Zidane endures the same thing that Giggs gets from many of our fans. He's revered for his longevity over so many years, in which he's had a very good level combined with some brilliant ones.

But a lot of if it nostalgia. Giggs has had a better and longer career than Dinho but never reached Dinho's level at his best.

In a similar vein I'd say that despite having some class seasons, he never had a season as good as Kaka did when he won wpoty.

Zidane won his due to his exploits in 98 and 00 with France and his brilliance in the CL with Real in 03.

But overall throughout those seasons he wasn't as good as Kaka was in 07.

Zidane did a lot more than Giggs. That is a disgraceful comparison.

dtkf, we agree a fair amount, but can't agree here

longevity had nothing to do with it, it's purely unrivalled skill and touch with the ball at his feet for me

Kaka.

I know he did, DJ. But it was a comparison about how their longevity seems to merge their seasons together as all being greater than they actually were.

TKT, but this is what Saint and I are arguing against. His ability isn't in question, it's how he didn't apply it to the same level as Platini, Messi, Ronaldo and Xavi just to name a few.

Iniesta is technically superior to Ronaldo but isn't anywhere near as good as him for the reasons mentioned.

zidane applied his skill on acquiring the biggest trophies on earth, not the more easily tallied goals and assists stats.

makalele was similar but obviously more defensive

Edgar Davids had more attacking flair than Patrick Vieira, and was by far the better player.

So did all of these players. But Xavi is the only one that won the World Cup.

Johan Cruyff didn't win the World Cup either. And he was arguably better than Zidane.

Also, if goals were so easy why didn't Zidane score that many?

As I said earlier, Platini was technically his equal but scored a hell of a lot more and was just as creative.

Zidane fan boys only have the World Cup to fall back on to try and make out he was a better club footballer than he actually was.

Maradona is a different debate as he surpassed pretty much everyone for both club and country.

People remember the stars of the world cups as it's a huge stage. But it clouds people's judgement. Everyone remembers that crap Italian striker Salvatore Schillachi as he was class at the World Cup. Didn't do fack all else in his career.

Brazilian Ronaldo was better than Zidane as well.

Brazilian Ronaldo was better than Zidane as well.

Imo the 2nd best player of the past 20 years

i doubt debate will change minds on this one

Juve' fans would say Platini> Zidane.

henke you can't say that. amongst our own support there is great debate to who was the best player to have played at CP in certain positions

Much as i love and admire the man you're named after, for me King Kenny was a better player

That would stir up a debate on our own board

So would France fans. Well, the ones that don't let their heart rule their head because Zidane's France won the World Cup in their own country.

Platini's France were a better team and playing in an era that had far more great international teams than in 98.

France and Brazil in 82 were better than the teams that contested the 98 final.

Darren that's a moot point. Football was played in a far more open way back in '82.
I was 13 then so can vaguely remember it although have watched the old highlight of that world cup

Giresse, Tigana and Platini seemed to have a telescopic understanding but would they be able to pass around a midfield containing Viera and the blonde felle i can't remember his name right now, with Zidane the archytypal no 10 pulling the strings

i reckon the 98 team would have won

Petit lol

I don't see how it's a moot point. They were just a better team. As were Brazil's.

There have been team that haven't won the World Cup that are better than teams that have. Brazil 82 and the 70's Dutch sides being better sides that most team that have won the World Cup.

Zizou's France won't be remembered as a great international team. Just as Brazil 02 and Italy 06 won't be either.

that's the beauty of football debate mate. I believe what you say in that the old France side played better football and were more pleasing on the eye

however i don't think they'd have lived with the 98 side physically, i didn't even mention henry was around at that time although he didn't have the greatest of world cups

Henry was a nobody back then.

I know what you mean but when comparing across eras people will always tend to lean towards the new era due to the advances in sports science meaning that there may be those advantages.

However, I think they should be judged on their own merits in their own era and whole France were the best team they were the best of a below par bunch, in comparison to the 80's.

in that context i agree with you but Zizou is for me the greatest frog ever to play the game, ok Moroccan technically

Very closely followed by Platini

Fair play

zidane was a big game player

he didnt bother himself much in run of the mill league matches

very similar to myself as a footballer tbh

While this is obviously a wum article, I do endorse the view that those who make statements like calling Zidane the "best ever" are hilariously overrating him. In my short 23 year lifetime alone, I'd rate Messi, C. Ronaldo and fat Ronaldo are all better. Easily.

Sheriff, i think that was the general concencus throughout the article

Platini's France were a better team and playing in an era that had far more great international teams than in 98.

France and Brazil in 82 were better than the teams that contested the 98 final.
--------------------------------------------------

France may have been better but I disagree Brazil of 82 were better than Brazil of '98. And I'd argue France of Euro 2000 were better than Platini's France. In any case, it's pointless comparing teams across totally different eras.