Virgo said:
what sets apart Zidane from Ronaldo, Figo and Rivaldo is that Zidane always found a way to shine in the big matches when his team needs the most. Like in the 98 World Cup, Euro 2000, in this week's game against Brazil, scoring that wonder goal for Real Madrid in the CL final 2002.
All those 4 you mentioned have had brilliant and similar careers (except for Rivaldo f*cking off to Greece), but Zizou has the big game factor and it's those moments that go onto the history books, not the consistency throughout the seasons.
See like in tonight's game, Figo had a big and unique chance to equalise the game and he bottled it. Whereas Zidane buried his chance.
Still it pains me for people to whisper his name in the same breath as Maradona. For f*ck sake, Maradona took a team of nobodies to the Scudetto playing with his style in a time where the catenaccio ruled in Italy.
really summed it brilliantly for me, very well put. To add to that, Rivaldo has seen his career end in a whimper, Ronaldo has tarnished his legacy with his lack of passion and excitement at an age where he should have had his prime, and Figo, well, I cant say anything too bad about him, especially around you.
The creativity, the flicks, the monniker "midfield maestro" are something you see with alot of talented footballers. But with Zidane there is an aura of greatness. To say nothing of a Euro, two Champions League titles, and potentially two world cups, there was an understanding that even against great opposition, and with great teamates, the ball went to Zizou, and he never disappointed.
Your gripe with Maradonna is legit, considering how amazing his achievement was with Napoli. But if France win it on the 9th, there is no question in my mind that he can be legitimately called perhaps the greatest of the non-greatest-evers (Best, Beckenbauer, Puskas, Platini, Cruyff, Zico, DiStefano, Muller, etc) of whose company he is securely a member of.
ShiftyPowers said:
I would argue Ronaldo who was the best player at the World Cup Zidane won, took the golden boot at 2002 and except for Kahn was probably the best player, and basically owned the world by the time he was 23. If it wasn't for injuries this wouldn't even be a discussion.
And I would also add Rivaldo to the discussion, Figo, and a few others. Zidane isn't automatic.
but the injuries have been there and that is part of the point. Yes he lost some pace and saw some of his explosiveness die. But Ronaldo still has speed, and has shown it this season and in others. His will to win has faded. Thats why he is inferior to Zidane in terms of his greatness. Look at the legends revered in football. Never will you hear someone remark about Cryuff, Best or Plantini "Ahh, how great they could have been". Hell no. Its about how great they were and their passion and fulfilment is part of that.
Yes, Ronaldo was a great player in 1998. Yes, he was dominant in 2002. But in 1998, Zidane's creativity was
the force behind the French victory. He capped if off, as Virgo points out, with a huge game. He had already been a huge part of leading Juve to winning the Champions League. Then his efforts carry them on in Euro 2000 to another trophy. He goes to Madrid and after a rough start he shows his class both domestically and in the final, where he acquits himself brilliantly again. Now, he is on the verge of unretireing, leading France back to the world cup, and now into another final. Yes he has always had good players around him, but until only the last couple of years has it not been his brilliance as the focal point of the teams he plays for. For Madrid, Juve and France, he was been an absolute magician
I see the validity of the Copa Liberadores comparison. But the fact remains that Brazil is powerhouse who are only rivaled by Argentina in their legacy. European championships are much more of a stretch for "non traditional" powers like the French to win than are Copas for the Brazilians
