These are some of mine:

  1. Pepe was actually a better defender than Ramos, but Ramos’ knack for important goals (not a defender’s job) and what he won with Spain made him the better player in people’s eyes.

  2. Courtois should have been in the top 3 of the ballon D’or ranking in 2022.

  3. Xavi was a more complete midfielder than Iniesta. He pressed better, controlled games better, gave better weighted passes, and was also a good dribbler when pressed (Iniesta was the better dribbler overall). I’d say he was the better one.

  4. Modric and Kroos have far bigger careers with Madrid than Zidane did.

  5. Zidane and Ronaldinho were great players but were sometimes frustrating to watch and ineffective even in their primes. Their convoluted style of doing simple things made them highlight champions.

  6. Luis Garcia generally played the biggest role in taking Liverpool to the UCL final in 2005, but his name is hardly mentioned when that UCL win is mentioned (Gerrard, the Scouse, vs Garcia, the foreigner)

  7. Pique was a better defender than Puyol. The latter was prone to mistakes and making rash decisions, while Pique was far more intelligent.

  8. Eto’o had a bigger impact in Barca than Suarez did. The former came in 2004 when Barca hadn’t won the league since ‘99. He became the league top scorer for two straight seasons as Barca won the league, then the league and UCL double. He also won the treble in 2008/09. Suarez, on the other hand, came when Barca were already dominant, but just having a bad spell.

  9. Gerrard dived for the penalty which led to Liverpool’s equalizer in 2005 UCL final.

  10. Carvalho is the most underrated defender in his generation. He was basically Mourinho’s wingman.

  11. If Lampard played in this age, with those same stats, he’d be recognized as the best amongst the three.

What are yours?

  • norsemaniacr@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago
    1. People didn’t dislike Pepe for beeing bad, but for beeing unsporting.
    2. I truly belive that GK vs. fieldplayers are so different that GK shouldn’t be in the same balloon price.
    3. Obv. Xavi was more complete. The most utilized 3-man midfield in modern football is (besides them all beeing more fluid and complete than "old days) one more defensive then the others, one more attacking/free role/creative than the others and one all-round. Xavi was the all-round and Iniesta the (more)creative. So obv. Xavi was more complete. Kroos is also more complete than Modric, exactly with the same setup/reason. Often those that favor Xavi or Iniesta is simply their preference for that type. I know that I favor Xavi>Inista and Kroos>Modric simply for that reason. That doesn’t mean the others aren’t fantastic.
    4. Yes? No one would say otherwise?
    5. Yes? Like most creative/AMs of the era?
    6. I think few non-Liverpool fans remember their whole campaign, but most neutral fans remember the final. So it makes sense…
    7. So far the points have mainly been true, but not unpopular as stated. This I guess is unpopular and I for one also totally disagree. Besides the skills (where I also feel Puyol have a slight advantage) Puyol was a great leader and personality while Pique on and off the pitch acts like spoiled brat. In terms of “better defender” the skill Puyol had in making his teammates better was unparalled and as much worth as the pure defending skill, which in total makes him at least one class above Pique.
    8. Also stats-wise pretty obv. imo. Another reason Eto’o was more impactfull is that Messi + Neymar + [insert anybody above average] would work, while the barca Eto’o joined did not have that level of attack around him (yet).
    9. Might be thin. But dive? I don’t think VAR would overrule it today, so lets just call it thin.
    10. You might be on to something here. He for certain isn’t among my first 10 or 20 defenders I think of when thinking great defender, but maybe he should be acknowledeged more?
    11. Amongst which three???