Originally Posted by
Carlos Tevez
France struggled after Platini, but they were never as good
under Platini as they were under Zidane. Argentina however had just won
the 1978 World Cup, one World Cup before Maradona started his WC career
in 1982. And unlike France without Zidane in 2002 and 2010, they didn't
suck after Maradona since they made the quarter finals in 1998. And
maybe we should wait to evaluate that mysterious player who will lead
France to a new period of glory until he actually arrives. For now, the
current France team that is very similar to the France 2006 team sucks.
No team has ever had an extreme differential between success and
failure without a single player as 1998-2010 France had with and
without Zidane. Argentina won in 1978 without Maradona. Brazil won in
1962 without Pele. The Dutch made it to the 1978 final without Cruyff.
This France team is not very similar to the 2006 team. In 2006 they also had Henry in his prime, two of the best holding midfielders of their time (Makelele and Vieira), an excellent defence and Malouda and Ribery played well that tournament. They have a talented team now but no chemistry and the clueless Domenech has ruined the team. Not only is a player of Zidane's quality missing, but they dont have a striker as good as Henry (in 2006), they dont have central midfielders as good as Mak and Vieira (they're starting with Abou Diaby for Christ's sake
), they are using Abidal as a CB, they're using William Gallas who just came off a serious injury and has lost a step or two. This team is not as good as the one in 2006. If you take out Zidane from 06 that French team would still be better than the current team. My point is that yes, France miss Zidane but this team overall is not as good as the team 4 years ago. France's appearance in the finals is due in large part to Zidane but also to the rest of the team...that was a very good team that was able to overcome Domenech's poor decisons.
Argentina have historically been better than France so its no surprise they've been able to get some respectable results since Maradona's retirement. Could it be that Argentina have traditionally produced better players than France? I mean, just because Zidane is the most important player in France's history does not make him the best player ever (which this discussion is ultimately about).
If you want to discuss who meant more to his team's success then you could argue in favor of Zidane. However, the discussion is about who the best player is ever in terms of skill, dominance, achievements, recognition, etc. You and Persia seem to think that Zidane is the best ever because of his influence on France but that does not make him the best ever.
Let me ask you this again since you might've missed the question when I asked it earlier...do you think Argentina would've won the 1986 WC without Maradona? You have so many pundits (even English analysts) who say that Maradona won that tournament for his country. He also helped (although he wasnt dominant) Argentina make the 1990 finals. He was injured during the tourny but was still head and shoulders above most of the competition and he contributed to their run.
Can we put all the France vs. Argentina team results aside and analyze how these 2 men performed on the pitch? Zidane was nowhere near as skilled/dominant as Maradona was on the pitch. And we haven't even started discussing Pele yet...
Henry is just as much past his prime right now as their current key player Ribery was prior to his prime in 2006. Plus they got the "new Zidane" or whatever they call Gourcuff. Not to mention that they have a MUCH better goalkeeper (very often regarded as the best in the world) than the bum Barthez who cost them the final in 2006. And they're all led by the same coach. In terms of talent, they are very similar to the 06 team, other than Zidane of course. Ask any expert and he'll tell you that ON PAPER, France have one of the best teams in this tournament. But they've played like one of the worst, hell probably THE worst team in the World Cup. And you're god damn right they don't have the chemistry. BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ZIDANE! Zidane WAS the chemistry.
Where have I ever said that the 1986 Argentina would've won without Maradona or given you this indication? But no way would France win without Zidane in 98 or go to the final in 06. They would probably get knocked out by Spain in the first round, and if not, then definitely by Brazil in the second. 1982-1994 Argentina would've done MUCH better without Maradona than 1998-2010 France would've without Zidane.
If you're measuring skill/dominance in terms of how spectacular and highlight worthy they looked on the pitch, then Maradona would get the edge. But Zidane's impact on the overall structure of a team was greater than Maradona's. And I prioritize the latter higher when determining who is the GOAT soccer player. If you prioritize individual highlights more, then that's cool.
