Ronaldo and the 1998 World Cup final

This I can accept & understand thats there's probably truth to it, that they at least brought a lot of pressure to bear on the Brazil management & FA.
I have trouble believing that Nike have to ability to pick 7 starters for Brazil. In fact that they can dictate any definate starter, specifically in a competitive game, for a friendly maybe.

 

It'll all depend on the contract, as Paul said in his post.

If Nike put that clause into a contract and their FA sign it, then the manager doesn't really have a leg to stand on.

 

Fair enough, if it's in a contract, I'd be skeptical it is. Like I say, I just find it incredible that you'd allow a sponser to pick 7 of your starting 11 in any tournament you're competing at as one of the potential favorites.
I think it's common knowledge they have a big say in friendlies, opposition, venue, time of year etc.. & I would well believe they can insist on which players play in these.

 

I can mind reading a conspiracy about Brazillians believing he'd been slipped something at breakfast etc etc.

 

Was in bed watching his highlight reels just last night, uncanny.

Went on his wiki as well and read that he signed a $150m lifetime deal with Nike, to add fuel to the discussion above about FIFA and any pressures.

What a player in his day! Was even class in a not so great shape, one of the best.

 

100% agree with this.

The best player that I've ever seen. There's not been a striker like him since and probably will never be.

 

Totally agree.

I can't think of many less inspiring World Champions than that French side and think a focussed Brazil would have beaten them.

 

Less inspiring? That French team was insane, Zidane alone is inspiring, never mind the likes of a young Henry, Petit, Djorkaeff, Lillian Thuram, lizarazu, Barthez at his bonkers best, Paddy Vieira....

Legendary team.

 

May I ask how old you are?

Zidane was a legend, no doubt about it but the others?

Thuram was genuine World class but legend status? It gets bandied about too much nowadays and to call him a legend would be testament to that.

Henry is, in my opinion, the most over-rated player in recent football history and should be given the pre-fox "only in England" as he was less than a huge success everywhere else and was regularly subjected to criticism by French fans and media alike. He also only played a bit part role for the whole tournament and didn't even play in the final. I hand on heart have no doubts that Henrik was a far better player.

Vieira, also, was hardly a huge success at anywhere else but Arsenal but was far more respected by the French fans and media.

I've never read any respected football journalist or historian suggest Emanuel Petite was a "legend".

Djorkaeff had a good career but "World Class" is debateable and "Legend" is definitely wrong.

As for Fabien Bartez, an iconic goalkeeper, definitely, but a liability at times and not amongst the best in history which would be the case if he was a legend.

I asked how old you are not to be ill-mannered but I normally find that those who consider that French team to be amongst the best in history to be under a certain age and looking back through the rose-tinted spectacles of nostalgia. Yes, they were successful but, in my opinion, during a period in the game's history when the standard at the highest echelons was suffering from a serious decline. They cannot be compared to most of those who won the World Cup before them - and many, many sides who didn't - and post 98 I would argue that Brazil 02, Spain 10 and Germany 14 were better sides.

It is, however, all about opinions and it would be boring if we all shared the same views

 

You may be right, France 98 is what got me into football properly but I think France going on to also win Euro 2000 shows they weren't a one hit wonder.

Thisrry Henry is France's all time leading goalscorer, he seems to get criticism the same way as Dalglish does for Scotland or Messi for Argentina - in short - fans are * dicks at times.

Barthez was a liability, however at the world cup itself and shortly afterwards he was at a level he never attained again.

I never meant that Petit was a legend btw, just that he was a very good player, especially in that team.

Djorkaeff and Vieira are two of my favourite ever players so I think we'll have to disagree there.

Funny thing is reading this post, I * hate Arsenal

 

I hope this makes sense, but I've always attributed the French success in 2000 more with the fact that they were the only team in the last 4 who had not had any draining epic games during the tournament.

They also finished second in the group (and weren't anything better than average in the match against Czech Republic) and struggled to beat a typical Spanish side of that period and a Portuguese side who hadn't reached their peak.

Henry gets stick because he often went missing in big games (he never scored in any final btw) and his form in the Premier League never really materalised anywhere else.

He was top goalscorer but his record is padded out with many goals against very weak opponents.

 

Legendary - Zidane
World class - Deschamps Lizarazu Blanc Thuram Desailly
As Paul says most of the others were top class players - Lebouef Pires Karembeau (a favourite player of mine) Djorkaeff Barthez

Their front line was very average. Dugarry probably the best but he was not exactly a workaholic.
The defence was very strong and their best feature.

Thierry Handball Henry is a *. Also never played in the final.

I can totally understand why they aren't given the same respect as other world cup winners but I do think they were a very very good team.

 

I agree Henry is a fud, but he was outstanding. Probably the best forward to have played in the Premiership. Not a French legend though.

In that 1998 squad the only player who can be called a legend is Zidane. The greatest midfielder to have ever played the game IMO.

 

What was the overall standard of the Premier League during Arsenal'Unbeaten season? Man Utd had broken a team up and Chelsea were just becoming accustomed to having money. How many games were Arsenal expected to lose?

I'm not taken anything away from it but if it happened anytime before the 90's it would have been a far greater achievement. Far greater.

In fact, Nottingham Forest going 42 matches Unbeaten in the 1980s is more amazing.

Another thing to remember is that during their "Unbeaten" season, Arsenal lost more games than Man Utd did when they won the treble in '99.

 

He was tailor made for the Premier League.

 

Messi is the greatest player in the non contact era and tailor made for this period in time.

He would not have been more than a flair player in different eras in my opinion.

 

So, do you think Nottingham Forest going 42 games unbeaten is a lesser or greater achievement?