Planetarion Forums

Rids · 15 Dec 2003, 23:51

World footballer of the year for a 3rd time.

Now, call me biased (and I'm sure I am) but what in the blue hell has he done this past year to deserve the award ahead of Henry?

Answers on a postcard to:

I Woz Robbed Guvnor
134 The Locks
Highbury
North London
England

Bob The Scutter · 15 Dec 2003, 23:52

hes done **** all, but so has Henry compared to a lot of people who dont get a look in simply because theyre not 'famous' enough

edit - it has and always will be a 'Fans Favourite' award, not the 'Worlds Best Player' thing like it should be

at0mic.c0w · 15 Dec 2003, 23:59

it should have been david beckham... really

JonnyBGood · 16 Dec 2003, 00:02

Nedved. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

JC · 16 Dec 2003, 00:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob The Scutter

edit - it has and always will be a 'Fans Favourite' award, not the 'Worlds Best Player' thing like it should be

It is voted for by the national team managers not the fans.

Zidane won because he plays for Real, simple as that. Ronaldo has done nothing much apart from score a couple of goals in the World Cup, which was more than a year ago, and somehow he came 3rd.

Friedal came out as the 3rd best keeper in the World after Kahn and Buffon. Casillas somehow came 4th ahead of the likes of Toldo and Cudicini

.

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2003, 00:10

Zidane and Henry were both probably nominated because france have won some 11 games in a row, as well as being the best (zidane) player in the world.

Casillas has the remarkable ability of dropping the ball every time, but having it drop to a DEFENDER.

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2003, 00:14

The last picture... bloody hell ronaldo's changed.

Oh, and Real Madrid won the Spanish title too.

Deffeh · 16 Dec 2003, 02:51

Henry, any day of the week, tyvm

lokken · 16 Dec 2003, 03:03

Terry Henry all the way

NEWSBOT3 · 16 Dec 2003, 03:18

i agree with rids.

CrazySpoon · 16 Dec 2003, 03:41

Should have been Wesley Sneijder

KoeN · 16 Dec 2003, 10:31

zidane is the best player on the planet, without a doubt. but is he the best player of the year?
what did he achieve? not much imo. and ronaldo did even less.

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2003, 11:47

The question is... what did Henry achieve?

Arsenal have won the FA Cup, which hardly counts for much, and got knocked out in the group stages of the champions league. That's inferior to Real Madrid. He was 2nd top scorer in the premiership. Aside from his playing performances, there's not much there to call him the best player in the world.

And given that you don't hear about Zidane's performances, week in, week out, I think Henry has an inherent advantage in this area in the UK.

Deffeh · 16 Dec 2003, 11:54

True, but look at Madrid without Zidane and look at Arsenal without Henry. Its my honest opinion that i dont think anyone is quite cest magnifique as Henry

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2003, 11:56

That's irrelevent. Look at Sunderland with and without Gary Breen. Our defense is rubbish without him.

Doesn't make him the best player in the world though, just because we don't have sufficient strength in depth.

Deffeh · 16 Dec 2003, 11:58

But all of arsenals wins and accomplishments wouldnt be possible without him. They are done on his brilliance alone sometimes.. i just think hes the best the world has.

I also think the fact he got second finally puts to bed anyone left who still wanted to do the Henry/Ruud thing. Theres not even a debateable comparison there

KoeN · 16 Dec 2003, 11:59

what annoys me more is that the ' best player' never is a defender :/
and never a player from a less famous club.

Deffeh · 16 Dec 2003, 12:00

<3 henke

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2003, 12:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

But all of arsenals wins and accomplishments wouldnt be possible without him. They are done on his brilliance alone sometimes.. i just think hes the best the world has.

Look at France's world cup campaign; that was put down to the lack of Zidane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

I also think the fact he got second finally puts to bed anyone left who still wanted to do the Henry/Ruud thing. Theres not even a debateable comparison there

The partnership between them would be the best option. They both chase lost causes, except Henry is better at taking the ball wide and putting the ball into the box, and Ruud is better at close range finishing. As a duo, it would be incredible.

Hostile · 16 Dec 2003, 12:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The partnership between them would be the best option. They both chase lost causes, except Henry is better at taking the ball wide and putting the ball into the box, and Ruud is better at close range finishing. As a duo, it would be incredible.

Thats what I would say too but Henry and Trezeguet constantly underperform, relative to their club form, when they play together upfront for France. Your use of the world cup being a prime example.

[EDIT] I have seen a lot of Trezeguet and would say he plays in a very simillar way to RvN.

KoeN · 16 Dec 2003, 12:20

2 excellent strikers with various skills doesn't garantee a great couple that produces many goals.

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2003, 12:20

All partnerships require understanding, and it would develope at club levels.

Ste · 16 Dec 2003, 12:34

No player that wasn't playing in Spain or Italy has ever won it.
I'm not saying it's biased but it means that players in Germany, England or France would have to do a hell of a lot to compete.

Entium · 16 Dec 2003, 13:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Zidane and Henry were both probably nominated because france have won some 11 games in a row, as well as being the best (zidane) player in the world.

The last game that France lost was against Czech Republic, hence Nedved.

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2003, 13:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entium

The last game that France lost was against Czech Republic, hence Nedved.

That's a stupid reason. Nedved should have been in because he was a vital part of the team that won the league, and would have won the champions league was he not suspended.

If winning against France was a critereon, then why didn't Diao win it last year?

Haer · 16 Dec 2003, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

I also think the fact he got second finally puts to bed anyone left who still wanted to do the Henry/Ruud thing. Theres not even a debateable comparison there

Yep, RvN is clearly much better. Top scorer in the premiership and top scorer in Europe. Took Manchester United to the title yet again, and a thrilling quarter final against Real in the Champions league.

Quite frankly I dont think any of the players deserved to be there. I always thought World Footballer of the year should nt be about who the best overall player is, but about the player who had the biggest (positive) impact for the season. While France and Brazil have had good seasons, there has been no major international championships this season and so people should have looked at club football more closely. The fact that Real madrid failed to make it to the Champions league final, with the team they have is enough to rule out both Zidane and Ronaldo, while Juventus and AC Milan were competely overlooked.

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2003, 14:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haer

Quite frankly I dont think any of the players deserved to be there. I always thought World Footballer of the year should nt be about who the best overall player is, but about the player who had the biggest (positive) impact for the season. While France and Brazil have had good seasons, there has been no major international championships this season and so people should have looked at club football more closely. The fact that Real madrid failed to make it to the Champions league final, with the team they have is enough to rule out both Zidane and Ronaldo, while Juventus and AC Milan were competely overlooked.

That's madness. Penalising the Real Madrid forward players with whom every single element of success rests with because the chairman refuses to buy a defender.

Rids · 16 Dec 2003, 14:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haer

Yep, RvN is clearly much better. Top scorer in the premiership and top scorer in Europe. Took Manchester United to the title yet again, and a thrilling quarter final against Real in the Champions league.

Quite frankly I dont think any of the players deserved to be there. I always thought World Footballer of the year should nt be about who the best overall player is, but about the player who had the biggest (positive) impact for the season. While France and Brazil have had good seasons, there has been no major international championships this season and so people should have looked at club football more closely. The fact that Real madrid failed to make it to the Champions league final, with the team they have is enough to rule out both Zidane and Ronaldo, while Juventus and AC Milan were competely overlooked.

If you actually believe this, and are not trolling, then you're so overly biased you should be tried for crimes of mass biasness in the hague!

What does RvN bring to a game? He is a great goalscorer, as good as Alan Shearer or Ian Wright ever were. But, other than that, what does he bring? Hes not a creator of many goals, hes not the type to pick the ball up on the wing, beat three men and create a chance out of nothing. When he gets a chance, he takes it, agreed, but I dont see how you can compare him in any way, shape, or form to Henry. Who, while not being as accurate in front of goal as RvN, does far more for the team, and is much more of a constant threat throughout the game than RvN.

Now, I guess I shouldnt have hoped for Henry to win, looking back. Michael Ballack should have won it last year, took Germany to the world cup final, took Bayeur (sp?) to the Champions League final... and they gave it to Ronaldo.

The one thing I will say in Henrys defence, and why I believe that he deserved it. If you look at the goals Arsenal scored in the premiership last season, 24 of them came from Henry, 23 of them were assists by Henry. He paid a vital part in 47 goals! And, although he does play in a team of world class players, for most of last season, the players around him were pretty shit. Pires did nothing. Freddy was out injured all the time. Wiltord is a huge, solid, ball of shite. Vieira was cool. Bergkamp was out of form all season. Without Henry, we wouldnt have come in the Top 3 last year, let alone had a chance of winning the title, we would have gone out of the cup.

Zidane is awesome, dont get me wrong, but you have to look at the team he has around him. Its the best club squad in the world, while I dont doubt for a second that he is an awesome player anyway, I cant help but feel its a bit easier for him to play well at times, because of the quality all around him.

Deffeh · 16 Dec 2003, 14:16

I entirely thoroughly endorse rids's post. You realise though, thats the one correct thing youll probably say all season

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2003, 14:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rids

What does RvN bring to a game? He is a great goalscorer, as good as Alan Shearer or Ian Wright ever were. But, other than that, what does he bring? Hes not a creator of many goals, hes not the type to pick the ball up on the wing, beat three men and create a chance out of nothing. When he gets a chance, he takes it, agreed, but I dont see how you can compare him in any way, shape, or form to Henry. Who, while not being as accurate in front of goal as RvN, does far more for the team, and is much more of a constant threat throughout the game than RvN.

I think you've not been looking at his recent games. He's been working on becoming the complete forward; and, even if that wasn't true, then he's been the key man for fighting lost causes. As for creating chances out of nothing, every single game he fights for every ball, winning corners, throw-ins or free kicks as often as not. How is that not being a creator of goals? Creating a chance out of nothing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rids

The one thing I will say in Henrys defence, and why I believe that he deserved it. If you look at the goals Arsenal scored in the premiership last season, 24 of them came from Henry, 23 of them were assists by Henry. He paid a vital part in 47 goals! And, although he does play in a team of world class players, for most of last season, the players around him were pretty shit. Pires did nothing. Freddy was out injured all the time. Wiltord is a huge, solid, ball of shite. Vieira was cool. Bergkamp was out of form all season. Without Henry, we wouldnt have come in the Top 3 last year, let alone had a chance of winning the title, we would have gone out of the cup.

Who were the rest of the contenders? Liverpool? I'd take Pires over Smicer or Diouf any day. Fulham? Don't make me laugh. Charlton? Everton? Blackburn?

Over all of those teams, even with the midfield playing terribly, Arsenal are superior. Don't try to deny it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rids

Zidane is awesome, dont get me wrong, but you have to look at the team he has around him. Its the best club squad in the world, while I dont doubt for a second that he is an awesome player anyway, I cant help but feel its a bit easier for him to play well at times, because of the quality all around him.

Even so, he runs the midfield for Madrid, and stands out as special.

Haer · 16 Dec 2003, 14:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

That's madness. Penalising the Real Madrid forward players with whom every single element of success rests with because the chairman refuses to buy a defender.

If all there success rests on the strikers, and they fail to succeed then surely they dont deserve to be the world players of the year. For the favourites to not win the champions league and then go onto still have two of there players nominated for world player of the year is ludicrous. Real Madrid were more than good enough to win the Champions league if they had played well enough - But they did nt, therefore they dont deserve the award.

Dont get me wrong, im not saying there bad players, or that they had bad seasons, just that by their standards they did nt have an amazing season, while other players did.

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2003, 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haer

If all there success rests on the strikers, and they fail to succeed then surely they dont deserve to be the world players of the year. For the favourites to not win the champions league and then go onto still have two of there players nominated for world player of the year is ludicrous. Real Madrid were more than good enough to win the Champions league if they had played well enough - But they did nt, therefore they dont deserve the award.

That's sheer stupidity. It's like saying that Ryan Giggs wasn't a good player because Wes Brown gave the goals away to Deportivo which made them lose.

The offense should be judged on how well they attack, not how well the defense defends.

Rids · 16 Dec 2003, 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I think you've not been looking at his recent games. He's been working on becoming the complete forward; and, even if that wasn't true, then he's been the key man for fighting lost causes. As for creating chances out of nothing, every single game he fights for every ball, winning corners, throw-ins or free kicks as often as not. How is that not being a creator of goals? Creating a chance out of nothing?

So, you're saying that RvN is as good as Henry. That he will create as many chances as Henry will throughout the season? Is he that much of a complete forward? Fair enough, he works hard and chases lost causes, I didnt realise we were giving out world player of the year awards for this however, else Ian Dowie deserved one about 6 years back for being the only thing in the West Ham squad that worked its ass off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Who were the rest of the contenders? Liverpool? I'd take Pires over Smicer or Diouf any day. Fulham? Don't make me laugh. Charlton? Everton? Blackburn?

Over all of those teams, even with the midfield playing terribly, Arsenal are superior. Don't try to deny it.

Ok, so now take out Henry as well then. So we had a midfield that was misfiring, and now a forward line that would have a difficult time scoring. Read what I posted about, 47 of our premiership goals came directly or indirectly from Henry last season, take that out and what do you have? Stick Kanu in there instead, 10 goals directly or indirectly from him, maximum, all season! You cant say that if we lost Henry, you'd have expected us to finish in the Top 3? Newcastle and Liverpool would have both finished above us, surely.

Quote:

Even so, he runs the midfield for Madrid, and stands out as special.

Have you been watching the games lately? The last few that I've seen (bare in mind I dont catch all of them, but I do catch as many as I can) Beckham has been the best thing in that time by a country mile. Several times hes raised the games of the players around him, and has brought goals when it looked like they were in real trouble.

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2003, 14:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rids

So, you're saying that RvN is as good as Henry. That he will create as many chances as Henry will throughout the season? Is he that much of a complete forward? Fair enough, he works hard and chases lost causes, I didnt realise we were giving out world player of the year awards for this however, else Ian Dowie deserved one about 6 years back for being the only thing in the West Ham squad that worked its ass off.

No, I'm saying that you're ignoring a section of his game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rids

Ok, so now take out Henry as well then. So we had a midfield that was misfiring, and now a forward line that would have a difficult time scoring. Read what I posted about, 47 of our premiership goals came directly or indirectly from Henry last season, take that out and what do you have? Stick Kanu in there instead, 10 goals directly or indirectly from him, maximum, all season! You cant say that if we lost Henry, you'd have expected us to finish in the Top 3? Newcastle and Liverpool would have both finished above us, surely.

Look my lad, you're counting goals scored by Henry and assists as purely things that count for Henry. Surely you should also count the players who scored the other goals, and the players that gave assists to Henry. However, if you remove Henry, I'm perfectly confident that Arsenal could finish in a Champions League spot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rids

Have you been watching the games lately? The last few that I've seen (bare in mind I dont catch all of them, but I do catch as many as I can) Beckham has been the best thing in that time by a country mile. Several times hes raised the games of the players around him, and has brought goals when it looked like they were in real trouble.

Beckham's spoken out repeatedly about Zidane's game, how good a player he is. And just because Beckham's playing exceptionally well doesn't mean that he runs the midfield.

Rids · 16 Dec 2003, 15:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

No, I'm saying that you're ignoring a section of his game.

I'm basically saying, that the creative side of his game, isnt as good as Henrys. Period.

Quote:

Look my lad, you're counting goals scored by Henry and assists as purely things that count for Henry. Surely you should also count the players who scored the other goals, and the players that gave assists to Henry. However, if you remove Henry, I'm perfectly confident that Arsenal could finish in a Champions League spot.

Then you place more value on the rest of our squad than I do. Based on the way we played last season (ie, being shit from about the 10th game onwards) I dont think that without Henry we would have qualified for a Champions League place. Honestly.

Quote:

Beckham's spoken out repeatedly about Zidane's game, how good a player he is. And just because Beckham's playing exceptionally well doesn't mean that he runs the midfield.

Havent said that he runs the Real Madrid midfild at all, but, what I am saying, is that he is currently in better form than Zidane is. I dont doubt Zidane is an awesome player, but over the past year I havent seen him have an exceptional run of form, have you?

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2003, 15:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rids

I'm basically saying, that the creative side of his game, isnt as good as Henrys. Period.

You said that his nongoalscoring exploits were insignificant.

KoeN · 16 Dec 2003, 15:49

henry is a better footballplayer than van nistelrooij will ever be, but i still prefer ruud above henry simply because he's doing what he's supposed to do: score.
oh and plz tell me why you're even mentioning beckham? i mean come on face it, he doesn't even come close to the skills of zidane/ nedved/ figo etc....

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2003, 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by KoeN

henry is a better footballplayer than van nistelrooij will ever be, but i still prefer ruud above henry simply because he's doing what he's supposed to do: score.
oh and plz tell me why you're even mentioning beckham? i mean come on face it, he doesn't even come close to the skills of zidane/ nedved/ figo etc....

Skill?

No.

Effectiveness?

Hell yes.

If he wasn't effective, the press would still be all over his back.

LHC · 16 Dec 2003, 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The question is... what did Henry achieve?

Arsenal have won the FA Cup, which hardly counts for much, and got knocked out in the group stages of the champions league. That's inferior to Real Madrid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

That's madness. Penalising the Real Madrid forward players with whom every single element of success rests with because the chairman refuses to buy a defender.

So when Arsenal do bad penalise Henry, but if Real Madrid do bad you mustn't penalise Zidane?

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2003, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by LHC

So when Arsenal do bad penalise Henry, but if Real Madrid do bad you mustn't penalise Zidane?

Nice out of context quoting dude.

I was replying to someone saying Zidane didn't achieve anything in the first post you quoted.

lokken · 16 Dec 2003, 18:19

The difference between Henry and Zidane:

Henry plays in a shit league.

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2003, 18:23

The Premiership is a great league.

I mean, Makelele has come and declared it of a standard with Italy and Spain.

JC · 16 Dec 2003, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

The difference between Henry and Zidane:

Henry plays in a shit league.

Zidane plays in a league where they dont bother defending, surely that is going to suit him more than Henry who plays in a slightly more defense minded league. Admittedly the Premiership is nowhere near as defensive as Serie A but still.

lokken · 16 Dec 2003, 18:57

Our league is not as good as Spain or Italy, therefore players in the premiership suffer from being at a disadvantage when it comes to these kind of awards.

Maybe I was trolling a little when i said the prem is a 'shit' league, but it's certainly overrated.

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2003, 18:58

Overrated by whom? The players and coaches certainly hold it in high regard.

Although you're probably better qualified to say, yes?

lokken · 16 Dec 2003, 19:07

I'm entitled to my opinion that people are overrating the prem from when I've watched games

This league is Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester United plus assorted others who are mainly quite dull and just sit behind the ball making themselves hard to beat - skill has very little to do with it. People accuse the Italian game of being boring, but the skill makes up for quite a bit of that.

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2003, 19:29

Skill from amazing teams like, say, Udinese or Empoli?

lokken · 16 Dec 2003, 20:09

or perhaps Birmingham, Liverpool, Fulham, Charlton, Pompey, Scum, Everton, Spuds, Villa, Wolves, Leicester have become really entertaining

I don't know

heh

I'm Not Grimble · 16 Dec 2003, 21:09

or perhaps Udinese, Sampdoria, Modena, Chievo Verona, Siena, Brescia, Reggina, Bologna, Perugia, Lecce, Empoli and Ancona have mysteriously gotten to be non-shit since the last time I looked

JC · 16 Dec 2003, 21:26

Chievo are a good side!

Flying donkeys are

.