the most underated players (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter .AB.
- Start date
++ [ originally posted by Jun-hide ] ++
I disagree with the statement that Laudrup was better than Mattaus, Baggio, Maldini, Cerezo or Baresi. Mattaus is arguably the only player in the 80s that was anywhere near as good as Maradona. A successor to the great Kaiser, he had everything. Laudrup was brilliant as a second striker, but he wasn't as dominating in his position as Mattaus, Baresi or Maldini was at their prime. I think if there is politics in FIFA, I think it is positional. I think forward players are often overrated and considered better players than defenders. While it is true that most forward players are more talented but that doesn't mean they are necessarily better players. The likes of Maldini, Baresi, probably deserved more to win the FIFA Player of the year award than Laudrup but yet they didn't. After all Maldini and Baresi, won everything and when on to have extremely successful careers. Not many people can boast of finishing 2nd, 3rd in the World Cup. Also Gullit, deserved to win the trophy. After all, he, Van Basten, and Baresi were the core of the team that was practicaly invincible. Beside, Gullit was a craking player. He wasn't as pretty as Laudrup to watch since latter is some sight when he is on song.
, but he was probably the better player. I mean not many player can say they can a world class as a sweeper, forward, and midfielder. That was Gullit at his very best.
Also, I think one of the legitimate reasons why Laudrup didn't win the award, is that he didn't play in Serie A for a long time. I become irritated when people think Barca and Real and spanish football in general have always been better than Serie A all the time. In 1989, Milan absolutely thrashed Real by 5-0, and in 1994, Milan gave Barca a mauling what is probably the most one sided final in recent history. Laudrup played in Spain when the world was dominated by the Italian football. He played for Barca and Real, while the likes of Klinsmann, Mattaus, Maradona, Maldini, Gullit, Van Basten, Rykaard,( I can't spell his name.) and Voller made their trade in Italy. If you want to prove you are the best then you got to play against the best.
As for Rivaldo, winning in 99. I think that was a correct decision. Rivaldo not only had a cracking season for Barca, even though his team did not do as well as Man U, but his performance in the Coppa America was brilliant. David Beckam also had a fantastic season but in my opinion, Rivaldo just edged it. Also you can't take away the feeling that Man U was probably the luckiest team to win the champions league.
I have no doubt one day Raul will win the Balon d'or. Although, I am sceptical whether he would have enough success in the international stage to win the FIFA Player of the year award.
Sheva would also get recognition he deserves if he leads his team to the champions leauge. Sheva played well when he had pretty mediocre team players around him, but now he has show that he can still shine in the company of outstanding teammates, which is harder thing to do.
Hence why, Gullit, Maldini, Baresi, Mattaus, are such great players.
I disagree with the statement that Laudrup was better than Mattaus, Baggio, Maldini, Cerezo or Baresi. Mattaus is arguably the only player in the 80s that was anywhere near as good as Maradona. A successor to the great Kaiser, he had everything. Laudrup was brilliant as a second striker, but he wasn't as dominating in his position as Mattaus, Baresi or Maldini was at their prime. I think if there is politics in FIFA, I think it is positional. I think forward players are often overrated and considered better players than defenders. While it is true that most forward players are more talented but that doesn't mean they are necessarily better players. The likes of Maldini, Baresi, probably deserved more to win the FIFA Player of the year award than Laudrup but yet they didn't. After all Maldini and Baresi, won everything and when on to have extremely successful careers. Not many people can boast of finishing 2nd, 3rd in the World Cup. Also Gullit, deserved to win the trophy. After all, he, Van Basten, and Baresi were the core of the team that was practicaly invincible. Beside, Gullit was a craking player. He wasn't as pretty as Laudrup to watch since latter is some sight when he is on song.
, but he was probably the better player. I mean not many player can say they can a world class as a sweeper, forward, and midfielder. That was Gullit at his very best.Also, I think one of the legitimate reasons why Laudrup didn't win the award, is that he didn't play in Serie A for a long time. I become irritated when people think Barca and Real and spanish football in general have always been better than Serie A all the time. In 1989, Milan absolutely thrashed Real by 5-0, and in 1994, Milan gave Barca a mauling what is probably the most one sided final in recent history. Laudrup played in Spain when the world was dominated by the Italian football. He played for Barca and Real, while the likes of Klinsmann, Mattaus, Maradona, Maldini, Gullit, Van Basten, Rykaard,( I can't spell his name.
) and Voller made their trade in Italy. If you want to prove you are the best then you got to play against the best.As for Rivaldo, winning in 99. I think that was a correct decision. Rivaldo not only had a cracking season for Barca, even though his team did not do as well as Man U, but his performance in the Coppa America was brilliant. David Beckam also had a fantastic season but in my opinion, Rivaldo just edged it. Also you can't take away the feeling that Man U was probably the luckiest team to win the champions league.
I have no doubt one day Raul will win the Balon d'or. Although, I am sceptical whether he would have enough success in the international stage to win the FIFA Player of the year award.
Sheva would also get recognition he deserves if he leads his team to the champions leauge. Sheva played well when he had pretty mediocre team players around him, but now he has show that he can still shine in the company of outstanding teammates, which is harder thing to do.
Hence why, Gullit, Maldini, Baresi, Mattaus, are such great players.
As for Man United being the luckiest team to have won it in recent memory, I do agree, but its neither here nor there, one of their players certainly deserved to win the player of the year, the likes of yorke and Cole were no where to be seen in the top 10 and since when is Copa America used as a criteria for judging, for years Brazil treated the cup with such disdain and to this day Argentina will rather send a second string team to compete than their first team while in the last tourney, even Honduras sent their second team as I think the top 2 teams were in the cup final
As for Gullit winning player of the year in 1989, he was injured most of the time, Milan did not even win the league, it was Inter, and while we are at it , all those who are now saying Ronaldo did not deserve to be European player of the year and all that, in 1988, Van Basten played just about 8 games due to injury for Milan but had a fabulous Euro88 and was thus voted European footballer of the year
From your statement, you are making to sound like if in the 80's and early 90's, you did not play for an Italian club, then you are not worth your weight in gold. As you well know Laudrup did play for both Lazio and Juventus without much success but that does not mean he is not a wonderful talent
Anyway exactly my point about him being underated though, becos he did not set serieA alight or becos he aint Brazilian winning a mushroom tournament, he is not a great
Although, Milan did not win the leauge, they won the champions league in that if I remeber it correctly.. Also, as you have mentioned, a wonderful performance by Van Basten and Gullit to best then an allmighty West Germany in their own backyard was some achievement. Van Basten's goal, which is arguably the greatest ever, was some sight. Gullit's pass wasn't too bad either.
But, I agree with you that Michael Laudrup is technically better than Lothar, Baresi, Maldini, there is no doubt about that.
He is just as good as these guys but probably not better. The difference is that Lothar, Baresi, Maldini played for the succesful clubs in the stronger league at that time, and won many honours at international stage. Although, Michael Laudrup didn't had such luck, I think at the end of the the award has to go to the players whose team has been successful. Just look at Major League Baseball. A-Rod is undoubtedly beside Bonds, the best player in the Major Leauge, and ceratinly the best in American leauge. And yet, it was Tajeda who won the MVP since the A's were signigicantly better than the Rangers. Mattaus won the Serie A with Inter 89, a World Cup with West Germany in 90 and Runners up in 86. Maldini and Baresi won so many awards, it is unbelievable. These players probably deserved more than Laudrup.
But, I totally agree with you that Laudrup is one of the all time greats to play the game, and who would forget the Amazing Danes in 92, and give, star studded Brazil a real scare in 98. That shows the quality of Laudrup. He was some players. But I don't think there is any political prejudice which prevented him from winning the World Player Award or prestigious Balon d'or.
After all, FIFA World Player Award is decided by the vote of national team coaches, whose country is registered as a member of FIFA. And no continent has majority votes to alter the results.
. Also, as you have mentioned, a wonderful performance by Van Basten and Gullit to best then an allmighty West Germany in their own backyard was some achievement. Van Basten's goal, which is arguably the greatest ever, was some sight. Gullit's pass wasn't too bad either.But, I agree with you that Michael Laudrup is technically better than Lothar, Baresi, Maldini, there is no doubt about that.
He is just as good as these guys but probably not better. The difference is that Lothar, Baresi, Maldini played for the succesful clubs in the stronger league at that time, and won many honours at international stage. Although, Michael Laudrup didn't had such luck, I think at the end of the the award has to go to the players whose team has been successful. Just look at Major League Baseball. A-Rod is undoubtedly beside Bonds, the best player in the Major Leauge, and ceratinly the best in American leauge. And yet, it was Tajeda who won the MVP since the A's were signigicantly better than the Rangers. Mattaus won the Serie A with Inter 89, a World Cup with West Germany in 90 and Runners up in 86. Maldini and Baresi won so many awards, it is unbelievable. These players probably deserved more than Laudrup.
But, I totally agree with you that Laudrup is one of the all time greats to play the game, and who would forget the Amazing Danes in 92, and give, star studded Brazil a real scare in 98. That shows the quality of Laudrup. He was some players. But I don't think there is any political prejudice which prevented him from winning the World Player Award or prestigious Balon d'or.
After all, FIFA World Player Award is decided by the vote of national team coaches, whose country is registered as a member of FIFA. And no continent has majority votes to alter the results.
I think many Italian players are underrated.
When you look in the real world across all television stations, (not including italian TV) where soccer is concerned all we hear about is Beckham and all the english players and how they are fantastic and how the english premier league is the best thing since sliced bread!!!
So until the world truly starts expanding their horizons, the Italians will never get the recognition they deserve!!!
VIVA L'ITALIA!!!
When you look in the real world across all television stations, (not including italian TV) where soccer is concerned all we hear about is Beckham and all the english players and how they are fantastic and how the english premier league is the best thing since sliced bread!!!
So until the world truly starts expanding their horizons, the Italians will never get the recognition they deserve!!!
VIVA L'ITALIA!!!
