zidane wc 1998 vs zidane wc 2006

zidane wc 1998 vs zidane wc 2006

which one will you regard higher?

i want to see the reason why

2006.

Now while I admit I was only 5 years old during the 1998 World Cup (my birthday is in October for anyone writing my life's story), from what I know, Zidane was not as influential, bar a two goal performance in the final against Brazil which is legendary.

In 2006, I felt he was much more definitive. People may remember him for the red card but I think he played a great tournament overall and was the main reason France played in the final to begin with.

Luca wrote:2006.

Now while I admit I was only 5 years old during the 1998 World Cup (my birthday is in October for anyone writing my life's story), from what I know, Zidane was not as influential, bar a two goal performance in the final against Brazil which is legendary.

In 2006, I felt he was much more definitive. People may remember him for the red card but I think he played a great tournament overall and was the main reason France played in the final to begin with.

but certain "school of thought" said that to be the best, won a trophy is the only matter

meaning zidane 1998 > zidane 2006, right?

That's like asking which one is better, gonorrhea or syphilis? 98 he was a squad player, 06 is the most overrated performance ever.

98 is pretty much identical with Götze WC14, both assisted 1 goal and scored two goals including the winner in the final. Götze didn't play as much, but Zidane was suspended two games so it evens out.

06 he coasted group phase, France tied twice with him and won crucially without him. Excluding the penalties he didn't create, scored only one goal from open play when the game was almost done an dusted. For a playmaker didn't create as much, only registered 12 chances created which is a lot less than other playmakers Cruyff 74 (36), Pele 70 (28), Maradona 86 (27), Messi 14 (23). Again watching the games confirm what statistics already pointed. The red card incident just about is the cherry on a hype crusted and half hollow cake.

If I had gun on my head to choose one of them, I guess I would go with syphilis.

Harmonica wrote:That's like asking which one is better, gonorrhea or syphilis? 98 he was a squad player, 06 is the most overrated performance ever.

98 is pretty much identical with Götze WC14, both assisted 1 goal and scored two goals including the winner in the final. Götze didn't play as much, but Zidane was suspended two games so it evens out.

06 he coasted group phase, France tied twice with him and won crucially without him. Excluding the penalties he didn't create, scored only one goal from open play when the game was almost done an dusted. For a playmaker didn't create as much, only registered 12 chances created which is a lot less than other playmakers Cruyff 74 (36), Pele 70 (28), Maradona 86 (27), Messi 14 (23). Again watching the games confirm what statistics already pointed. The red card incident just about is the cherry on a hype crusted and half hollow cake.

If I had gun on my head to choose one of them, I guess I would go with syphilis.

100% this. I still hear people to this day saying he carried France to WC98

2006 is one of the most ovverated performances in history. I would say 98. Used his head very differently in 98 and 06.

jibers wrote:
100% this. I still hear people to this day saying he carried France to WC98

2006 is one of the most ovverated performances in history. I would say 98. Used his head very differently in 98 and 06.

2006. He wasn't special in the group stage but after that he was the sole reason they went to the finals especially with such an average coach. Best player of the tournament at 33-34 ? Let's give it to him.

1998 is a joke but every legend has its part of luck tho.

LeBéninois wrote:2006. He wasn't special in the group stage but after that he was the sole reason they went to the finals especially with such an average coach. Best player of the tournament at 33-34 ? Let's give it to him.  

1998 is a joke  but every legend has its part of luck tho.

This is what I'm talking about. The myth that gets perpetuated over and over again

Why was Zidane France's best player in 2006?
1st game against Switzerland. Man of the match , Makelele
2nd game vs South Korea, Man of the match ,Park Ji-Sung
3rd game vs Togo (without Zidane) Man of the match Patrick Vieira,

Round of 16 against Spain , Man of the match Patrick Vieira
Quarterfinal against Brazil, Man of the match Zinedine Zidane
Semifinal vs Portugal, Man of the match Lilian Thuram
Final vs Italy Man of the match Andrea Pirlo.

Zidane did not carry France national team to the final, his performances against South Korea and Switzerland wasn't that good, France had to win against Togo to advance the knockout stage, they beat Togo 2-0 without and Vieira saves the day. Zidane was good against Spain, but Ribery and Vieira, were better, Vieira was rightfully named Man of the match, His best game was vs Brazil, and maybe this game overhyped a bit his whole performance in the tournament.

Against Portugal, he had his worst appearance in the tournament, France beat 1-0 with that stupid penalty from Carvalho, Lilian Thuram was the MVP.
In the final, his best moment was the header in extra time.

So...
Was Zidane the best French player in group stage ? No.
Was it Zidanes performances against Portugal and Spain that made the difference for France? No.
Where was Zidane creativity in the tournament ? 1 assist vs Brazil, created 3 clear chances for his team from open play,1 vs Korea, 1 against Spain, and perhaps 1 in the final.

Finally conclude. Zidane was not the sole reason France reached the WC final. And he was in no way the best player of the tournament. The MVP should have gone to Pirlo but Cannavro was a close second. I can't believe what I read sometimes. He dribbles a player or takes a nice first touch then somehow he carried France. Ridiculous.

The real great Zidane performance internationally was Euro 2000.

jibers wrote:

LeBéninois wrote:2006. He wasn't special in the group stage but after that he was the sole reason they went to the finals especially with such an average coach. Best player of the tournament at 33-34 ? Let's give it to him.  

1998 is a joke  but every legend has its part of luck tho.

This is what I'm talking about. The myth that gets perpetuated over and over again

Why was Zidane France's best player in 2006?
1st game against Switzerland. Man of the match , Makelele
2nd game vs South Korea, Man of the match ,Park Ji-Sung
3rd game vs Togo (without Zidane) Man of the match Patrick Vieira,

Round of 16 against Spain , Man of the match Patrick Vieira
Quarterfinal against Brazil, Man of the match Zinedine Zidane
Semifinal vs Portugal, Man of the match Lilian Thuram
Final vs Italy Man of the match Andrea Pirlo.

Zidane did not carry France national team to the final, his performances against South Korea and Switzerland wasn't that good, France had to win against Togo to advance the knockout stage, they beat Togo 2-0 without and Vieira saves the day. Zidane was good against Spain, but Ribery and Vieira, were better, Vieira was rightfully named Man of the match, His best game was vs Brazil, and maybe this game overhyped a bit his whole performance in the tournament.

Against Portugal, he had his worst appearance in the tournament, France beat 1-0 with that stupid penalty from Carvalho, Lilian Thuram was the MVP.
In the final, his best moment was the header in extra time.

So...
Was Zidane the best French player in group stage ? No.
Was it Zidanes performances against Portugal and Spain that made the difference for France? No.
Where was Zidane creativity in the tournament ? 1 assist vs Brazil, created 3 clear chances for his team from open play,1 vs Korea, 1 against Spain, and perhaps 1 in the final.

Finally conclude. Zidane was not the sole reason France reached the WC final. And he was in no way the best player of the tournament. The MVP should have gone to Pirlo but Cannavro was a close second. I can't believe what I read sometimes. He dribbles a player or takes a nice first touch then somehow he carried France. Ridiculous.

Well I have to admit that I only saw Italy play twice , against Urkraine and in the final so when i said he was the best player of the tournament I meant '' he was designated as such '' . however he was the main reason they reached the final imo for sure. You have to take the mental aspect of his presence. Wthout him the team woul;dn't have believed that they could reach that stage. They had to convince him to come out of retirement for a reason.

Harmonica wrote:For a playmaker didn't create as much, only registered 12 chances created which is a lot less than other playmakers Cruyff 74 (36), Pele 70 (28), Maradona 86 (27), Messi 14 (23).

Not era-adjusted. 1 chance created in Zidane era = 5 chances created in Messi era.

Zidane facing defenders in EC final 2000: Cannavaro, Nesta, Maldini (legends of the game).

Messi facing defenders in CA final 2016: Beausejour, Jara, Medel (no one knows which irrelevant clubs they are playing for right now without looking it up).

simple answer, no need for technicalities. who was the better player? zidane in 98; was like 8 years younger. better tournament? i'm sure he'd prefer scoring twice in a world cup final (something that isn't done everyday), than getting sent off for a headbutt, when rather than headbutting he could have just insulted the players sister back or duel it out after the game

which one carried france? neither. i keep repeating, you can be the best player on your team, it doesn't equate to "carrying" the team. that term is used loosely these days. the closest i ever saw to that was obviously maradona in 86, whether people like it or not. baggio in 94 would have been next had he not shit his pants with that pk, he had a poor group game, but overall i value a player's performance in knockouts than him scoring a bucket load against the likes of switzerland and belarus. baggio's knock out campaign at usa 94 was amazing. romario 94 and platini in 84 could also make claims....i don't know about cruyff, pele, eusebio et al cos i never saw those tournaments

point is, xavi and villa didn't "carry" spain, cannavaro didn't with italy, ronaldo didn't with brazil, matthaus didn't with germany and the list goes on...most of those national sides had a good run of luck in having fantastic players/teams. with other guys stepping up at different times as is expected in football. even germany who didn't have a great side in 02, i'm still wary of saying oliver kahn and ballack, who were by far their best players, "carried" them

you need your best players against the toughest opposition, but this "carrying" thing has gone a bit too far. i think it only came in the conversation with zidane, when he retired the first time, and giuly or one of those clowns took his place as playmaker and they didn't look too good, and then he returned. but even when he returned for them, i think makelele and one or two other players also came out of retirement, so not just him. best player doesn't equal carrying in a whole tournament....i think its only on blogs that such is being said or argued. its no slap at him either, its not like anyone's saying he wasn't that french generations best player.

Very good post @Titosantill

It is as if the people have truly forgotten that this is a COLLECTIVE sport. Although football is played with 11 players (at least) the culture that surrounds it incites selfish behavior and laud individual success rather than the cohesion of the team .

I still hear stuff like '' Ronaldo was carried by Rivaldo in 2002 '' whereas it is a teamwork.

@LeBéninois. true, that whole ronaldo rivaldo thing once again is only popular on blogs, NOT from rivaldo fans, but from fans of other players who feel ronaldo for whatever reason deserves nothing from his career, in comparison to players they like. head to head online discussions can lead to analysis of case studies and variables that you don't even expect, in a bid to link them to the current argument. ala someone arguing how great iran, nigeria and bosnia were (you know there's an agenda behind such an argument, that has little or nothing to do with those football sides)

in fairness to that ronaldo rivaldo thing, unlike a lot of other debates where many years pass, and then people, some of whom never saw said players play, go back and dig up who scored, assisted or had shots on goal, and use that to decide that one player sucked in the game that they never saw, unlike that, there were people in 02 who felt rivaldo might have been better....but it didn't get to the point of saying this or that person was carried. and there where many who felt ronaldo better as well, but with cafu, carlos, ronaldinho, nobody that mattered was saying any sole person carried the side

[quote="jibers"]

LeBéninois wrote:2006. He wasn't special in the group stage but after that he was the sole reason they went to the finals especially with such an average coach. Best player of the tournament at 33-34 ? Let's give it to him.  

1998 is a joke  but every legend has its part of luck tho.

LeBéninois wrote:Very good post @Titosantill

It is as if the people have truly forgotten that this is a COLLECTIVE sport. Although football is played with 11 players (at least)  the culture that surrounds it  incites selfish behavior and laud individual success rather than the cohesion of the team .

I still hear stuff like  '' Ronaldo  was carried by Rivaldo in 2002 ''   whereas it is a teamwork.

2006 is the only exception imo.They went to the final thanks to him. Not in the sense that he carried them ( I shouldn't have used '' sole reason '' ) but in the sense that his presence really put the team together and made them confident.