Jump to content

General Chat


maqroll

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 606
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

he was a very good player but not an all time great for me. If he didnt get 2 goals in World Cup final he be mentioned alongside other very good but not Greatest of all time players like Laudrup, Nedved(his Juventus replacement who did more for the club) and Scholes etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he was a very good player but not an all time great for me. If he didnt get 2 goals in World Cup final he be mentioned alongside other very good but not Greatest of all time players like Laudrup, Nedved(his Juventus replacement who did more for the club) and Scholes etc.

Admittingly, I grew up as a huge Laudrup fanboy but Nedved wasn´t fit to wear his boots. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but what makes him a great? His club form could be erratic and he did very good at international level in 2000 and 06. People forget he was poor in 98 except final

What makes him so great? Him being 1 of the best players of his generation and possibly the greatest player to ever come out of France.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but you say that but what makes him great. He scored a few spectacular goals and got 2 world cup finals headers.

For me he was a temperamental player who not as good as the hype. Rivaldo was better player for me in his era

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zidane was a brilliant, brilliant footballer. He was good for ten goals a season from midfield but his close control and range of passing was something else. He could do things with the ball that no other player could, whether you think a lot of his tricks had and impact on the game or hurt the opposition in the same way as somebody like Alan Shearer who was all about power and strength is very much a matter of personal preference but Zidane was a **** magician. His technique was second to none.

I agree about Cantona being somewhat over rated though. Definitely a great player, but also a perfect example of somebody who was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. I dont think he would get into the best Manchester United team of players who played under Fergie. He wouldnt be anywhere near an all time Premier League XI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he was a very good player but not an all time great for me. If he didnt get 2 goals in World Cup final he be mentioned alongside other very good but not Greatest of all time players like Laudrup, Nedved

Both Zidane and Laudrup are a million miles ahead of Nedved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but you say that but what makes him great. He scored a few spectacular goals and got 2 world cup finals headers.

For me he was a temperamental player who not as good as the hype. Rivaldo was better player for me in his era

he could do things so casually that it became the norm for him, yet if anyone else did it people would be saying "oh how awesome was that"

his passing ability was also exceptional.

If him and Scholes played in the same team early 00's the opposition midfield might as well have sat down in the centre circle because they wouldn't have made any difference.

the greatest thing as I mentioned is his ability to make the impossible seem normal.

what makes Tendulkar great?

the fact he can effortlessly time the ball for four, without giving a single chance in his innings, against the best opposition in the world, and barely sweat throughout.

what makes Ali great?

the fact he knew what his opponent was going to do before he did, therefore he made boxing look effortless at times.

why are Barcelona so awesome?

not because they win things, but the fact they win easily. they effortlessly destroy top opposition like they are playing FIFA on casual. 20, 30, 40 passes which now becomes their "norm". if Villa strung a 40 passing move together and resulted in a tap in, it would get goal of the season for us.

the thing I would argue is that scholes was as good, however maybe a lack of international success favours Zidane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he was a very good player but not an all time great for me. If he didnt get 2 goals in World Cup final he be mentioned alongside other very good but not Greatest of all time players like Laudrup, Nedved

Both Zidane and Laudrup are a million miles ahead of Nedved.

Im sure many many juventus fans would disagree and he was a lot more consistent for me. Nedved was the heartbeat of 3 great teams Lazio 98-01, Juventus 01-04 and Czech Republic 2004 and only a silly yellow card cost him a CL final after he dominated Real in semi final

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but you say that but what makes him great. He scored a few spectacular goals and got 2 world cup finals headers.

For me he was a temperamental player who not as good as the hype. Rivaldo was better player for me in his era

he could do things so casually that it became the norm for him, yet if anyone else did it people would be saying "oh how awesome was that"

his passing ability was also exceptional.

If him and Scholes played in the same team early 00's the opposition midfield might as well have sat down in the centre circle because they wouldn't have made any difference.

the greatest thing as I mentioned is his ability to make the impossible seem normal.

what makes Tendulkar great?

the fact he can effortlessly time the ball for four, without giving a single chance in his innings, against the best opposition in the world, and barely sweat throughout.

what makes Ali great?

the fact he knew what his opponent was going to do before he did, therefore he made boxing look effortless at times.

why are Barcelona so awesome?

not because they win things, but the fact they win easily. they effortlessly destroy top opposition like they are playing FIFA on casual. 20, 30, 40 passes which now becomes their "norm". if Villa strung a 40 passing move together and resulted in a tap in, it would get goal of the season for us.

the thing I would argue is that scholes was as good, however maybe a lack of international success favours Zidane.

Tendulkar didn't cut it against the best in the world, he couldn't score a single test century versus England in the whitewash series. :P;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but you say that but what makes him great. He scored a few spectacular goals and got 2 world cup finals headers.

For me he was a temperamental player who not as good as the hype. Rivaldo was better player for me in his era

he could do things so casually that it became the norm for him, yet if anyone else did it people would be saying "oh how awesome was that"

his passing ability was also exceptional.

If him and Scholes played in the same team early 00's the opposition midfield might as well have sat down in the centre circle because they wouldn't have made any difference.

the greatest thing as I mentioned is his ability to make the impossible seem normal.

what makes Tendulkar great?

the fact he can effortlessly time the ball for four, without giving a single chance in his innings, against the best opposition in the world, and barely sweat throughout.

what makes Ali great?

the fact he knew what his opponent was going to do before he did, therefore he made boxing look effortless at times.

why are Barcelona so awesome?

not because they win things, but the fact they win easily. they effortlessly destroy top opposition like they are playing FIFA on casual. 20, 30, 40 passes which now becomes their "norm". if Villa strung a 40 passing move together and resulted in a tap in, it would get goal of the season for us.

the thing I would argue is that scholes was as good, however maybe a lack of international success favours Zidane.

Tendulkar didn't cut it against the best in the world, he couldn't score a single test century versus England in the whitewash series. :P;)

I know you're joking, so I won't bite lol. However YouTube is all I would need

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â