showing incredible composure whilst beating men inside the box. There's nothing between them for me. I'd pick Del Piero because of his smoothness and being a far more likable player on the pitch but ability wise I personally can't say one was better than the other.
I greatly admire Del Piero, but Totti wins this one hands down for me.
Totti's longevity and productivity has been incredible.
Totti's longevity and productivity has been incredible.
I've watched more of Del Piero due to the fact Juve were almost always shown on football Italia in the late 90's and in the CL on a more consistent basis. Some of those Juve teams were great to watch and I kind of miss the strong Italian teams of 15 years ago or so.
Totti was also fantastic and pretty much Mr Roma. Its tough but id probably give the edge to Del Piero for nostalgia. Its so close im not going to vote though.
Just as a side note I used to love Nedved (talking about former Juve players)
Totti was also fantastic and pretty much Mr Roma. Its tough but id probably give the edge to Del Piero for nostalgia. Its so close im not going to vote though.
Just as a side note I used to love Nedved (talking about former Juve players)
Totti is the Italian version of Matt Le Tissier ie a player who looked much better then he actually is because he had the team built around him. Del Piero was a better player. He had to or else Juventus would have sold him. None of them are even close to the true king of the fantasisti ie Roberto Baggio.
I think Totti might be just a tiny bit better than Matt Le Tissier though.
The best players always have the team built around them.
Totti for this reason:
Del Piero was great, Totti just edges it for me.
Del Piero was great, Totti just edges it for me.
Del Piero.
Del Piero all day long.
Totti was a fabulous player but, Del Piero was the boss
Totti was a fabulous player but, Del Piero was the boss
I beg to differ though. Scholes was magnificent but the team wasn't built around him. Same thing about Keane, Giggs and Rooney. I am not talking here about players whose manager decided to build around their strengths either. I am talking here about a player whose so massive for the club that he can literally show the manager the door if he wants to. Under such circumstances its within the manager interest not to strip Totti from his shine.
Last edited:
Lol. Troll home, lad. Too obvious.
Well Roma are better then Southampton.
You see that's the bad thing about a 1 man band type of player. No one knows exactly how would they would fit if lets say the spotlight isn't around them anymore and the team isn't built around making them look good. Usually their form then to dip a bit when that's not the case. Andrew Cole never reached his Newcastle goal scoring heights at United. Berbatov wasn't able to emulate his Spurs form elsewhere. Totti is that kind of player. In many ways he's smarter because he never moved from his safe spot and kept everyone guessing on how good he's actually is. Baggio and Del Piero were never given such luxury. The Northern Italy clubs aren't really into idolizing players.
He did well enough for Italy to suggest he'd have no problems cutting the mustard wherever he chose.
Really? 9 goals in 59 games?
Totti was never able to replicate his form with Roma with Italy. To be fair Del Piero struggled in that respect too (although he scored much more goals - 27 in 97 games). None of them was even close to the great Roberto Baggio who scored 27 goals in 56 matches
He was good at Euro 2000 and at World Cup 2006. Didn't do a lot inbetween, but an important role in reaching the final of one tournament and winning another isn't a bad international record.
Italy were the powerhouse they were mostly because of their midfield, Gattuso and Pirlo in particular. At their prime they were the best you can have.
Jeezus
Is that Totti mocking Cashley?Totti for this reason:
Del Piero was great, Totti just edges it for me.
Yep, absolute legendIs that Totti mocking Cashley?
I am not talking in terms of talent. I am referring to the conditions ie a player looking better then he actually is because he's playing at a small club built completely around him.Jeezus
The teams is built around him not because out of pure luck but because he's always been their best player. That's what happens mostly for every club and their best player.
I live in Italy, and here probably 8 out of 10 people would say that Totti was easily the better player. I know a few Juve fans who say that too.
I think that people hace voted here for Del Piero more because they watched him more than Totti (cause Juve played more games in UCL than Roma). Anyway, Totti for me is the best Italian player since at-least Baggio.
I think that people hace voted here for Del Piero more because they watched him more than Totti (cause Juve played more games in UCL than Roma). Anyway, Totti for me is the best Italian player since at-least Baggio.
He wasn't the best player in the world, he was behind Ronaldo and Zidane but only them. For me its not about what he could've become, its about what he was at the time, simply a marvelous footballer who played at a level Totti never ever reached throughout his career.
Totti for me. Loved Del Piero back in the day, and he used to rip us apart in the CL but Totti for influence & longevity. Still scoring crazy goals at the highest level at the age of 38. Ask Vincent Kompany.
Both were amazing players and the difference between them is very slim, but I have to go for Totti.
In both their primes, Del Piero was probably a bit better. However, after his injury in the late 90's, Del Piero was never quite the same player.
Totti is superior due to the fact that he's overall a better player and he's more of an asset to a team. He was far more versatile and could play as a striker, second striker, attacking midfielder, and he was world class in all the positions he played in. Totti was also a much better passer and physically stronger.
Del Piero has won more titles, but he has also played with a far better team.
One thing that I'm very certain of is that Baggio was better than both of them.
In both their primes, Del Piero was probably a bit better. However, after his injury in the late 90's, Del Piero was never quite the same player.
Totti is superior due to the fact that he's overall a better player and he's more of an asset to a team. He was far more versatile and could play as a striker, second striker, attacking midfielder, and he was world class in all the positions he played in. Totti was also a much better passer and physically stronger.
Del Piero has won more titles, but he has also played with a far better team.
One thing that I'm very certain of is that Baggio was better than both of them.
Zidane is way too overrated, he barely makes the top 20 all time as far as I'm concerned.
Circa 1998, Del Piero was better than Zidane.
I'd think the last line of your post is the general consensous, surely?
crazy talk
Del Piero.
Actually that's the truth. Even most Juventus fans back then would have laughed at you or thought you were crazy if you suggested Zidane was a better player than Del Piero. He was viewed as a great midfielder, but by no means amongst the top 3 players in the world.
His fame increased and his ability was vastly exaggerated by the media after he scored those 2 headers in the 1998 World Cup. Everybody talks about how Zidane carried France to victory, which is false. Truth be told, apart from scoring in the final, he didn't do much in that tournament.
France in 1998 World Cup had a great team and a solid defense conceding only 2 goals. Zidane was red carded after stamping on a player from Saudi Arabia.
France played two games without Zidane, one was against Paraguay and the other was against Denmark. France won both of those games.
Zidane also did nothing vs Italy and vs Croatia and France won both of those games. Lilian Thuram was the man of the match in both of those games.
His only great match was against Brazil in the final, but that match is very dubious to say the least. Personally I'm inclined to say some Brazil players threw that match away. Plus the team was in a huge dissaray because Ronaldo was unfit.
Zidane's prime was circa 2000-2002, his best tournament being the 2000 Euro Cup. And his best World Cup was in 2006, he put in much better displays then than he did in 1998.
Like I previously mentioned, Del Piero was the superior player in 1998.
Last edited by a moderator:
Totti was a midfielder was he not
Basically Del Piero...
Persie, Zola, etc, they made the EPL look easy
Persie also reminds me of Leroy Sané
Put it this way after buying Persie United won the league easily... because his general football was world class too.
Piero, etc, would have had the same impact... at United under Ferguson.
Fergie always had world classy forwards. Sane can replace agüero easily. Had Fergie had him playing the Persie role, main forward, like Persie, nobody would be able to handle him.
Basically Del Piero...
Persie, Zola, etc, they made the EPL look easy
Persie also reminds me of Leroy Sané
Put it this way after buying Persie United won the league easily... because his general football was world class too.
Piero, etc, would have had the same impact... at United under Ferguson.
Fergie always had world classy forwards. Sane can replace agüero easily. Had Fergie had him playing the Persie role, main forward, like Persie, nobody would be able to handle him.
Last edited:
@Bogdannn why do you keep bumping massively old threads you nutter?
Totti. Just.
Del Piero i always thought was a bit like their version of Cantona. On outright ability he wasn't quite at the very top but his contribution to the team was much more than that.
Del Piero i always thought was a bit like their version of Cantona. On outright ability he wasn't quite at the very top but his contribution to the team was much more than that.
Totti should have won this by so so far. At his best the better player and with much more longevity. Okay he played for the wrong team to win stuff
Zidane one of the greatest ever