The Franchise wrote:In terms of Villa vs Raul, its very hard to say. I mean Villa played the majority of his career as a 9, only with Barca and now Atletico does he play differently.

Raul was always a second striker, his role similar to that of Villa's now (when Costa plays) actually.

In terms of qualities, Villa was quicker and faster and great with both feet.

Raul had those moments of incredible brilliance , was there a better player at chipping the ball over the on-rushing goalkeeper, until Messi?

On NT level, people can make all the excuse in the world but Raul was unperforming. Forget about Spain who underperformed generally, he himself was playing below the expected level. Spain had plenty of quality, the entire team played poor.

I recall strongly in from like 96-02, they had players like Hierro, Nadal, Luis Enrique, Guardiola, Guerrero, Baraja, Morientes, Baraja, Valeron, Mendieta...all in their primes. They as a team always dissapointed, despite playing great football...so dont tell me they didnt have players, they had plenty players. They just failed to perform how they should.

Thats not a knock on Raul's greatness, things happen, his quality was pretty low on the list of reasons for it not going well. But indeed, he underperformed and so did the team.

Really, I dont know who was better. Ill cop out.

yes, but that players are nothing to the likes of Xavi and Iniesta.

and IMO Raul is a better chipper than Messi. The guy could have made a chip from basically any position and angle

How did it reach to Xavi vs Xabi? Seriously, how the hell did you guys make that jump? Even Dani got involve and he actually rarely gets involved in derailing.

Anyway, comparing Spain's NT eras is something that should be taken with extreme caution. Because anything before 2008, Spain's NT was very fragmented for reasons anyone with a grasp of history would tell you. As someone who has followed Spain longer than Gil (I can confirm, I have), Raul's NT career wasn't anything to speak of. From what I always read, he was a bit overbearing when it came to National pride and when you think about the various "countries" that lie in Spain, you're not gonna get a healthy dressing room. Furthermore, and I feel this is more of the issue, how he performed for Real Madrid was never how he performed for Spain. Honestly, if there was one player that I can compare it to, it's Henry's time with France. Legendary for club, not so much for country. In short, he was quite underwhelming for his NT.

Donut mentioned Raul is overrated by some. Donut needs to eat something other than donuts as it seems the lack of a proper healthy diet is starting to affect his posts. Nothing and I mean nothing about Raul is overrated. This isn't like the mythical Redondo or once a month Guti. Raul was/is a footballing genius.

Anyway, as a Raulista, I can tell you Villa is quicker, both footed, a better eye for goal and very much in no way in Raul's shadow and would be considered Spain's greatest forward. But......Raul was the better all rounded footballer.

Its irrelevant that they werent as good, they had alot more talent than the results they achieved and it wasnt just the other players, Raul too was way below what he should have been for Spain.

You cant say, look at this guy, he wasnt good enough...look at that guy, he wasnt good enough....when Raul wasnt performing either.

Doc wrote:How did it reach to Xavi vs Xabi? Seriously, how the hell did you guys make that jump? Even Dani got involve and he actually rarely gets involved in derailing.

I was the de-railer tbh, or at least the escalator. I knew people would get upset when I rejected the notion Alonso was better than Xavi in the way I did.

raul vs villa video:

in term of finishing
raul = villa

in term of ball control
raul > villa

in term of ball chipper
raul > villa

in term of national achievement
villa > raul

in term of club achievement
raul > villa (3 cl > 1 cl)

in term of being best in non-elite club
villa > raul (raul only played in schalke)

conclusion:

i'm not sure which one to pick

Villa > Raul, for me Raul was never really truly elite unlike Villa who was considered best striker in the world at one period. Don't get me wrong Raul was a top player but just not at the level I'd consider the very best in his position at any period.

Also

Xavi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xabi at any stage of his career not even a contest at ALL.

Abramovich wrote:Villa > Raul, for me Raul was never really truly elite unlike Villa who was considered best striker in the world at one period. Don't get me wrong Raul was a top player but just not at the level I'd consider the very best in his position at any period.

Also

Xavi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xabi at any stage of his career not even a contest at ALL.

all time top scorer in champions league is not an elite player???

ok............

The Franchise wrote:

Doc wrote:How did it reach to Xavi vs Xabi? Seriously, how the hell did you guys make that jump? Even Dani got involve and he actually rarely gets involved in derailing.

I was the de-railer tbh, or at least the escalator. I knew people would get upset when I rejected the notion Alonso was better than Xavi in the way I did.

Xavi was always better than Xabi. Which, of course, doesn't mean Alonso is a crappy player. Very much the opposite but yeah, Xavi > Xabi.

@Abra
Come on, you're not Gil. Well, you don't think like him. Raul was very much an elite footballer and was considered one of the best forwards in the world at his prime.

Maybe I am overrating Villa somewhat but for me Raul was not top of the top, just slightly below which isn't anything bad. Fine margins I suppose like RVN and yeah gil is an ass who is thick as fook.

as far as i'm concerned, put raul on the zaragoza or valencia teams villa played for and he definitely wouldn't do any better... probably not worse though, either

for all the talk about how raul was more of a second striker, pretty much valencia's whole attack was villa while he was there... sure he didn't have ronaldo bang in the majority of goals instead, but villa's movement and passing with the rest of the players was fantastic... he made the whole team much better, the difference when we sold him and bought soldado was absolutely massive, and not just because of the level of talent, but soldado was very much a "give me the ball and *bleep* off" type of a forward, villa could do so much more... iirc the guy ended up with double digit assists totals for at least 3 years at valencia

Now this is intresting. If I where to rate them both at their peak I'd say they're both even. They differ in style but they were both just as clinical.

the fact villa did it with a much weaker side and in much more different teams along with the national team gives villa an edge for me.

i would pick raul...but i'm biased, he, alongside fernando redondo where the reason i started supporting madrid to begin with; seen his debut and seen him perform in big games especially champions league finals....however, to bring some sanity to this, i would say villa is massively underrated; in terms of the rise of spain, i would put him up there with their midfield as instrumental to their rise. the thing with raul was at his peak, he was excellent, if he didn't score he'd assist or be a nuisance to the defense, and he could also finish (those crazy chips of his)....but his decline, which i think came after he had appendicitis and missed the second leg at united was rapid, and the change of coaches and players at madrid did not help at all....i was happy he left and got rejuvenated at schalke, cos he couldn't start at madrid anymore. its a tough call between those two...so i'll say for their national team, (as a 'non-supporter' of la roja) david villa was certainly the better player; even before they started winning medals villa did a lot for them....for club, as a fan, i'd obviously go with raul. But i wouldn't slight anyone for picking villa, differing opinions and allegiances i guess

I thought Valencia's attack was fantastic when Villa was there. Mata and Silva is not a supporting cast to scoff at.