Who is the greater player: Ryan Giggs vs Gareth Bale

Who is the greater player?


  • Total voters
    599

ROFLUTION

Full Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
7,547
Location
Denmark
Re the time Bale carried Spurs (incredible run of goals), Giggs would have been the main man here, if we hadnt had so many stars to water his excellence down and pass to.

When he came through, he also was all over our goals. Giggs has more tools and ages better, while Bale had great athleticism and shooting before he went in and out of the hospital. Bale's quite simple really, but maybe one of the best in the World at what he did. Speed, physique, shooting on another level
 

Fortitude

TV/Monitor Expert
Scout
Joined
Jul 10, 2004
Messages
22,421
Location
Inside right
Totally agree, I'm not a fan if Bale either, and I think his contribution in Euro16 is overhyped by many. In terms of attributes, Bale was second best to Giggs in many aspects. But speaking of peak, he stepped up and literally carried the team single-handedly plenty of times in the 12/13 season, in which his teammates were pretty average.

In contrast, Giggs was more like a supportive player than the main man, despite he had some excellent individual performances that some suggested. Of course it's arguable whether Giggs could also be the main man if required, but it's hypothetical.
There is no Treble without Giggs' contribution.

Ryan Giggs is actually being reduced to the post-30 footballer who was more supplementary than a cornerstone of the side, which he was as the left winger who occupied a whole flank from his debut straight through until he took the decision not to truly open up on runs because of his hamstrings.

Bale has some great goals; he doesn't have many great games. They are reversed in this aspect.
 

Fortitude

TV/Monitor Expert
Scout
Joined
Jul 10, 2004
Messages
22,421
Location
Inside right
Re. Passing.

The difference between them in passing is intelligence and technique (duh), but what I mean there is Giggs with far superior dribbling, first touch and reading of a play prior to receiving the ball, worked better angles to play into rather than being some Riquelme-like pass-master.

Giggs always played high risk, high reward passes that looked sublime when they came off, but unnecessary when they didn't. More apropos of him in the middle, as when on the wing, he moved the ball via crazy runs before playing (earning) simple enough passes. Through the middle, as an older player, ball carriage was still what made him unplayable at times, rather than his passing, which was, as stated, high risk and high reward. In relation to this, the game that most exemplified this kind of style coming off perfectly was, for me, Giggs' best ever game through the middle in the 10/10 performance verses Roma in the 7-1 demolition job he was the catalyst of. That was the day he looked like he'd played the position his entire career as a world class central midfielder.

Bale, by contrast, has no guile to his play. The ball is moved in front of him, and then he hits or passes it. If he can't get the knock-on to rush, he's not going to use ingenious movement to open up space to pass the ball, which is the polar opposite of Giggs - by default, that forces him to have a better pass on him to achieve the same thing as cuter, more technical players (Giggs, in this instance). With no trickery, smarts or guile involved, I'd expect Bale to hit his passing mark more often than Giggs. As a whole, however, with both using their full array of skills to work the best angles for passing, and I can see wht some would say Giggs is the better passer.
 
Last edited:

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
27,025
Location
...
Giggs didn't merely play till 40. He performed superbly till he was nearly 40. Bale has looked cooked for nearly two years. And that isn't the only argument in his favour. Most are claiming that he's the better all round footballer which he is. Bale is a great impact player but his general play is mediocre by the standards of top players. People want to ignore that entirely and focus only on goals and assists then sure but others do give importance to passing abilty, play along ability, longevity, close control, ability in tight spaces, tracking back etc

Bale is a very good player but overrated among the British. Someone here said he could have been the English goat. Come on now. Even in the modern generation, he was never going to surpass someone like Rooney let alone the likes of Sir Bobby. He doesn't have the all round game for it. One of the great impact players, sure.
Giggs did not have 20 ‘superb’ seasons either. And it is still a warped argument, for me anyway. Nobody would dispute that Giggs had better close control. ‘Tracking back’ is also a reach in this comparison, come on. Next thing I’ll be saying ‘Bale is taller’ or something. Nobody cares who tracks back more.

For me, and I don’t even think it’s only ‘for me’ either, so long as the conversation is not based upon comparing a United great - close control is nothing compared to impact on a game/result for a forward player. You speak about ‘all-round game’ now, because seemingly that is a metric where Giggs is better in, not because it is of greatest relevance. I see numerous conversations and comparisons on this very forum about two players, and I often see the case made that it matters little that player ‘x’ has ‘fancy touches and technique’ (this is what it is reduced to when the argument suits). I’m from Nigeria, and one of my heroes was Okocha. As recently as yesterday I was arguing that Okocha was nowhere near as good as certain players who he obviously had far more natural ability than. I can’t say something like her was one of the best #10s of his generation’ just because he was amongst the most naturally talented. He obviously wasn’t. Which is why he was never, at any time, considered the ‘best player‘. I don’t think that is too dissimilar to Giggs. Just because he had great pace, balance, dribbling etc as headline abilities doesn’t make a player a ‘great player’. Great talent, for sure.

Many people on this forum are extremely quick to bring out pie charts and graphs to tell me that, despite the fact Pogba can dribble, pass with both feet, take long shots, score and create - he is little more than a ‘talented’ player. He is far less popular than Ryan Giggs was around these particular streets, so different rationale will always be applied. Giggs too was an inconsistent player for much of his career. His career was not 20 years of him just destroying full backs and then putting it on a forwards head. You have said the conversation should be moved away from goals and assists (Giggs has a great assist record for what it’s worth), but it’s a biased argument to compare judge two players by who was the most talented. If that were the case, I could find Championship midfielders better than Lampard probably. Or Hazard vs Cristiano Ronaldo could possibly be a valid debate. Bale was devastating. Winning games for his team regularly. Not by scoring two-ins either. He was blowing past players and putting it in the top corner. He’s done that for years. In the PL, he was head and shoulders above his peers. At that time, nobody would give a shit if you ‘valued dribbling, close control, tracking back’ or whatever else you listed if you tried to make an argument that another wide player was better than him in the PL. So why does that matter now? Ronaldo and Messi are compared, despite Messi being far more naturally talented (and tracking back more), because they both impact the game to similar levels. It’s not a slam dunk because Messi is a better dribbler. Taking away stylistic preference, Giggs is nowhere near Bale as an attacking player. And for what it’s worth, Bale is a fantastic crosser if the ball as well, which should not be ignored, especially when discussing ‘passing’.

You also say Bale has looked ‘cooked’ for two seasons too, which is a bit selective too in my opinion. He has had his injury problems, but has also still managed to look class on a fair few occasions when fit. It also implies that on the other hand, Giggs had 20 uninterrupted seasons where he was consistent and brilliant, never doubted etc - which is far from true.

I love our legends as much as the next. My observation from being around here for many years is that it’s very difficult to involve them in any conversation though. Their careers are ultimately airbrushed and summarised into a half an hour highlight reel, whereas the other player‘s game is forensically picked apart in a different way. Also, due to the success we enjoyed during their time, a players weaknesses and faults were never particularly focused on for long by the media or whatever. I certainly remember that for Giggs it wasn’t 20 years of pure brilliance. It was certainly a 20 year period where he was always capable of brilliance, because he’s just wonderfully gifted, for sure. But it always turns out the same. Those he can outdribble etc - he’ll win these arguments on talent, and anyone who has comparable natural ability will simply lose on longevity. That’s my observation anyway. Longevity is overplayed because he can’t be competed with there. That said, in the grand scheme of football player comparison, nobody ever cares if a player was playing til’ 40. It’s not a requirement for a player to secure his greatness in any other conversation except when compared to Giggs. And if we are comparing two left wingers, I don’t see why it matters what Giggs was doing as a central midfielder at 35. That doesn’t make him a better or worse forward over the course of his career.
 

mancan92

Full Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Messages
10,211
Location
Loughborough university
Bale had the higher peak and match winning contribution. If you are looking for a 1 time match at their peak I'd choose Bale. But over their careers then its Giggs
 

Renegade

Full Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
5,393
Giggs did not have 20 ‘superb’ seasons either. And it is still a warped argument, for me anyway. Nobody would dispute that Giggs had better close control. ‘Tracking back’ is also a reach in this comparison, come on. Next thing I’ll be saying ‘Bale is taller’ or something. Nobody cares who tracks back more.

For me, and I don’t even think it’s only ‘for me’ either, so long as the conversation is not based upon comparing a United great - close control is nothing compared to impact on a game/result for a forward player. You speak about ‘all-round game’ now, because seemingly that is a metric where Giggs is better in, not because it is of greatest relevance. I see numerous conversations and comparisons on this very forum about two players, and I often see the case made that it matters little that player ‘x’ has ‘fancy touches and technique’ (this is what it is reduced to when the argument suits). I’m from Nigeria, and one of my heroes was Okocha. As recently as yesterday I was arguing that Okocha was nowhere near as good as certain players who he obviously had far more natural ability than. I can’t say something like her was one of the best #10s of his generation’ just because he was amongst the most naturally talented. He obviously wasn’t. Which is why he was never, at any time, considered the ‘best player‘. I don’t think that is too dissimilar to Giggs. Just because he had great pace, balance, dribbling etc as headline abilities doesn’t make a player a ‘great player’. Great talent, for sure.

Many people on this forum are extremely quick to bring out pie charts and graphs to tell me that, despite the fact Pogba can dribble, pass with both feet, take long shots, score and create - he is little more than a ‘talented’ player. He is far less popular than Ryan Giggs was around these particular streets, so different rationale will always be applied. Giggs too was an inconsistent player for much of his career. His career was not 20 years of him just destroying full backs and then putting it on a forwards head. You have said the conversation should be moved away from goals and assists (Giggs has a great assist record for what it’s worth), but it’s a biased argument to compare judge two players by who was the most talented. If that were the case, I could find Championship midfielders better than Lampard probably. Or Hazard vs Cristiano Ronaldo could possibly be a valid debate. Bale was devastating. Winning games for his team regularly. Not by scoring two-ins either. He was blowing past players and putting it in the top corner. He’s done that for years. In the PL, he was head and shoulders above his peers. At that time, nobody would give a shit if you ‘valued dribbling, close control, tracking back’ or whatever else you listed if you tried to make an argument that another wide player was better than him in the PL. So why does that matter now? Ronaldo and Messi are compared, despite Messi being far more naturally talented (and tracking back more), because they both impact the game to similar levels. It’s not a slam dunk because Messi is a better dribbler. Taking away stylistic preference, Giggs is nowhere near Bale as an attacking player. And for what it’s worth, Bale is a fantastic crosser if the ball as well, which should not be ignored, especially when discussing ‘passing’.

You also say Bale has looked ‘cooked’ for two seasons too, which is a bit selective too in my opinion. He has had his injury problems, but has also still managed to look class on a fair few occasions when fit. It also implies that on the other hand, Giggs had 20 uninterrupted seasons where he was consistent and brilliant, never doubted etc - which is far from true.

I love our legends as much as the next. My observation from being around here for many years is that it’s very difficult to involve them in any conversation though. Their careers are ultimately airbrushed and summarised into a half an hour highlight reel, whereas the other player‘s game is forensically picked apart in a different way. Also, due to the success we enjoyed during their time, a players weaknesses and faults were never particularly focused on for long by the media or whatever. I certainly remember that for Giggs it wasn’t 20 years of pure brilliance. It was certainly a 20 year period where he was always capable of brilliance, because he’s just wonderfully gifted, for sure. But it always turns out the same. Those he can outdribble etc - he’ll win these arguments on talent, and anyone who has comparable natural ability will simply lose on longevity. That’s my observation anyway. Longevity is overplayed because he can’t be competed with there. That said, in the grand scheme of football player comparison, nobody ever cares if a player was playing til’ 40. It’s not a requirement for a player to secure his greatness in any other conversation except when compared to Giggs. And if we are comparing two left wingers, I don’t see why it matters what Giggs was doing as a central midfielder at 35. That doesn’t make him a better or worse forward over the course of his career.
Quality post mate. My feelings on the comparison summed up right here.
 

harms

Shining Star of Paektu Mountain
Staff
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
27,953
Location
Moscow
People that are saying that Giggs can do everything that Bale can and the difference in their goalscoring stats are simply due to their respective roles aren't completely fair with themselves. Bale's shooting technique and power that he put into his shots were (are?) astonishing; Beckham and Scholes may try to rival him in this regard, but not Giggs, it's not even close. Just take a look at 2012/13 (hopefully I'm not wrong) season, where he had scored a screamer every other game. I love Giggsy to bits, but he's just not capable of it — thankfully, he had his dribbling and creativity to compensate for it.
 

youngrell

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
3,545
Location
South Wales
Giggs did not have 20 ‘superb’ seasons either. And it is still a warped argument, for me anyway. Nobody would dispute that Giggs had better close control. ‘Tracking back’ is also a reach in this comparison, come on. Next thing I’ll be saying ‘Bale is taller’ or something. Nobody cares who tracks back more.

For me, and I don’t even think it’s only ‘for me’ either, so long as the conversation is not based upon comparing a United great - close control is nothing compared to impact on a game/result for a forward player. You speak about ‘all-round game’ now, because seemingly that is a metric where Giggs is better in, not because it is of greatest relevance. I see numerous conversations and comparisons on this very forum about two players, and I often see the case made that it matters little that player ‘x’ has ‘fancy touches and technique’ (this is what it is reduced to when the argument suits). I’m from Nigeria, and one of my heroes was Okocha. As recently as yesterday I was arguing that Okocha was nowhere near as good as certain players who he obviously had far more natural ability than. I can’t say something like her was one of the best #10s of his generation’ just because he was amongst the most naturally talented. He obviously wasn’t. Which is why he was never, at any time, considered the ‘best player‘. I don’t think that is too dissimilar to Giggs. Just because he had great pace, balance, dribbling etc as headline abilities doesn’t make a player a ‘great player’. Great talent, for sure.

Many people on this forum are extremely quick to bring out pie charts and graphs to tell me that, despite the fact Pogba can dribble, pass with both feet, take long shots, score and create - he is little more than a ‘talented’ player. He is far less popular than Ryan Giggs was around these particular streets, so different rationale will always be applied. Giggs too was an inconsistent player for much of his career. His career was not 20 years of him just destroying full backs and then putting it on a forwards head. You have said the conversation should be moved away from goals and assists (Giggs has a great assist record for what it’s worth), but it’s a biased argument to compare judge two players by who was the most talented. If that were the case, I could find Championship midfielders better than Lampard probably. Or Hazard vs Cristiano Ronaldo could possibly be a valid debate. Bale was devastating. Winning games for his team regularly. Not by scoring two-ins either. He was blowing past players and putting it in the top corner. He’s done that for years. In the PL, he was head and shoulders above his peers. At that time, nobody would give a shit if you ‘valued dribbling, close control, tracking back’ or whatever else you listed if you tried to make an argument that another wide player was better than him in the PL. So why does that matter now? Ronaldo and Messi are compared, despite Messi being far more naturally talented (and tracking back more), because they both impact the game to similar levels. It’s not a slam dunk because Messi is a better dribbler. Taking away stylistic preference, Giggs is nowhere near Bale as an attacking player. And for what it’s worth, Bale is a fantastic crosser if the ball as well, which should not be ignored, especially when discussing ‘passing’.

You also say Bale has looked ‘cooked’ for two seasons too, which is a bit selective too in my opinion. He has had his injury problems, but has also still managed to look class on a fair few occasions when fit. It also implies that on the other hand, Giggs had 20 uninterrupted seasons where he was consistent and brilliant, never doubted etc - which is far from true.

I love our legends as much as the next. My observation from being around here for many years is that it’s very difficult to involve them in any conversation though. Their careers are ultimately airbrushed and summarised into a half an hour highlight reel, whereas the other player‘s game is forensically picked apart in a different way. Also, due to the success we enjoyed during their time, a players weaknesses and faults were never particularly focused on for long by the media or whatever. I certainly remember that for Giggs it wasn’t 20 years of pure brilliance. It was certainly a 20 year period where he was always capable of brilliance, because he’s just wonderfully gifted, for sure. But it always turns out the same. Those he can outdribble etc - he’ll win these arguments on talent, and anyone who has comparable natural ability will simply lose on longevity. That’s my observation anyway. Longevity is overplayed because he can’t be competed with there. That said, in the grand scheme of football player comparison, nobody ever cares if a player was playing til’ 40. It’s not a requirement for a player to secure his greatness in any other conversation except when compared to Giggs. And if we are comparing two left wingers, I don’t see why it matters what Giggs was doing as a central midfielder at 35. That doesn’t make him a better or worse forward over the course of his career.
Giggs' longevity is part of what makes him so great. Why you are always so keen to dismiss that is beyond me. Sure, he wasn't at his best always, nobody is, but he contributed to the team at a high level for 20 seasons.

Anyone can have a one off great game, or extending it further have a great season or two, but maintaining that level for an even longer period is a true mark of greatness. How many times have you heard the saying 'form is temporary, class is permanent'?

Using Giggs' longevity in this particular debate is just as fair as using goal stats for Bale, considering Bale has spent his peak years as a forward and not as a winger. I have no doubt Giggs would have greater goal stats had he played in this generation as a wide forward or a 10.
 

2mufc0

Everything is fair game in capitalism!
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
16,992
Supports
Dragon of Dojima
Giggs was destroying some of the finest defenders in the world at a really young age, including 90's Serie A teams in the CL , which is no mean feat as Serie A in that period is up there as one of the best defensive leagues of all time, Bale never faced such opponents. The game has also changed, traditional wingers like Giggs at his peak don't really exist anymore (creators) and everything these days is about the stats to the current generation, so when you pull up the goal stats it appears not very close . Bale's output (goals) is better but only because he played a different role/position as a wing forward. In terms of skill set the only thing imo Bale has over Giggs is his shooting, peak pace would be similar however dribbling and passing Giggs takes it. Then you have work rate, mentality and versatility which Giggs is miles ahead.
 
Last edited:

big rons sovereign

New Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2015
Messages
6,160
Bale is a kick and rush merchant with a powerful shot but made of porridge and balsa wood.
Giggs played at the very top into his 40s and won everything multiple times.
Is it even up for debate?
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
27,025
Location
...
Bale is a kick and rush merchant with a powerful shot but made of porridge and balsa wood.
Giggs played at the very top into his 40s and won everything multiple times.
Is it even up for debate?
Well, not if you summarise it’s like that, no.
 

2mufc0

Everything is fair game in capitalism!
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
16,992
Supports
Dragon of Dojima
What did ronaldinho do after 28 ?
And it's one of the reasons he's not rated in the top tier of Brazilian footballers.
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
95,337
Location
india
Giggs did not have 20 ‘superb’ seasons either. And it is still a warped argument, for me anyway. Nobody would dispute that Giggs had better close control. ‘Tracking back’ is also a reach in this comparison, come on. Next thing I’ll be saying ‘Bale is taller’ or something. Nobody cares who tracks back more.
By normal player standards he absolutely did. I didn't say he had 20 elite level seasons. He was a renown and influential player at arguably the biggest club on the planet for a long long time. Bale wasn't. If you dont think that's an important factor in comparing two players and comparable to "height" then there's no point in debating.

And tracking back does matter given it was important to Giggs' role for a good chunk of his career. He could have spent that time faffing about taking loose touches and coming up with a goal at the end of it. But he had a different role and it has to be considered.

For me, and I don’t even think it’s only ‘for me’ either, so long as the conversation is not based upon comparing a United great - close control is nothing compared to impact on a game/result for a forward player. You speak about ‘all-round game’ now, because seemingly that is a metric where Giggs is better in, not because it is of greatest relevance. I see numerous conversations and comparisons on this very forum about two players, and I often see the case made that it matters little that player ‘x’ has ‘fancy touches and technique’ (this is what it is reduced to when the argument suits). I’m from Nigeria, and one of my heroes was Okocha. As recently as yesterday I was arguing that Okocha was nowhere near as good as certain players who he obviously had far more natural ability than. I can’t say something like her was one of the best #10s of his generation’ just because he was amongst the most naturally talented. He obviously wasn’t. Which is why he was never, at any time, considered the ‘best player‘. I don’t think that is too dissimilar to Giggs. Just because he had great pace, balance, dribbling etc as headline abilities doesn’t make a player a ‘great player’. Great talent, for sure.

For me, and I don’t even think it’s only ‘for me’ either, so long as the conversation is not based upon comparing a United great - close control is nothing compared to impact on a game/result for a forward player. You speak about ‘all-round game’ now, because seemingly that is a metric where Giggs is better in, not because it is of greatest relevance. I see numerous conversations and comparisons on this very forum about two players, and I often see the case made that it matters little that player ‘x’ has ‘fancy touches and technique’ (this is what it is reduced to when the argument suits). I’m from Nigeria, and one of my heroes was Okocha. As recently as yesterday I was arguing that Okocha was nowhere near as good as certain players who he obviously had far more natural ability than. I can’t say something like her was one of the best #10s of his generation’ just because he was amongst the most naturally talented. He obviously wasn’t. Which is why he was never, at any time, considered the ‘best player‘. I don’t think that is too dissimilar to Giggs. Just because he had great pace, balance, dribbling etc as headline abilities doesn’t make a player a ‘great player’. Great talent, for sure.
The conversation, not based on his "United" legend, is still in favour of Giggs. He isn't' the equivalent of Okocha or Queresma FFS. He was a genuinely excellent footballer at the highest level. What do you think he was doing on the football pitch with his exceptional technical abilities and intelligence? He was making a difference. Just because I don't rate him as highly as Scholes or other United greats doesnt mean he wasn't better than Bale, who is considerably overrated among British fans. Excellent player, great end product, but I'd take tons of players over Bale. And "general play" and "technical abilities" isn't inconsequential fancy nonsense, when we're comparing him to a player who lacks in specifically these areas.

Many people on this forum are extremely quick to bring out pie charts and graphs to tell me that, despite the fact Pogba can dribble, pass with both feet, take long shots, score and create - he is little more than a ‘talented’ player. He is far less popular than Ryan Giggs was around these particular streets, so different rationale will always be applied. Giggs too was an inconsistent player for much of his career. His career was not 20 years of him just destroying full backs and then putting it on a forwards head. You have said the conversation should be moved away from goals and assists (Giggs has a great assist record for what it’s worth), but it’s a biased argument to compare judge two players by who was the most talented. If that were the case, I could find Championship midfielders better than Lampard probably. Or Hazard vs Cristiano Ronaldo could possibly be a valid debate. Bale was devastating. Winning games for his team regularly. Not by scoring two-ins either. He was blowing past players and putting it in the top corner. He’s done that for years. In the PL, he was head and shoulders above his peers. At that time, nobody would give a shit if you ‘valued dribbling, close control, tracking back’ or whatever else you listed if you tried to make an argument that another wide player was better than him in the PL. So why does that matter now? Ronaldo and Messi are compared, despite Messi being far more naturally talented (and tracking back more), because they both impact the game to similar levels. It’s not a slam dunk because Messi is a better dribbler. Taking away stylistic preference, Giggs is nowhere near Bale as an attacking player. And for what it’s worth, Bale is a fantastic crosser if the ball as well, which should not be ignored, especially when discussing ‘passing’.
Well no, Pogba and Giggs are both brilliant footballers. The people who claim they aren't based on their preference for end product (Giggs) only or nice guy hairdos (Pogba) have it wrong.

And Messi is comfortably better than Ronaldo and their impact is not at a similar level because the formers technical qualities and intelligence does make a difference. Maybe you wish to focus purely on the things reflected in G+A but I don't. Players can influence games in many ways. I don't think Giggs' all round quality elevates him above every player that was better infront of goal, but certainly ahead of Bale. IMO of course.
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
27,025
Location
...
Giggs' longevity is part of what makes him so great. Why you are always so keen to dismiss that is beyond me. Sure, he wasn't at his best always, nobody is, but he contributed to the team at a high level for 20 seasons.

Anyone can have a one off great game, or extending it further have a great season or two, but maintaining that level for an even longer period is a true mark of greatness. How many times have you heard the saying 'form is temporary, class is permanent'?

Using Giggs' longevity in this particular debate is just as fair as using goal stats for Bale, considering Bale has spent his peak years as a forward and not as a winger. I have no doubt Giggs would have greater goal stats had he played in this generation as a wide forward or a 10.
I’m ‘keen to dismiss’ it because it is a curve ball brought in to these things that if you think about it, have far less relevance than it is given in these debates. Giggs isn’t the only great player ever. There have been many, and the vast majority of them did not play until 40. So what does that mean for them? I mean, while it is impressive, don’t get me wrong, it has little to do with being rated better than a player who played until 35, like all the other great players, some better or worse than Giggs.

Also, Giggs didn’t play as a winger until 40, so I don’t believe the fact that he was on the football pitch at 40 is relevant when comparing two wingers. If Giggs spent the last 8 years playing in goal it shouldn’t be used to determine whether he was a better winger than Robben.
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
27,025
Location
...
I’m ‘keen to dismiss’ it because it is a curve ball brought in to these things that if you think about it, have far less relevance than it is given in these debates. Giggs isn’t the only great player ever. There have been many, and the vast majority of them did not play until 40. So what does that mean for them? I mean, while it is impressive, don’t get me wrong, it has little to do with being rated better than a player who played until 35, like all the other great players, some better or worse than Giggs.

Also, Giggs didn’t play as a winger until 40, so I don’t believe the fact that he was on the football pitch at 40 is relevant when comparing two wingers. If Giggs spent the last 8 years playing in goal it shouldn’t be used to determine whether he was a better winger than Robben.
I respect your opinion sir.
 

Gio

★★★★★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
20,300
Location
Bonnie Scotland
Supports
Rangers
Giggs didn't merely play till 40. He performed superbly till he was nearly 40. Bale has looked cooked for nearly two years.
This will sound harsh, but there were plenty of periods during Giggs' career where he looked similarly cooked. That's why despite all the promise and searing potential he showed in the 1990s, he was never widely considered to be one of the top 5-10 players around. He never made into a European Sports Magazine Team of the Season where they would always pick a left-sided midfielder as the cream of the crop in Europe that year. And only three times in his career did he get a vote in the Ballon D'Or, which usually numbers the top 30-40 players in Europe, and his highest place through his best years was 21st. Bale boasts five campaigns - 6th, 10th, 12th, 15th, 17th - in the top 20 alone. Such awards aren't perfect - and will favour players who shone brightest on the big occasions - but clearly they show that Bale was more widely appreciated by neutrals outside the United fanbase. At least until Giggs got the end of career Matthews-esque acclaim in 2009.

Of course it is to Giggs' eternal credit that he had the variety in his game and the ingenuity to reinvent himself to impact games over two decades at the top. He certainly surpasses Bale in many ways and the answer to the question purely depends on how you define 'greater'.
 

hmchan

Full Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2017
Messages
1,429
Location
Hong Kong
People that are saying that Giggs can do everything that Bale can and the difference in their goalscoring stats are simply due to their respective roles aren't completely fair with themselves. Bale's shooting technique and power that he put into his shots were (are?) astonishing; Beckham and Scholes may try to rival him in this regard, but not Giggs, it's not even close. Just take a look at 2012/13 (hopefully I'm not wrong) season, where he had scored a screamer every other game. I love Giggsy to bits, but he's just not capable of it — thankfully, he had his dribbling and creativity to compensate for it.
Yes it's 12/13, the season before he joined Madrid. He scored numerous rockets that season and it's worth to note that plenty of them were match-saving, including the 80' solo effort against Norwich to rescue a draw, the top bin match-winners against West Ham and Sunderland at 90', another top bin against West Brom in the second half, and the only goal against Southampton at 86'. He kept delivering screamers at important moments and he was one of the few players who made me "wow" watching a game. It's unfortunate his life under the shadow of Ronaldo and injury problem overwrote his brilliance at Tottenham, and made people forget how good he was.
 

RedRonaldo

Wishes to be oppressed.
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
18,996
Bale peak is higher, but Giggs has better career.

Let's just say, If I want a player at his peak to play from my team for 2-3 years, I'll pick Bale.
But if I want a player to play for my team throughout his career, I'll surely pick Giggs.

One is Legend for his club, one isn't well respected among the manager/fans for his club during his most successful years there.

On trophies count along, Giggs is at Messi/Ronaldo level: 13 league titles, 2 CL, 19 Cups . - total 34 trophies won.
Bale has 13 trophies, which is quite good too, thanks for being at the same club as Ronaldo. But he is far from Giggs level of achievements.
 
Last edited:

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
People that are saying that Giggs can do everything that Bale can and the difference in their goalscoring stats are simply due to their respective roles aren't completely fair with themselves. Bale's shooting technique and power that he put into his shots were (are?) astonishing; Beckham and Scholes may try to rival him in this regard, but not Giggs, it's not even close. Just take a look at 2012/13 (hopefully I'm not wrong) season, where he had scored a screamer every other game. I love Giggsy to bits, but he's just not capable of it — thankfully, he had his dribbling and creativity to compensate for it.
Thats the reason Lampard and Gerrard were overrated by so many. Its telling that the Spanish want Isco over Bale with Bales do nothing but make a run or score from distance per game style thats being lauded on British / Irish forum.
I thought we moved on from that but apparently not, this Roy of the Rovers bullshit needs to be left in the past.
Its why Bale and the like are praised for moments rather than overall ability. Oh look at this 80th minute winner etc etc while players like Giggs, Scholes, Isco etc influence the flow of games and add the consistency which is needed at the top level.
You never see Bale get compared to Iniesta even though he falls further short in the score crackers from 35 yards category and Iniesta played out on wide for a large period of his career as well
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
27,025
Location
...
This will sound harsh, but there were plenty of periods during Giggs' career where he looked similarly cooked. That's why despite all the promise and searing potential he showed in the 1990s, he was never widely considered to be one of the top 5-10 players around. He never made into a European Sports Magazine Team of the Season where they would always pick a left-sided midfielder as the cream of the crop in Europe that year. And only three times in his career did he get a vote in the Ballon D'Or, which usually numbers the top 30-40 players in Europe, and his highest place through his best years was 21st. Bale boasts five campaigns - 6th, 10th, 12th, 15th, 17th - in the top 20 alone. Such awards aren't perfect - and will favour players who shone brightest on the big occasions - but clearly they show that Bale was more widely appreciated by neutrals outside the United fanbase. At least until Giggs got the end of career Matthews-esque acclaim in 2009.

Of course it is to Giggs' eternal credit that he had the variety in his game and the ingenuity to reinvent himself to impact games over two decades at the top. He certainly surpasses Bale in many ways and the answer to the question purely depends on how you define 'greater'.
These are my sentiments too.

This is before we really start even discussing his performances for Wales. He has turned up big time for them on numerous occasions. He won 3 back to back CLs, scoring goals in 2 CL finals. He was the best player in the PL. He was also very good for Madrid for a long time. He’s had his ups and downs, but the further in the past Giggs’ career gets, his story changes to one of only ‘ups’. It wasn’t.

For me, when looking at Giggs from 17-22 years old, he never became the player he could have become. The fact the he never became the best, or even in the top 3 PL players in the PL during his peak years is not in keeping with what he showed as a youngster. There is a very valid argument that he was rarely in the best 3 players at Manchester United during his prime, let alone beyond.
 

RedRonaldo

Wishes to be oppressed.
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
18,996
I always thought Bale is Ronaldo's clone or wanna be, matching Ronaldo pace, shooting power and explosiveness during his peak, but without his mentality/consistency/trickery and couldn't quite match his finishing/composure/goalscoring etc.

Giggs is one of his own kind. His dribbling and passing is simply better. They are both very fast, but he does't have Bale's explosiveness, shooting power/goalscoring ability. Giggsis also much better in adapting/evolving his games when he ages, Bale is more like a speed merchant with great shooting power/technique all the time, I doubt he ages well though.

On side-note, Bale is probably better golfer.
 

RedRonaldo

Wishes to be oppressed.
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
18,996
For me, when looking at Giggs from 17-22 years old, he never became the player he could have become. The fact the he never became the best, or even in the top 3 PL players in the PL during his peak years is not in keeping with what he showed as a youngster. There is a very valid argument that he was rarely in the best 3 players at Manchester United during his prime, let alone beyond.
Its true, he didn't quite reach the peak we all thought he would be, but then no one could have imagined he would have such a long successful career with us. Its abit like Maldini situation for Milan, although he never really any won player of the year awards during his peak, I don't think anyone would have questioned that he is better than Cannavaro or VVD, who seems to peak higher at some point.
 

Morty_

Full Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
2,813
Supports
Real Madrid
I always thought Bale is Ronaldo's clone or wanna be, matching Ronaldo pace, shooting power and explosiveness during his peak, but without his mentality/consistency/trickery and couldn't quite match his finishing/composure/goalscoring etc.

Giggs is one of his own kind. His dribbling and passing is simply better. They are both very fast, but he does't have Bale's explosiveness, shooting power/goalscoring ability. Giggsis also much better in adapting/evolving his games when he ages, Bale is more like a speed merchant with great shooting power/technique all the time, I doubt he ages well though.

On side-note, Bale is probably better golfer.
Bale may be viewed as a "Ronaldo clone", i guess they had more similarities when Ronaldo was operating more out wide.
But as for goal poaching, something that always held Bale back a bit in this regard is that he isnt that good with his right foot, Ronaldo can finish with both feets, i feel thats quite important when you are being a goalscorer in the box, you dont always have time to shift it over to your favored foot.
 

Morty_

Full Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
2,813
Supports
Real Madrid
Bales top level(2012/13 especially) was probably higher than Giggs? I cant tell, i didnt really watch Giggs much in his prime.
 

red4ever 79

New Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
9,530
Location
Czech Republic
Its true, he didn't quite reach the peak we all thought he would be, but then no one could have imagined he would have such a long successful career with us. Its abit like Maldini situation for Milan, although he never really any won player of the year awards during his peak, I don't think anyone would have questioned that he is better than Cannavaro or VVD, who seems to peak higher at some point.
Except that Maldini was the best fullback in the world for a long period of time
 

harms

Shining Star of Paektu Mountain
Staff
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
27,953
Location
Moscow
Thats the reason Lampard and Gerrard were overrated by so many. Its telling that the Spanish want Isco over Bale with Bales do nothing but make a run or score from distance per game style thats being lauded on British / Irish forum.
I thought we moved on from that but apparently not, this Roy of the Rovers bullshit needs to be left in the past.
Its why Bale and the like are praised for moments rather than overall ability. Oh look at this 80th minute winner etc etc while players like Giggs, Scholes, Isco etc influence the flow of games and add the consistency which is needed at the top level.
You never see Bale get compared to Iniesta even though he falls further short in the score crackers from 35 yards category and Iniesta played out on wide for a large period of his career as well
Giggs was also a highlights player for most of his career. With the likes of Gerrard, there’s an argument that a central midfielder should control the game rather than try to score and be a hero; Giggs was an X-factor, like Bale, who often spent half the game strolling around before suddenly bursting out with a moment of genius. But Bale played further forward — and a brilliant thing about him was that at his peak he actually made those long distance shots not only easy on the eyes, but also quite effective. The bad example would be someone like Coutinho, peak Bale is closer to Robben in that regard.

Not sure how Iniesta gets into this conversation, he’s on another level to any player that’s been discussed in this thread. Madrid fans prefer Isco, because he’s simply in a better form right now and has been for the last couple of years.
 

youngrell

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
3,545
Location
South Wales
I’m ‘keen to dismiss’ it because it is a curve ball brought in to these things that if you think about it, have far less relevance than it is given in these debates. Giggs isn’t the only great player ever. There have been many, and the vast majority of them did not play until 40. So what does that mean for them? I mean, while it is impressive, don’t get me wrong, it has little to do with being rated better than a player who played until 35, like all the other great players, some better or worse than Giggs.

Also, Giggs didn’t play as a winger until 40, so I don’t believe the fact that he was on the football pitch at 40 is relevant when comparing two wingers. If Giggs spent the last 8 years playing in goal it shouldn’t be used to determine whether he was a better winger than Robben.
It's relevance is down to the fact that it is so rare. You can't simply dismiss Giggs' longevity and trophy haul when considering his greatness, because it is quite a large part of it. People were amazed that the guy was still producing the goods 22 seasons later, and in a completely different role at that.

There a very few players in history to do what he has done, to remove that from the debate would be silly.

I'd also like to point out that even if you condensed Giggs' career to that of a normal length one, he was still a top level player who regularly produced on the highest stage. Not only was his overall skill set at a tremendous level, he was also extremely productive. A goal or assist in every other game for over 900 games is remarkable, no matter which way you slice it. And think about all the other goals he'd have been involved with without applying the finishing touch or pass that stats do not tell us.
 

harms

Shining Star of Paektu Mountain
Staff
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
27,953
Location
Moscow
Its true, he didn't quite reach the peak we all thought he would be, but then no one could have imagined he would have such a long successful career with us. Its abit like Maldini situation for Milan, although he never really any won player of the year awards during his peak, I don't think anyone would have questioned that he is better than Cannavaro or VVD, who seems to peak higher at some point.
You mean 1994 World Soccer’s Player of the Year Maldini?
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
95,337
Location
india
And for what it’s worth, Bale is a fantastic crosser if the ball as well, which should not be ignored, especially when discussing ‘passing’.
Giggs was also a good crosser and much better at most other types of passing so much so that he could play very well in midfield.

I love our legends as much as the next. My observation from being around here for many years is that it’s very difficult to involve them in any conversation though. Their careers are ultimately airbrushed and summarised into a half an hour highlight reel, whereas the other player‘s game is forensically picked apart in a different way. Also, due to the success we enjoyed during their time, a players weaknesses and faults were never particularly focused on for long by the media or whatever. I certainly remember that for Giggs it wasn’t 20 years of pure brilliance. It was certainly a 20 year period where he was always capable of brilliance, because he’s just wonderfully gifted, for sure. But it always turns out the same. Those he can outdribble etc - he’ll win these arguments on talent, and anyone who has comparable natural ability will simply lose on longevity. That’s my observation anyway. Longevity is overplayed because he can’t be competed with there. That said, in the grand scheme of football player comparison, nobody ever cares if a player was playing til’ 40. It’s not a requirement for a player to secure his greatness in any other conversation except when compared to Giggs. And if we are comparing two left wingers, I don’t see why it matters what Giggs was doing as a central midfielder at 35. That doesn’t make him a better or worse forward over the course of his career.
I dont have crazy love for Giggs as a player. I respect all that he's done for us of course but he's a bit of a tit as a person and I am more fond of many other United players ahead of him. But like I said, his achievements in football are terrific. Maybe he couldnt' achieve the sort of peak like say an Henry that many wanted, but I also completely disagree with how little you regard longeivity. That others can't compete with that, is a brilliant testament to his talent and attitute. That he could perform as a CM/AM at 35 DOES matter since be wasn't just strolling around just existing. It takes a fantastic player to do that, just like it took something special for Scholes to transform himself into a quarter back role. Peak is important, but unless we're only discuss a player in their perfect form, we have to look at the entirety of their career and footballing contributions and Giggs wins for me.
It's relevance is down to the fact that it is so rare. You can't simply dismiss Giggs' longevity and trophy haul when considering his greatness, because it is quite a large part of it. People were amazed that the guy was still producing the goods 22 seasons later, and in a completely different role at that.

There a very few players in history to do what he has done, to remove that from the debate would be silly.

I'd also like to point out that even if you condensed Giggs' career to that of a normal length one, he was still a top level player who regularly produced on the highest stage. Not only was his overall skill set at a tremendous level, he was also extremely productive. A goal or assist in every other game for over 900 games is remarkable, no matter which way you slice it. And think about all the other goals he'd have been involved with without applying the finishing touch or pass that stats do not tell us.
Agree
 

2mufc0

Everything is fair game in capitalism!
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
16,992
Supports
Dragon of Dojima
Giggs was also a good crosser and much better at most other types of passing so much so that he could play very well in midfield.



I dont have crazy love for Giggs as a player. I respect all that he's done for us of course but he's a bit of a tit as a person and I am more fond of many other United players ahead of him. But like I said, his achievements in football are terrific. Maybe he couldnt' achieve the sort of peak like say an Henry that many wanted, but I also completely disagree with how little you regard longeivity. That others can't compete with that, is a brilliant testament to his talent and attitute. That he could perform as a CM/AM at 35 DOES matter since be wasn't just strolling around just existing. It takes a fantastic player to do that, just like it took something special for Scholes to transform himself into a quarter back role. Peak is important, but unless we're only discuss a player in their perfect form, we have to look at the entirety of their career and footballing contributions and Giggs wins for me.
Agree
I was lucky enough to watch Giggs live a number of times in different stages of his career, and he never came across as a strolling type of player no matter his age. The guy worked his bollocks off and although he didn't look it he was a strong tenacious fecker too not afraid to put his boot in, as others said he was also extremely intelligent.
 
Last edited:

Jim Beam

Gets aroused by men in low socks
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
13,013
Location
All over the place
It's relevance is down to the fact that it is so rare. You can't simply dismiss Giggs' longevity and trophy haul when considering his greatness, because it is quite a large part of it. People were amazed that the guy was still producing the goods 22 seasons later, and in a completely different role at that.

There a very few players in history to do what he has done, to remove that from the debate would be silly.

I'd also like to point out that even if you condensed Giggs' career to that of a normal length one, he was still a top level player who regularly produced on the highest stage. Not only was his overall skill set at a tremendous level, he was also extremely productive. A goal or assist in every other game for over 900 games is remarkable, no matter which way you slice it. And think about all the other goals he'd have been involved with without applying the finishing touch or pass that stats do not tell us.
Amen
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
27,025
Location
...
It's relevance is down to the fact that it is so rare. You can't simply dismiss Giggs' longevity and trophy haul when considering his greatness, because it is quite a large part of it. People were amazed that the guy was still producing the goods 22 seasons later, and in a completely different role at that.

There a very few players in history to do what he has done, to remove that from the debate would be silly.

I'd also like to point out that even if you condensed Giggs' career to that of a normal length one, he was still a top level player who regularly produced on the highest stage. Not only was his overall skill set at a tremendous level, he was also extremely productive. A goal or assist in every other game for over 900 games is remarkable, no matter which way you slice it. And think about all the other goals he'd have been involved with without applying the finishing touch or pass that stats do not tell us.
Well he obviously wasn’t rubbish. That wasn’t my point. Only when you start having a conversation like you have done in this post, what I feel is a reasonable one, talking about the good things he did as a winger forward - it simply wasn’t as good as what Bale was doing.

Playing football for longer is impressive, as I said. It is also irrelevant in determining who was better, providing the person you are comparing him too didn’t only play at the top for 6 months or 2.5 years etc. If a player has a good 8/9 years at the top of the game, I couldn’t care less if the other player had 15 at that stage. The point is that both players played at a level long enough for you to be able to answer the question, the real question. ‘Who was better?’

If I were comparing Giggs and Sancho, then I expect to hear a lot more about longevity in determining who was better. Giggs and Bale, it’s a more straightforward question. You can then go and separately give Giggs his separate praise for playing at the top for longer. Well done Giggs. Some players retire at 35, some 38, and in rare cases - 40. So what? That doesn’t make any of those players better than the other. If you indeed think Giggs was simply better than Bale, that is fair enough, but he is not better because he retired at 40, and Bale (who is yet to even retire!), probably won’t. It is a footnote at best, often elevated towards the most important of determining factors in this type of discussion. Eric Cantona got bored one day and retired at 30 or 31. Henry didn’t. Most people think Henry was better, and would have been so if he even retired a year before Cantona. It has nothing to do with who played longest. Both players played for long enough. It’s a red herring in a player comparison. Cantona is better than a whole host of players, good players too, that played for a lot longer.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
52,712
I for one, am shocked that Giggs came out 90% to 10% on a Man Utd forum poll :lol:
 

Yagami

Good post resistant
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
13,472
I've been watching plenty of games from around the 06-10 or so era recently and Giggs is just brilliant. So much better than I remembered from when he was adjusting his game from speed and dribbling (though he could still beat players for fun centrally even if he had more trouble doing so out wide) to a playmaker.

He kinda gets overshadowed from that era with Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez, Berbatov, etc, in terms of my personal memory of our attack, but my memory has done him a disservice.

Him and Scholes not only playing at the top for as long they did, but both having successfully made transitions as their body/game changed still impresses me so much.