Michael Laudrup vs Zinedine Zidane

Title says it all really, who do you think was the better player? I say Laudrup.

http://www.goallegacy.net/t606-zidane-vs-laudrup

Zidane was the better player, Zizou ranks with Cruyff, Maradona & Platini as 1 of the 4 best creative midfielders of all time, Laudrup was a superb player but Zidane was better.

I watched football since ever....
Most posters here are kids, that started watching football in 2003 and live past legends out of youtube highlights, and somehow become experts.

Zidane was a great player, and there is little doubt about that.

But I watched Laudrup and Zidane play, often. My dad would take me to watch games often because he worked for UEFA, for 10 years and quit in 2002.

I must say the following. No Laudrup was and is the better player, he was something else. He was called the "prince of passing" and Zidane, believe it or not, copied a lot of Laudrup's technique.

Laudrup had incredible technique and speed, and incredible left and right foot touches, and a laser beam creative pass that no one, except him could create.

I remember they interviewed Raul, back in 2006 and asked him who was the best player you played with, and he said " Michael Laudrup"

Even Iniesta and Guardiola said he was the best player in the world.

that summarizes everything.

He was an incredible playmaker. The best one I've ever seen. He was a mixture of Riquelme with Zidane.

The only player who I always thought to be underrated, was Robert Prosinescki, he had better skills than Zidane, no doubt, only comparable to Ibrahimovic.

Salicevic was also underrated for Romario.

Prosinesckis team Red Star beat the Champions League.

Laudrup should only be mentioned by those who actually saw him play regularly, not by those that just become "youtube experts'...

Laudrup was the man. And he left a great legacy.

I leave with all this article that I found back in 2012.

goal(dot)com/ en-india/news/2292/editorials/2012/03/14/2962981/legends-michael-laudrup..

For all those new to football here is a great compilation of The Prince. Enjoy.

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=9zUsCZvol-I

I am out!

Oldschool wrote:I watched football since ever....
Most posters here are kids, that started watching football in 2003 and live past legends out of youtube highlights, and somehow become experts.

Zidane was a great player, and there is little doubt about that.

But I watched Laudrup and Zidane play, often. My dad would take me to watch games often because he worked for UEFA, for 10 years and quit in 2002.

I must say the following. No Laudrup was and is the better player, he was something else. He was called the "prince of passing" and Zidane, believe it or not, copied a lot of Laudrup's technique.

Laudrup had incredible technique and speed, and incredible left and right foot touches, and a laser beam creative pass that no one, except him could create.

I remember they interviewed Raul, back in 2006 and asked him who was the best player you played with, and he said " Michael Laudrup"

Even Iniesta and Guardiola said he was the best player in the world.

that summarizes everything.

He was an incredible playmaker. The best one I've ever seen. He was a mixture of Riquelme with Zidane.

The only player who I always thought to be underrated, was Robert Prosinescki, he had better skills than Zidane, no doubt, only comparable to Ibrahimovic.

Salicevic was also underrated for Romario.

Prosinesckis team Red Star beat the Champions League.

Laudrup should only be mentioned by those who actually saw him play regularly, not by those that just become "youtube experts'...

Laudrup was the man. And he left a great legacy.

I leave with all this article that I found back in 2012.

goal(dot)com/ en-india/news/2292/editorials/2012/03/14/2962981/legends-michael-laudrup..

For all those new to football here is a great compilation of The Prince. Enjoy.

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=9zUsCZvol-I

I am out!

WELCOME , hope you stays here for a long time. we're basically all young as you said so so your opinion is very much appreciated.

From what I've seen....

Zidane was better in terms of being a point of attack. Zidane had more on the ball - he could go past his man anywhere on the field, he could control the game ,he was really really difficult to defend on the run because he was much more comfortable making the spaces in wide areas work for him. He had a better economy in terms of time and movement.

To me he was the most imaginative player I've ever seen with the ball coming to him. He had every passing option and every running channel picked out with in that moment. His execution wasn't flawless - bad touches and bad passes - but you genuinely didn't know what he was going to do.

Laudrup was a better passer - he had a better final ball and was a better distributor. I don't think he had better range but he was a more consistent passer. He was much less willing to use the wide spaces, he tended inwards, made it difficult for himself.

Largely due to the two things above he was a bit slower and more predictable. He needed touches and he needed to be in his preferred position to really see the field.

Le Samourai wrote:From what I've seen....

Zidane was better in terms of being a point of attack. Zidane had more on the ball - he could go past his man anywhere on the field, he could control the game ,he was really really difficult to defend on the run because he was much more comfortable making the spaces in wide areas work for him. He had a better economy in terms of time and movement.

To me he was the most imaginative player I've ever seen with the ball coming to him. He had every passing option and every running channel picked out with in that moment. His execution wasn't flawless - bad touches and bad passes - but you genuinely didn't know what he was going to do.

I don't understand what you are saying, because none of what your comparison with Laudrup is true.

Point of attack? Michael Laudrup was an attacking center midfielder....and his assist overshadows that of anyone in the world.

Again Zidane is Zidane, and Zidaned imposed beauty in his game. No doubt about that. It was beautiful to watch him play.

Zidane's vision of the game however was not persistent. There is were Laudrup comes along. Zidane would have brilliant sparks of glory and imagination.

But he wasn't as persistent, he would have horrible games, and more than often lose his temper. I remember when he played against Intern or Milan, he vanished....he wasn't in the game.

(Its weird because Zidane, prior to winning The World Cup with France, .....he was just consider a very good player, just alike others in his time,
I believe he had an explosion in the world cup.... but he also had a great team! And he had a lot more variables to impose his game, more than he ever had at Bordeux!)

Laudrup was "faster" than Zidane, and much more persistent. And his vision is unmatched. Heel passes, chest passes, knee passes, 360 spins, tunnels........he could do it all. Zidane copied Laudrup. He was also a beautiful player. But again most people are just too "young" to understand Laudrup.

Laudrup's biggest mistake and I would had given you credit, if you had pointed out that "He was not selfish enough" Zidane was more selfish.

Another reason why Laudrup was overlooked by mainstream know nothing young footballers is because he never won a world cup. But Denmark was never strong enough to depend only on Laudrup, Brian, and Sand....compared that to Zidane's...Carembeu, Deschamps, Lizarazu, Henry....

It could also be argued that Messi is also not better than Ronaldo, because he never won a world cup. I don't think that's true is it?

But the reality is Romario, Zamorano, Buitre, Raul, Amavisca, and Mijatovic and Suker (all great strikers) depended more on Laudrup to score.....than Del Piero, Inzaghi, Raul, Ronaldo and Owen...ever depended on Zidane! And that makes a big difference.

The most "creative player" you ever seen? You must not seen "Riquelme" play often, he was an incredible play-maker in Europe. Pirlo, Prosinescki, Ronaldinho, Rivaldo....also very creative players.

Either way, exceptional creative midfielders are hard to find. Outside of Iniesta...the only prospect I find interesting is a kid called Oliver Torres, who plays for Atletico Madrid...that might be the next greatest midfielder.

Le Samourai wrote:From what I've seen....

Zidane was better in terms of being a point of attack. Zidane had more on the ball - he could go past his man anywhere on the field, he could control the game ,he was really really difficult to defend on the run because he was much more comfortable making the spaces in wide areas work for him. He had a better economy in terms of time and movement.

To me he was the most imaginative player I've ever seen with the ball coming to him. He had every passing option and every running channel picked out with in that moment. His execution wasn't flawless - bad touches and bad passes - but you genuinely didn't know what he was going to do.

Laudrup was a better passer - he had a better final ball and was a better distributor. I don't think he had better range but he was a more consistent passer. He was much less willing to use the wide spaces, he tended inwards, made it difficult for himself.

Largely due to the two things above he was a bit slower and more predictable. He needed touches and he needed to be in his preferred position to really see the field.

Its strange that you mention that,because in that particular aspect Laudrup was far superior to Zidane.He was way more imaginative with the ball coming to him.

I'd love to read more about these players.. therefore bump

alexjanosik wrote:

Le Samourai wrote:From what I've seen....

Zidane was better in terms of being a point of attack. Zidane had more on the ball - he could go past his man anywhere on the field, he could control the game ,he was  really really difficult to defend on the run because he was much more comfortable making the spaces in wide areas work for him. He had a better economy in terms of time and movement.

To me he was the most imaginative player I've ever seen with the ball coming to him. He had every passing option and every running channel picked out with in that moment. His execution wasn't flawless -  bad touches and bad passes - but you genuinely didn't know what he was going to do.

Laudrup was a better passer - he had a better final ball and was a better distributor. I don't think he had better range but he was a more consistent passer. He was much less willing to use the wide spaces, he tended inwards, made it difficult for himself.

Largely due to the two things above he was a bit slower and more predictable. He needed touches and he needed to be in his preferred position to really see the field.

Its strange that you mention that,because in that particular aspect Laudrup was far superior to Zidane.He was way more imaginative with the ball coming to him.

I will admit, I am far to young to have seen Laudrup play so I shouldn't really say anything about the matter. But from what I have seen in clips and what other players have said about him, what you just said is exactly what I have always thought. I mean, in 94-95 he literally made Zamorano the top scorer in the league. A impressive 82% of all goals that Zamorano scored that season came from a Laudrup assist.

And looking at this video, you could see that there was no pass that he couldn't do.

I have always thought that Laudrup was a greater footballer than Zidane, and that he (alongside many others) is one of the most underrated footballers of all-time. On the other hand, Zidane is one of the most overrated footballers of all-time.

Laudrup was more of a two-footed player, was an actual visionary in attack on a regular basis. He had the ability to just sprint past defenders with incredible pace, but I thought he was more of a languid player. I don't think Zidane had that raw burst of speed that Laudrup did. In terms of "elegance", I'd say it is a subjective concept based on what you see as "elegant".

I don't think there is even a debate in terms of passing. Dribbling is debatable, because there are people who prefer the more finesse style like Laudrup, but then there are others who prefer the more controlled style like Zidane. Laudrup mastered the side-step like Zidane did the roulette, but in terms of controlling the ball in tight spaces, I would say Zidane was better.

Consistency is something they both lacked in, a lot. Many of the gifted attacking midfielders are the ones who drift in and out of matches, but over the course of the season they would both be lacking. I'm not sure of Zidane's individual awards over a league season, but I do know that Laudrup was rated very highly in some seasons at Barcelona, in terms of full season performances. I am not sure about his time at Real Madrid, but other sources that I have read confirm my own thoughts on him.

Club-career, Laudrup is way ahead of Zidane. International-wise, Zidane is way ahead of Laudrup. It's just that the WC was the most prestigious tournament and thus Zidane's ability was blown way out of proportion.

i.e he is clearly not the best player in the history of the Champions League, nor the best European footballer of the past 50 years. I think in "GOAT" lists he is very overrated too, based on his World Cup exploits. I'd rate Laudrup, Zico, Platini, and Xavi ahead if just talking about midfielders in history that I have seen.