jeff_goldblum
Full Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2011
- Messages
- 3,917
I think as United fans we have a mutual soft spot for Del Piero, but I've always seen Totti as the better player.
On a similar subject, Totti's first time passing is grossly overlooked:Every volley is technically perfect. Love it.
As 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 , close to being marginalised and forced to move near the end .. IIRC
Not fair perhaps, but they're close matched ability wise, and as such the trivial things would be the tie breakerAs 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.
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 ofTotti was better than Del Piero for me - the latter was more of a goalscorer and a slightly better dribbler due to agility/change of pace, but Totti was the far better passer and was more instrumental to his side. In the early-mid 00's everything good about Roma went through Totti. For a primarily creative player his scoring record is outstanding, and goals are only one aspect of what Totti offers.
The best players always have the team built around them.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 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.The best players always have the team built around them.
Lol. Troll home, lad. Too obvious.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.
Well Roma are better then Southampton.I think Totti might be just a tiny bit better than Matt Le Tissier though.
He did well enough for Italy to suggest he'd have no problems cutting the mustard wherever he chose.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.
Really? 9 goals in 59 games?He did well enough for Italy to suggest he'd have no problems cutting the mustard wherever he chose.
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.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.
JeezusTotti 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.
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
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.Pretty much this, Del Piero was on fire before that injury took that yard of pace off him and set him back a year of rehab.
If he was never injured we don't know exactly how high he really could have went as he was probably the best player in the world at that point.
Totti probably edged it after Del Piero had his injury to be fair but Del Piero still was performing in big games for Juve consistently at a very high level.
Zidane is way too overrated, he barely makes the top 20 all time as far as I'm concerned.He wasn't the best player in the world, he was behind Ronaldo and Zidane but only them
I'd think the last line of your post is the general consensous, surely?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.
crazy talkZidane 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.
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.crazy talk