All-Time XI

The Easter Bunny wrote:

worms wrote:

S4P wrote:Worms are you going to do some XIs for all your teams?

I'm not made of time

Who is your favourite 90's Zenit player?

I only started supporting them in the early/mid 2000's.Back in the 90's Russian football weren't on the T.V plus I didn't have the internet.

World Cup winners in bold:

of all times:

---------------------Gilmar-------------------------

--Zé Maria--Gamarra----Domingos da Guia--Wladimir--

---Rivelino---Sócrates-----Neto-----Luizinho--------

----------------Ronaldo-----Neco--------------------

That I've seen:

----------------------Dida---------------------------

--Giba---------Gamarra------Marcelo----------Sylvinho--

--------------Rincon--------Vampeta--------------------

-------------Neto----------------Marcelinho-----------

--------------Ronaldo-----------Tevez-----------------

..............Miller................

Gibbs....Foster....Galli....Kennedy

Young....Johnson....Hyde....Mooney

...............Ramage..............

................King...............





..................Seaman........................

Neville....Campbell....Ferdinand....Cole..

Anderton....Ince....Gascoigne....McManaman

.............Sheringham....................

...............Shearer......................



@ Pras_Tama - you started watching football in '96 and you'd have RVN ahead of Paddy for Holland ?!

@ Worms - the person you quoted re Rui Costa v Zidane implies that Zidane shouldn't have won Golden Ball - it should have been Cannavaro but if he thinks anyone other than Pirlo should have got anywhere near it he's a fucking idiot.

Pierre Littbarski wrote:..............Miller................

Gibbs....Foster....Galli....Kennedy

Young....Johnson....Hyde....Mooney

...............Ramage..............

................King...............





..................Seaman........................

Neville....Campbell....Ferdinand....Cole..

Anderton....Ince....Gascoigne....McManaman

.............Sheringham....................

...............Shearer......................

@ Pras_Tama - you started watching football in '96 and you'd have RVN ahead of Paddy for Holland ?!

@ Worms - the person you quoted re Rui Costa v Zidane implies that Zidane shouldn't have won Golden Ball - it should have been Cannavaro but if he thinks anyone other than Pirlo should have got anywhere near it he's a fucking idiot.

RvN is my personal favourite, he doesn't get to my Man Utd XI so I pick him for my Holland XI

re your England XI, what did Anderton/Sheringham has that Beckham/Rooney hasn't?

worms wrote:

Jaime wrote:

worms wrote:

bluenine wrote:

Pras_tama wrote:So who do you think deserved that ballon d'or 98 apart from Zidane?

I don't know what you're smoking when you say Rui Costa was as good as Zidane if not better I will always remember Rui Costa as a lazy player. When he got the ball, he was just trying to pass it, nothing else, while Zidane at least tried to beat his man and sometimes he did it elegantly

Actually Pras, its not as ridiculous a comparison as you would think, apart from the fact that Rui could also play as a deep lying playmaker. In Serie A in the 90s, Rui Costa was generally regarded as a better trequartista than Zidane. Zidane achieved more for his country and then later with Real, while Rui & his Portuguese "golden generation" failed at the international level... so history books will (rightly) call Zidane the greater player. But in the 90s, Rui was generally regarded as the better player, and as I am sure you know, he is by far the most expensive player Milan have ever bought, for a reason. One of the most gifted players of his generation...

Though I do not agree with worms that Zidane is over rated, he was a genius. But I guess its more of a case of Rui Costa being a bit under appreciated.

Exactly Zidane might have had a more successful career but many people who watched Series A in the 90's think Rui Costa was a more talented/better player including me.

How much football did you watch in the 90s? Aren't you 19?

I watched quite a bit,at least for an English person. On average probably only 2 matches a weekend but over several years it's enough to judge players.And the highlights as well.

Serie A in the 90's

And no don't listen to 10%,when I said I was 19 and a half it was obviously a joke...hence why I said "and a half".

Who except for kids make fun of someone's name. It is like being in a playground.

Apart from your obviously hilarious "joke" the use of "+1" and "#" is a clear sign that you are a teenager. Personally I thought you were even younger than nineteen.

As for people getting their opinions from the media and you watching football in the 90s on tv. Worms#hypocrit +1
Not sure if that is the correct usage of it as I am not a teenager, but you get the gist.

Pierre Littbarski wrote:..............Miller................

Gibbs....Foster....Galli....Kennedy

Young....Johnson....Hyde....Mooney

...............Ramage..............

................King...............





..................Seaman........................

Neville....Campbell....Ferdinand....Cole..

Anderton....Ince....Gascoigne....McManaman

.............Sheringham....................

...............Shearer......................



@ Pras_Tama - you started watching football in '96 and you'd have RVN ahead of Paddy for Holland ?!

@ Worms - the person you quoted re Rui Costa v Zidane implies that Zidane shouldn't have won Golden Ball - it should have been Cannavaro but if he thinks anyone other than Pirlo should have got anywhere near it he's a fucking idiot.

An fucking idiot?

Come on now a lot of people think Pirlo was better than Cannavaro but Cannavaro certainly weren't far behind because he was brilliant in that world cup.

You are clutching at straws there tbh,don't you have any arguments against the points he made against Zidane?

110% wrote:

worms wrote:

Jaime wrote:

worms wrote:

bluenine wrote:

Pras_tama wrote:So who do you think deserved that ballon d'or 98 apart from Zidane?

I don't know what you're smoking when you say Rui Costa was as good as Zidane if not better I will always remember Rui Costa as a lazy player. When he got the ball, he was just trying to pass it, nothing else, while Zidane at least tried to beat his man and sometimes he did it elegantly

Actually Pras, its not as ridiculous a comparison as you would think, apart from the fact that Rui could also play as a deep lying playmaker. In Serie A in the 90s, Rui Costa was generally regarded as a better trequartista than Zidane. Zidane achieved more for his country and then later with Real, while Rui & his Portuguese "golden generation" failed at the international level... so history books will (rightly) call Zidane the greater player. But in the 90s, Rui was generally regarded as the better player, and as I am sure you know, he is by far the most expensive player Milan have ever bought, for a reason. One of the most gifted players of his generation...

Though I do not agree with worms that Zidane is over rated, he was a genius. But I guess its more of a case of Rui Costa being a bit under appreciated.

Exactly Zidane might have had a more successful career but many people who watched Series A in the 90's think Rui Costa was a more talented/better player including me.

How much football did you watch in the 90s? Aren't you 19?

I watched quite a bit,at least for an English person. On average probably only 2 matches a weekend but over several years it's enough to judge players.And the highlights as well.

Serie A in the 90's

And no don't listen to 10%,when I said I was 19 and a half it was obviously a joke...hence why I said "and a half".

Who except for kids make fun of someone's name. It is like being in a playground.

Apart from your obviously hilarious "joke" the use of "+1" and "#" is a clear sign that you are a teenager. Personally I thought you were even younger than nineteen.

As for people getting their opinions from the media and you watching football in the 90s on tv. Worms#hypocrit +1
Not sure if that is the correct usage of it as I am not a teenager, but you get the gist.#obsessed

Fixed.

Pras_tama wrote:
re your England XI, what did Anderton/Sheringham has that Beckham/Rooney hasn't?

The obvious answer is that they have gone beyond QF.

Anderton was steady and reliable if unspectacular, a team player - I couldn't associate those words with a player who gets sent off in a vital KO game, pulls out of 50/50 tackles because he is frightened of getting hurt, flies to a WC in a different class to his team mates and bottles his 4 biggest pens for his country, even if he did fluke one of them.

Sheringham was a great foil for Shearer and I think is regarded as a great team player who improves the performance of his strike partner.

Perhaps Euro '96 was the good tournie these 2 had but Anderton was decent at '98 and Sheringham very good in the qualifiers for that before fading a bit.

I can just remember WC'90 but not well enough to rate the players so EURO '96 front 6 was a no brainer.

Rooney hasn't played well at an International tournament since 2004 and he let his country down in '06 - reminding us recently that he hasn't learnt from this.

Metta World Peace wrote:

Deluded F*ck wrote:Spurs 1992-present (it's actually when I was old enough to start watching/understanding football - I was 6!)

---------------Thorsveldt

Carr------Judas--------King--------Assou-Ekotto

---------Carrick------Modric

Ginola----------Anderton------------Bale

---------------Klinsmann

You missed the late 80's early 90's Venables generation poor you

For me, mid / late 80's

------------- Clemence

---------Mabbutt---King--Campbell

Waddle-----------------------------Bale

------------Modric--Carrick------

----------------Gascoigne--------

----------Sheringham---Klinsmann--------


Fuck fullbacks, we've not had any decent ones (says a lot that BAE and Walker are best I can remember despite both having all sorts of defensive issues), so I would play Waddle () and Bale as wingbacks.

I would pay money to watch that team, like Ardilles' kamikaze team of 1995 with a firecracker up it's arse

No Hoddle, Ardilles or Ricky Villa.

@ Worms: Lack of assists is a poor basis for attacking Zidane. It is a false statistic as it depends on the person passed to scoring (there have been terrible misses as we all know). It depends on team-mates. For example, Torres' recent lack of form has cost a few assists hasn't it? Assists don't reflect fantastic moves such as the Carlos Alberto goal in 1970. Pele gets an assist, while many others contributed to that goal. There are also cheap assists, such as pass to Maradona or Messi who then dribble through the opposition defence and score. Why should that pass constitute an assist when everyone knows it was the individual genius of Maradona or Messi that should be credited?

EMP wrote:

Metta World Peace wrote:

Deluded F*ck wrote:Spurs 1992-present (it's actually when I was old enough to start watching/understanding football - I was 6!)

---------------Thorsveldt

Carr------Judas--------King--------Assou-Ekotto

---------Carrick------Modric

Ginola----------Anderton------------Bale

---------------Klinsmann

You missed the late 80's early 90's Venables generation poor you

For me, mid / late 80's

------------- Clemence

---------Mabbutt---King--Campbell

Waddle-----------------------------Bale

------------Modric--Carrick------

----------------Gascoigne--------

----------Sheringham---Klinsmann--------


Fuck fullbacks, we've not had any decent ones (says a lot that BAE and Walker are best I can remember despite both having all sorts of defensive issues), so I would play Waddle () and Bale as wingbacks.

I would pay money to watch that team, like Ardilles' kamikaze team of 1995 with a firecracker up it's arse

No Hoddle, Ardilles or Ricky Villa.

@ Worms: Lack of assists is a poor basis for attacking Zidane. It is a false statistic as it depends on the person passed to scoring (there have been terrible misses as we all know). It depends on team-mates. For example, Torres' recent lack of form has cost a few assists hasn't it? Assists don't reflect fantastic moves such as the Carlos Alberto goal in 1970. Pele gets an assist, while many others contributed to that goal. There are also cheap assists, such as pass to Maradona or Messi who then dribble through the opposition defence and score. Why should that pass constitute an assist when everyone knows it was the individual genius of Maradona or Messi that should be credited?

Zidane played with so many great strikers so there's no excuse for those statistics when he was an AM,I stand by my/other peoples view that his assist and goal record is extremely average for a player of his caliber.He's a classic case of style over substance,a record of 128 goals in 681 games and even less assists around the 100 mark is average,there's no getting away from that fact.

Lets comapre Ronaldinho who played in the same position as Zidane:

Ronaldiho - App 662 Goals 257 Assists 139

Zidane - App 681 Goals 128 Assists ~ 100

As you can see Ronaldinho has played less games but double the amount of goals and more assists,these guys played in the same position yet some people think Zidane was better

Am not sure how accurate this is but this website http://soccer-europe.com/Biographies/Zinedine_Zidane.html has his stats and his assists are listed as 92 in 723 games for club and country That figure might be wrong by 10 at the most but still it's pretty damning data whatever way you look at it.

His passing and vision pales in comparison with the other great playmakers,Zidane only really excelled at ball control and ball retention.But players like Ronaldiho,Rivaldo and Baggio where much more effective while still being as skillful.So he weren't as effective as the rest of the great playmakers yet he couldn't control a game like Xavi,so why is he the best midfielder ever

Here's another copy and paste job but pay attention to the parts in bold:

"Zidane never had any outstanding season throughout his career as a professional soccer player. If you check the list of great players they were judged on substance, so why is it that Zidane is always judge on style? It's because he don’t have stats to proves his greatness. I think Cyrus make a great point. Zidane at Club level had the opportunities to compete with guys like Ronaldo in Italy and Ronaldinho in Spain for years but, all those guys over shadow him, except for few game that he plays better during world cup season. Take for example 98, he got a red card against Saudi Arabia & never show up until the quater finals. He never had a goal or assist until the final against Brazil but, that same yr he won footballer of the year. So my question is; scoring against Brazil is the new standard for being consider best in the world? Pele wasn’t great becuz of his poetry, so as Diego or Ronaldo. These guys were individual their team look up to for deliverance and were the best on their teams. Zidane career average for goals is 7 and assist 5; what that record means is that he can be in the same discussion of Maicon or Roberto Carlos of Madrid. Messi alone scored more goals and assist in one season than what Zidane was capable of doing in his entire Madrid career…"




This dogma that Zidane is one of the top 10 players in history is absurd and retarded.Top 20 if he's lucky.Some people even think he's the best after Maradona and Pele

There's a very simply reason for this.

Great footballers aren't made by scoring week in week out against mid table teams. They're made by defining a tournament.

Zidane did this twice. In the World Cup 98 and in the Champions League final. Who really gives a shit that he didn't score regularly against mid table teams when he produced such defining moments for club and country.

Hlebagone wrote:There's a very simply reason for this.

Great footballers aren't made by scoring week in week out against mid table teams. They're made by defining a tournament.

Zidane did this twice. In the World Cup 98 and in the Champions League final. Who really gives a shit that he didn't score regularly against mid table teams when he produced such defining moments for club and country.

WOW he scored 2 headers in a final while playing average at the rest of the tournament BEST PLAYER EVER!

It's what you do; not what you can do.

People are remembered by their achievements on the biggest stage. He did that on a the biggest stage possible so is rightly remembered as one of the greatest players ever, even if week in week out, he may not have been the best player.

Make a distinction between someone being good and being great.

Hlebagone wrote:It's what you do; not what you can do.

People are remembered by their achievements on the biggest stage. He did that on a the biggest stage possible so is rightly remembered as one of the greatest players ever, even if week in week out, he may not have been the best player.

Make a distinction between someone being good and being great.

But he didn't even have a great tournament he had a poor tournament and played average in every match,he got sent off and missed some games.He didn't have 1 goal or assist until the final.

2 headers against a shit Brazil defense doesn't change that.

Well it does, because it won France the world cup. It's the defining moment of a generation. Who gives a shit what went on before, who remembers what happened before?

How on earth does a performance against Saudi Arabia matter in light of what followed?

worms wrote:

Hlebagone wrote:It's what you do; not what you can do.

People are remembered by their achievements on the biggest stage. He did that on a the biggest stage possible so is rightly remembered as one of the greatest players ever, even if week in week out, he may not have been the best player.

Make a distinction between someone being good and being great.

But he didn't even have a great tournament he had a poor tournament and played average in every match,he got sent off and missed some games.He didn't have 1 goal or assist until the final.

2 headers against a shit Brazil defense doesn't change that.

Zidane was a big game player and people find it easier to remember the big games, which are often the most important. In 20 years time nobody will care if Messi scores a hattrick against a Romanian club in the CL but if he scores the winner in the final he will be remembered for that. That's what Helbagone is trying to say worms.

The Easter Bunny wrote:

worms wrote:

Hlebagone wrote:It's what you do; not what you can do.

People are remembered by their achievements on the biggest stage. He did that on a the biggest stage possible so is rightly remembered as one of the greatest players ever, even if week in week out, he may not have been the best player.

Make a distinction between someone being good and being great.

But he didn't even have a great tournament he had a poor tournament and played average in every match,he got sent off and missed some games.He didn't have 1 goal or assist until the final.

2 headers against a shit Brazil defense doesn't change that.

Zidane was a big game player and people find it easier to remember the big games, which are often the most important. In 20 years time nobody will care if Messi scores a hattrick against a Romanian club in the CL but if he scores the winner in the final he will be remembered for that. That's what Helbagone is trying to say worms.

I know but I'm arguing that people severely overate Zidanes career and Talent.Just because he scored in the CL Final and WC final doesn't excuse his inconsistent career,his relatively poor passing and vision, and assists(compared to other great playmakers) etc

Just look at those statistic compared to Ronaldinhos they are extremely poor.

Iniesta scored in the WC Final and the winner in the CL SF yet gets nowhere near the same hype by the media,pundits and football fans in general.

I don't care about what he achieved anyway I'm saying he wasn't as talented as the likes of Baggio,Ronaldinho and Platini etc

by certain criteria Iniesta = Zidane

Score critical goals for in spain, in the final and QF,
The season defining goal for barca.

But iniesta isn't as good as zidane, he is better.

messiah wrote:by certain criteria Iniesta = Zidane

Score critical goals for in spain, in the final and QF,
The season defining goal for barca.

But iniesta isn't as good as zidane, he is better.

Iniesta are very similar in both their playing styles and their achievements,both excel at ball retention,ball control and dribbling.But both of their assist and goal records are average,am not sure what Iniestas assist record is but I'm guessing it isn't great.

Also both are big game players and have scored crucial goals in huge matches.

I would argue that Iniesta has been much more consistent the last 2 seasons than Zidane at any time in his career though.

Regarding Zidane, I actually thought his defining tournament was Euro 2000. The guy was just on another level. Sure he will be remembered for those two goals in WC final but in Euro 2000 he really was the best player in the tournament.

Jaime wrote:Regarding Zidane, I actually thought his defining tournament was Euro 2000. The guy was just on another level. Sure he will be remembered for those two goals in WC final but in Euro 2000 he really was the best player in the tournament.

Ye apart from the final he was great,Totti was easily motm in the final

Totti didn't have the Italian catenaccio to play against him

Pras_tama wrote:Totti didn't have the Italian catenaccio to play against him

What do you mean Italy dominated that game and had more possession and should have won the game 2 or 3 nil.Zidane done fuck all all game.

You still haven't answered the point that assists is a false statistic. Even the best strikers miss chances and that means no assist. A better statisic would be chances created, which would include goals scored as a result. Great players create opportunities for others by creating opportunities for other as opposition concentrates on them, thereby making space for team-mates. Mere presence can create chances for others to make and Zidane had that presence.

Metta World Peace wrote:

Deluded F*ck wrote:Spurs 1992-present (it's actually when I was old enough to start watching/understanding football - I was 6!)

---------------Thorsveldt

Carr------Judas--------King--------Assou-Ekotto

---------Carrick------Modric

Ginola----------Anderton------------Bale

---------------Klinsmann

You missed the late 80's early 90's Venables generation poor you

For me, mid / late 80's

------------- Clemence

---------Mabbutt---King--Campbell

Waddle-----------------------------Bale

------------Modric--Carrick------

----------------Gascoigne--------

----------Sheringham---Klinsmann--------


Fuck fullbacks, we've not had any decent ones (says a lot that BAE and Walker are best I can remember despite both having all sorts of defensive issues), so I would play Waddle () and Bale as wingbacks.

I would pay money to watch that team, like Ardilles' kamikaze team of 1995 with a firecracker up it's arse

Chris is one of my favorite English players ever... good old days!

EMP wrote:You still haven't answered the point that assists is a false statistic. Even the best strikers miss chances and that means no assist. A better statisic would be chances created, which would include goals scored as a result. Great players create opportunities for others by creating opportunities for other as opposition concentrates on them, thereby making space for team-mates. Mere presence can create chances for others to make and Zidane had that presence.

It's not a false statistic at all,his assist record is terrible compared to other players of his caliber.Look at the strikers he played with Ronaldo,Henry,Raul,Del Piero,Inzaghi etc

These players where regular goal scorers so the assist record is a good indicator of how many chances he created.

And how do you just ignore the fact that Ronaldinho who played in the same position as Zidane has double the amount of goals in less games than him yet Ronaldinho has more assists as well?

worms wrote:

EMP wrote:You still haven't answered the point that assists is a false statistic. Even the best strikers miss chances and that means no assist. A better statisic would be chances created, which would include goals scored as a result. Great players create opportunities for others by creating opportunities for other as opposition concentrates on them, thereby making space for team-mates. Mere presence can create chances for others to make and Zidane had that presence.

It's not a false statistic at all,his assist record is terrible compared to other players of his caliber.Look at the strikers he played with Ronaldo,Henry,Raul,Del Piero,Inzaghi etc

These players where regular goal scorers so the assist record is a good indicator of how many chances he created.And how do you just ignore the fact that Ronaldinho who played in the same position as Zidane has double the amount of goals in less games than him yet Ronaldinho has more assists as well?

No it isn't. If they miss the chance it does not count as an assist, but it was a chance created - not difficult really.

Regarding Ronaldinho, they were different players and playing in different styles. An assist can be a fi ve yard pass before the goal. The creative build up can include beating players, a raking pass before the final one that gives the assist, but is not included in the statistics. Also opponents focus on Zidane, which means he contributes by making space and opportunities for others to exploit.

And opponents didn't focus on Ronaldinho?Players who Ronaldinho etc played with also missed chances,I wouldn't say Ronaldinho played with better players,generally the better the player in attacking positions their higher goal and assist count will be.


Of course I understand your point though,I know there's more to football than assists and goals,as I have said Zidane had fantastic ball retention,ball control and short passing but I don't think he was the type of player to display great longer range passing or brilliant through balls.

His passing weren't on the same level of players like Xavi,Maradona,Totti,Platini etc.

worms wrote:And opponents didn't focus on Ronaldinho?Players who Ronaldinho etc played with also missed chances,I wouldn't say Ronaldinho played with better players,generally the better the player in attacking positions their higher goal and assist count will be.


Of course I understand your point though,I know there's more to football than assists and goals,as I have said Zidane had fantastic ball retention,ball control and short passing but I don't think he was the type of player to display great longer range passing or brilliant through balls.

His passing weren't on the same level of players like Xavi,Maradona,Totti,Platini etc.

I'd say that Ronaldinho played with better players than Zidane at club level and internationally. It is an opinion, but he played with Ronaldo and Rivaldo, among others for Brasil which means plenty of chances for him and created for them. At club level he had no slouch in Eto'o and a young Messi before going to Milan.

Worms = Messiah, innit?