Maybe but the two United players used as examples on this thread are Wes Brown and John O Shea. Both of whom have played hundreds of games for United whilst picking up countless (please, don't count them for me again!) medals and having international careers. Just how successful are they meant to be? The wrong example was used in Brown and Sheasy. Now, Jimmy Traore with his champions league medal is another case entirely!!
Traore, worst left back to ever win the champions league. Seriously though, people talk about Wes Brown and John O'Shea like that because they've been at Man Utd throughout their careers but never managed to nail down a starting place in the team. When a player shows good potential like Rafael and Fabio they will immediately be put in the side ahead of Brown or O'Shea, which makes people think that they aren't that good.
I know they do and that is essentially where they're dead wrong. Those types of players are what make squads. In Wes Brown's case his injuries did for him having the right back spot to himself but with John O Shea, he is capable of filling any position across the back and also occasionally in CM. He does it loyally and without complaint, his reward is his medal collection. If they were no good they wouldn't be anywhere near the amount of games played/trophies they've got.
I think you can measure sucess by a player in a sucessful side by how much he brought to it. By that token, Wes Brown is great because he was the best RB in the world when we won the PL and CL in 2008. John O'Shea has been vital over the years. Think of the points he has won for us (ehem, at the Kop for instance). Another example would be Gary Neville. When he retired, many people were saying that he was lucky to be at United at a time when we so dominant. But that is wrong, without him, would Beckham have had so much sucess down the right wing? How many assists and crosses and overlaps did he provide over the years ergo Neville is a great player (in terms of English football for sure).
Nobody is saying they aren't successful, they clearly are, what we are saying is that doesn't make then great players. The correct answer is that a players success/medals and a players talent/ability are completely distinct and separate things that have an at best casual correlation because better players tend to end up playing alongside other better players and hence they win stuff. In any team game the ultimate ability of a player does not necessarily equate to success on a team level (which is how 90% of awards are gained) and that is one of the things that makes team sports such as interesting thing.
Medals are great to show the grandkids, but being acknowledged as a legend by your fans is far more important, just ask the winners of the '74 and '78 world cups and compare their anwers to the Dutch masters who won nowt.
