They are 16. Considering most youngsters start to taste league cup around 18, then senior football around 20, he was most likely talking about those listed.

Paolo Maldini is arguably the greatest defender to have ever played, but won nothing at international level. Same with so many other players. The international stage has often been the basis where greats earned their names, but, other than Maradona, most of the others done it in great teams. Football is a team based game and I think using achievements as the sole basis of what makes a great player is very ignorant.

Also, international football is not the powerhouse it was in years gone by. The level of management, competition and general quality of the game has all been overtaken by the champions league. Also, with football now becoming stupidly demanding physically, it's clear that these tournaments at the end of the year is just resulting in further fatigue, which results in many players struggling to perform at their peak like they do for their clubs.

So Eusabio, George Best, Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes etc are all cack then?

It's regarded as the highest standard of competition by idiots like you.

People who actually know football know that tournament football played over a 1 month period at the end of a club season is a completely different story to the week in week out play of club football. People who know football know that the tactics and play is usually simpler in international games because the players are thrown together a few times a year and don't know each other well.

Maradona is regarded as one of the greatest players ever because he was one of the greatest players ever. He performed at both international and club level. Napoli won their only Serie A titles when he was there. But club football also exposes negative character traits in a way that tournament football doesn't. Players who can look good in international tournaments - Robinho, Thomas Bolin etc can be absolute nightmares when they play for their clubs.

But then again, Greece and Denmark are both recent winners of the Euros, so obviously it is the pinnacle of the game.

Zidane's greatness (and infamy) is not significantly attributable to his World Cup performances?
Ronaldo's greatness is not significantly attributable to his World Cup performances (record goal-scorer - when half fit!)?
Klinsmann?
Paolo Rossi?
Cruyff?

Are you a ventriloquist by chance?

I mentioned none of the above players. What I said is the World Cup is the highest standard of competition. And the greatness of players is often judged within that context.



I'm definitely sensing a degree of agitation here.





You, I assume.





[fx: Snooze.



Is this what people who "know" football come up with?

This keyboard is a keyboard because it's a keyboard. The sky above is the sky because it's the sky. People who "know" football "know" football because they "know" football. You see - I too can perform dazzling feats of circuitous reasoning!

There was some idiot on here saying that the present England stars didn't know how to win big games because of their tally of 0 WC wins and 0 EC wins.

Good job you're here to show him what a fool he is.

Cruyff didn't win a World Cup (just) - but he certainly excelled in the championship stages. Which is the reason he is regarded so highly. Which is the reason the current England crop aren't.

So what your saying is that LGJM can't use any quote that you have said that makes your argument look like tripe? You're starting to look like a bit of a prat. You're essentially saying that any player who is unfortunate to be born into a 2nd tier footballing country can't go on to become a great? Amazing how George Best is still remembered these days isn't it.

Yes, of course their greatness is attributed to their world cup wins, but I remember Zidane's goal in the CL final just as much as I remember his two goals in '98.

My point was: any player can prove himself to be an all time great by performing for his club. Maldini is one of the most decorated players of all time without winning anything at international level, he will be remembered as one of the greatest defenders of all time, above many players who have won world cups.

Have you lived abroad? I have. In several countries. George Best's reputation (especially in Africa) is nowhere near as high as Pele's or Maradona's. And that's because he did not perform on a global stage. As for "looking like a prat" - meh.

Squabbling, squabbling....my dad's bigger than your dad.

I must say that the World Cup is the competition that does bring great players (on the face of it) to the attention of the world....and was more so in the past when football seemed a bit more insular internationally. Which is why I remember some players like Chumpitaz and Cubillas of Peru from the World Cup and never saw them any place else. They were fascinatingly good players along with their names.....and I shan't forget them.

So I think the World Cup is still the showcase for many a great player....although less so in terms of exposure than was the case when I was a youth.
And as result it will be the venue from which many a young person will remember and associate great players. More accurately their great play...which I suppose makes them great...whatever. But it's only a showcase. The players that are good were presumably good elsewhere and they certainly don't have to win anything at the World Cup to be thought of as great. It's just the longer they go in the competition, the more the exposure, the more etched the image in the memory.

Klose of Germany is in my view a great World Cup player, because he does it when it matters......and whether he does it at club level is immaterial to me, since I rarely see that.He doesn't apparently, but no matter....he goes down as memorable, World Cup winner or not.....hopefully not!!!



Although winning a World Cup is the not the be all and end all of greatness, it certainly helps.

As for blaming Capello....Mugwump makes the point that he (Mugwump) couldn't see it to be in Capello's master-plan that his defence perform as they did...and he'll be right.
BUT Capello was sitting on the touchline....he did have influence...he surely could see players doing things wrong very early doors, yet they carried on going AWOL to the tune of four, and luckily not more, goals. Now either some of them weren't listening or he wasn't getting his message across. Either way he was the man supposed to be in charge.

Still up to the ref. As I say, it should only be used for absolutes because otherwise there's too much interpretation to be applied which would slow it all down too much.

Any system brought in doesn't have to make things perfect, just better.