To be fair messi and ronaldo wouldn't of won their first Ballon D'or had they not won the cl with their team.

Zidane had the best year that year, winning the Seria A, a Champions league runners up medal and a world cup winner which was the biggest out of them all. Performing for a national team is very difficult because unlike in a club, you can't buy the best talent in different positions to cover up which helps the team massively, with a national team the resources and option is limited, so you pick in accordance with the limited resources available. Hence the pressure is huge, teams dependent on 1 or 2 individual players to provide a moment of magic. Also it's not one off games, we can make the same claim for Champions league. Pressure winning the cl is mininal compared to wc, because you have a chance the following year, unlike wc comes only 3 times in a decade.

Probably, and I agree, it's a fairer way to judge a player. Sir Alex Ferguson rates the champions league over the World Cup, I agree with him.

Having a good World Cup gets mediocre players moves to top clubs, it always happens perform well consistently in the champions league, and Europe's top leagues and you can be judged with a lot more accuracy.

That's his opinion because he only says it because scotland will never ever win it, but historically wc is the most prestigious tournament, don't forget teams have to also play qualifiers for 2 years and then qualify, so in reality world cup has more games than champions league if you take wc qualifiers into account. It's not fairer because your surround by world class players in every position with the money they have they can buy world class players, its different in a national team.

I don't think someone as successful as Sir Alex would be bitter over Scotland and let that cloud his judgment, such a simplistic argument to make, obviously Scotland will never win it. It's not about the quantity of games, but overall quality, and that of opposition.

As for qualification, 90% of countries might as well get a bye (USA, Argentina, Japan etc..) it's a great tournament to showcase football around the world but lacks the quality of the champions league, it's a no contest.

Playing with quality players is a double edged sword as the opposition will also be filled with quality players, I'd rather judge Messi against Real Madrid than how he negotiates Iran, Nigeria and Switzerland. Gareth Bale and Zlatan Ibrahimovic are better than all but a handful of players at this World Cup, I'll judge how they do for their clubs.

Your own argument defeats you.

If the teams buy the best players to win the CL then shining in CL games means you are performing above the other best players out there.

Perform well in a world cup team and you're doing so with players in the team because their parents happened to **** each other in the same country...

All of this is wrong. The only group game Henry didn't start was the last game in which he didn't score, and he then played a part in every knockout game bar the final as Desailly going off changed the plans for Henry to come on.

The quality is better in club because teams play together every week so they gel as a team with good chemistry which makes it a lot more easier to attain success than doing it for the national team. You can't rewrite history to take the prestigious of the greatest competition in the game just because your country or players you like haven't given any impact to their national team. Messi, robben would sacrifice 12 cl's for 1 wc. That's how much it means to a player. Would you rather support your club more than your country?

So you agree the champions league is a better quality competition?

As I've pointed out henry was not the main frances striker in 1998, his not existance in the final and his sub role proves my point. He was too young to being in the starting line.

I'm in hysterics that your compare CL to the wc.

Just going by what you typed..


Prestigious or not, champions league is obviously a fairer way to judge a player than how they fit into a national teams game plan. Ronaldo isn't suddenly useless for example after a poor World Cup by his standards. Shaqiri had a much better tournament. Ronaldo is on a different planet, anyone would have to be stupid to judge a player on how he performs at international level. That's just one example.

So the quality is better. Therefore the it is harder to shine in the CL than the WC?

Guivarc'h was France's striker when they played with one up top, Henry wasn't left out due to age or favour, it was how France were set up in those games.

You can't prove a point by getting everything wrong, although going by this thread you're sure giving it one hell of a try.

Don't worry, Dave talks an equal amount of bollocks on the General Discussion forum.

I absolutely agree with you, but I'm afraid it falls on deaf ears in this thread because people try to rewrite history and pretend like the all time greatest players are not remembered by the outstanding performances they gave in the most prestigious football competition of all, but are judged on the Champions League. A great player doesn't have to win the World Cup in order to be remembered. Cruyff, Platini, Baggio (to name a few) have never won it, but they all performed outstandingly and are still defined to this day by their performances for their national team.

However, let's all pretend that club football is more important...

People don't remember whether Henry started or not because 1998 was Zidane's World Cup. I remember Henry playing brilliantly in 2006, but in 1998 it was Zidane who led France to glory. Even in 2006 France would never have got to the final without Zidane. Like I already said, the difference in France's performance with and without Zidane was night and day, despite all the other great players on the team.

If people are blinded by wrongly remembering teams as a one-man show, they really shouldn't be commenting on anything at all.

Are we not discussing outstanding individual performances? Obviously, football is a team sport and any win is always a team effort

France had a golden generation of players at the time, but without Zidane they were not a team. I remember watching the one game they played without him in 1998 and thinking this was not the same team. He was absolutely superb and who can forget his contribution in the final against Brazil?

In 2002 France arrived as the newly crowned European Champions with probably the best team I have witnessed in my lifetime (their 2000 Euro team) but were absolutely dismal and couldn't even make it out of the group without Zidane.

In 2006, Henry played great, but it was Zidane's incredible performances in the knock out stages which led France to the final. I still think they would have won if not for his moment of madness.

It was very obvious at the time (and not retrospectively) that Zidane was a genius. France arrived in 2010 without him, but with lots of other great players, and was a disgrace.

I will never agree that France would have won in 1998, 2000 or got to the final in 2006 without the incredible performances from Zidane. He is the best footballer I have seen play the game (since I started watching in 1990).

On a side note, Zidane was involved in the two most bizarre World Cup mysteries:
a) what happened to Ronaldo in the final of 1998?
b) what did Materazzi really say to him in the final of 2006?
For me it just adds to the legend that is Zinedine Zidane.

Zidane's obviously a phenomenon, but if someone can't remember who else was there to the point that everything they say about one of his team-mates is completely wrong as david has, they shouldn't be talking about it at all.

If I told you Jorge Burruchaga was in goal for Argentina and wore a clown wig the whole tournament, I couldn't use Maradona being ace as an excuse for not having a clue what I'm talking about

Can't forget 2004 euro, incredible against England in the dying moments, destroying teams which stopped by Greece the eventual winners. France played dismal when Zinfandel retired in 2004 after euro and were on the verge not qualifying for 2006 wc but he was forced out of retirement and France starting winning again. Henry would not of been as good with France without the bald headed terminator.

I don't think 98 was even Zidane's best World Cup. I thought he was much more influential in France getting to the final in 2006. In 1998 he got sent off in the last group game , missed the 2nd round game and didn't create or score a goal other than in the final. Whether France could have won it without him or not is debatable but there is no way they would have reached the final in 2006 without him

I think that the final against Brazil elevates his World Cup in many peoples minds. If Messi gets two tomorrow don't be surprised to see this one be remembered as 'Messi's World Cup '

If Messi scores the decisive 2 goals in the final and ends up lifting the cup for Argentina on Brazil soil, I think it will be fair to call it "Messi's World Cup".

I agree that France would have been nowhere without Zidane in 2006 and he was phenomenal in the final. It looked like Italy would crack any minute before Materazzi's infamous words.

However, if I remember correctly, in 1998 Brazil appeared to be unstoppable, so I think it's fair for people to remember Zidane's incredible individual performance in the final against the heavy favourites Brazil. In that knockout match against Paraguay which Zidane was banned from, France very nearly lost and played quite badly. Even if Zidane didn't score prior to the final, he was France's main anker in midfield and made every game.

This thread is a great example of the strawman argument. First assert something that no one thinks and treat it as the prevailing view and then argue against it. Textbook stuff.

99.9% of football fans think Messi is amazing and he would light up any league or competition he played in. This season hasn't been his best by his amazing high standards, mostly due to nagging injuries I guess, but he's still a very dangerous player.

Yeah it would be right to call it his final if he gets two and the Argies win. He would be the tournaments top scorer (joint at least) and also be captain of the winning side. You can argue about his performances all day long but they are stats that will go down in history.

As for Zidane, I don't recall France playing too brilliantly against Italy in the quarters either. Don't get me wrong I think Zidane had a very good tournament, I just don't think he was the overall best player at that World Cup. You could argue that with France's amazing defensive record in that tournament that Lilian Thuram was more influential. He also scored as many goals as Zidane