I guess it's rather more what he didn't do, or what he was incapable doing, that gets up the poster's nose. I too, think he was overrated. Don't get me wrong, a very good player, but worthy of a record number of outfield national caps..? That's a no-brainer. I think not. But people believed the hype, even some fellow professionals who should know better. It's very difficult to talk down someone's abilities, when they can point to their successes and make you look silly for criticising. But Beckham's biggest achievement has been to manage the limited skills he actually does have into the global superstar he became. I suspect most of his admirers aren't even football supporters.
I think the problem of many is believeing he was over rated in the first place. He wasn't Messi, Zidane or any other speedy, technique drenched midfielder. However he was the best in the world at being able to put a pinpoint cross in without the need to get that yard of space. He would put crosses in when no other player in the world would have got it past the defender and if that means only 5 pinpoint crosses a game that is not to be sniffed at. Indeed if you have Sheringham, Shearer or the like on the end of them you will score 3+ from those 5. If it's Andy Cole (my namesake) then you'll still get 1 from the 5. I see teams as a machine and in a machine some of the seemingly unimportant parts do the most effective job. We must not confuse what we think of the 'Beckham roadshow' with the reality which was what he did on the pitch. The off field stuff was nonsensical. the onfield stuff, the reality was that he was the number one right winger in the world for a long time without ever being pacey, without ever being able to beat a player. Didn't matter because he didn't need to beat them because of that special gift. On the caps thing I agree. I don't think if we are just saying that caps = ability then no he isn't the best ever outfield player however that is all dependent on choices. Beckham got most of the caps deservedly through talent. The others he got because every time the manager (McLaren/Capello) tried to replace him the replacements were not as good and also without him doing that workarate in the midfield showed that he had been covering for all the others in the midfield for years. Bentley wasn't good enough. Lennon was great speed wise but then couldn't cross (see comment above), Walcott apart from 1 game was similar to Lennon. So Beckham ended up getting those sub caps as a backup. Makes sense when you are blooding youngsters that weren't doing the job to have him there just n case. I would suggest he should probs have been playing from the start in those sub games because he was still more effective than the replacements starting ahead of him. They should have been coming on as subs. So if caps = was he the best ever outfield player? No he wasn't the best ever however caps is not about that, caps depends on the alternatives of which there were none and even now aren't overly abundant. However I am open minded enough to know that each person sees things a little differently (not as far as post on page 3 which belies belief) and freely admit that I am not a fan of Lampard. Scores a lot yes but I think he is vastly overrated, and his bombing forward all the time means others have to do a huge amount of work in the space he vacates as well as shooting on site rather than making additional goals. Have been overjoyed to see Barry (who I've always rated) and Parker mean he is now sub only for England.
Funnily enough, MLT was a better crosser of the ball [than Beckham], and he didn't have to make such a big deal about it either, because he had so much else to call upon.
MLT was a better crosser and like above he was absolutely drenched with technique and skill but again as per statement above his workrate wasn't there and therefore like I say above when Beckham was dropped showed how much he had been covering for the other mfilders in terms of workrate it would have been similar. I think the 'make such a big deal about it' statement is a little strange. It wasn't Beckham 'bigging' himself up. He has always been quite a modest person in interviews. It was the media circus surrounding him that did the bigging up. Similar to Scholes really. We can't blame a person for the circus that surrounds them. I'm sure if Scholes had the model looks he would have had a team that attached himself around him whether he liked it or not. Even in the modern day I can't recall many players that actually 'make a big deal about their skills'. The only one I can remember is Joey Barton recently saying he should be in the England Squad. Anyway I think Beckham was great for a team in a period that many believed the hype of the media surrounding them and also in a time when all our midfielders thought they should be charging into the opponents box because he was the only one that very quickly moved back in behind and did the backtracking bit (along with Scholes.) Got to remember this was a midfield consisting of Scholes, Gerrard, Lampard and Beckham. When Scholes retired then Joe Cole replaced him. That is basically attacking to the extreme, very unbalanced and very open. At times we had a string of 6 players attacking with nothing between them and defence!!! That is where we did well the decade previous where we played a defensive midfielder like Ince or Batty (or Palmer. lol) with an attacking midfielder in front namely Gascoigne although it should have been MLT for the majority of Gazzas later caps. Then the 'golden generation' decade where the whole midfield thought they were forwards and Beckham ended up sprinting back to do the defensive part from the right wing. Capello has corrected that though bringing in Bary or Parker to hold in the midfield wiping out the midfield vacuum we have got used to. Pity Capello wasn't manager at the time Erikson was because he would have corrected this problem when we had almost a full squad that were good enough. Was a lost chance. We can say that they were all over rated and overhyped and never good enough. I can go along with that to some extent but I think that most of that was Eriksons fault for trying to blitz the opposition. It worked once against Germany, didn't work against anyone else.
