the wasted talent thing got me thinking, or rather it reminded me of what turned into a stinking argument with the mrs. i said something about gary lineker being a good player who, in the end, never actually won all that much and that for the talent he had you'd have expected him to have more medals. she countered that he won the golden boot etc etc. wikipedia got involved and it ended with me saying (in a calm measured tone) that i believed, in my humble opinion, that winning cups and trophies was a more important, she screamed , pulled out her hair, cried, punched the walls and shrieked something about being recognised as a great player was more important irrespective of trophies won as thats a team effort. re-run thuis for half an hour then follow by several hours of silence and you get the idea. a walkers crisps advert cant come on in our house now without the room temperature dropping. my question is, are her ovaries clowding her judgement and trophies are more important, or could i be wrong? (i'm not)
Medals, trophies, golden boots and all are important to the players themselves no dought but are not really a measure of greatness on their own. Much more important are the moments and the impressions left behind. For example Matt Le Tissier, won F all but will always be remembered as a magical player; Henning Berg, Gilles Grimandi, Luke Chadwick, Christopher Wreh and Matthew Upson all won the premier league but even some of their own fans barely remember them.
Oh come on - he won the Del Rey & CWC with Barca - it was just unfortunate at the time Real were dominating La Liga.
Just saying there is more to it than one factor mate. The very greatest legends have all of it of course, Moments, World Cups, Leagues, Goals, Memories. But I'll be damned if I consider Wes Brown to be a better or more successful player than Gary Linekar.
to be considered one of the greats you need to succeed at club and international level, winning trophies at each.
That rules out Giggs, Best, Weah, Rush, Charles, Cruyff... You see how any one criteria alone can not be a measure either for or against?
they are not greats though, the greats are the greatest of all time, such as Pele, Maradona, Zidane and, once argentina win the WC, Messi. anyone below that level are just really good.
That's BS mate. Cruyff is one of the top 5 players who ever lived. John Charles is practically worshipped by Juventus fans and every old fart on any terrace around the country will tell you all about how George Best was better than any of them. When international honours is largely a case of accident of birth it simply can not be used as a criteria for anything.
