17 May 13
4 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfieHe was the greatest English player of our generation, i dont know why you Angles wont accept this. He was maligned in the press for being a little dim and one dimensional as a soccer player, so what, when you can do what he does with a football, who cares if you are a little dim. An awesome player. Truly great. Maybe only Gazza comes close, but not that close. He is up there with Maradona and James McFadden.
beckham has retired...............does anybody care? the media are talking about what a great player he was. 'good' maybe, 'great' never.
17 May 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNever was a great player would rank him with great Scottish goalkeepers of the past .
He was the greatest English player of our generation, i dont know why you Angles wont accept this. He was maligned in the press for being a little dim and one dimensional as a soccer player, so what, when you can do what he does with a football, who cares if you are a little dim. An awesome player. Truly great. Maybe only Gazza comes close, but not that close. He is up there with Maradona and James McFadden.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
17 May 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei can only imagine that your 4 edits were because you were laughing so hard writing that crap that you kept making mistakes.
He was the greatest English player of our generation, i dont know why you Angles wont accept this. He was maligned in the press for being a little dim and one dimensional as a soccer player, so what, when you can do what he does with a football, who cares if you are a little dim. An awesome player. Truly great. Maybe only Gazza comes close, but not that close. He is up there with Maradona and James McFadden.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
17 May 13
Originally posted by scacchipazzoi think he was full of wasted potential. he wasnt suited to a 442 and was wasted on the wing. with his passing ability he should have been coached as a kid to play as an amc, like kaka or zidane. he tried killer balls far too often later in his career, especially for england. he actually had a pretty good shot on him but vary rarely could get into scoring space due to playing out wide. a good player, but could have been much better.
He marketed himself rather well. I agree entirely. Good, not great. Was blessed with good looks and milked that endlessly in a society into the cult of personality. However, he seems like a good bloke with never even a whiff of scandal.
17 May 13
Originally posted by stellspalfieI believe every word of it, Beckham was a great player, name any other Englishman from our generation that even comes close.
i can only imagine that your 4 edits were because you were laughing so hard writing that crap that you kept making mistakes.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19036
17 May 13
Originally posted by scacchipazzoThe only thing Beckham lacked was pace. One of the few Englishmen who who change a game by himself, Paul Scholes? What did he ever do for England? Great for Utd, sucked for England, Beckham on the other hand carried England at times.
Tell me at what exactly Beckham excelled? Bending wallets for his philantropies perhaps. Middling footballer at best. He was no Best, Charlton or even Keegan!
Plus he had the balls and talent to succeed in Spain and America. And at 37 he was still having an impact helping PSG with their first title in years.
If he is remembered as one of the greats it's for a reason.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
17 May 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobietechnically beckham is probably the best, slightly ahead of scholes. but footballs about winning games, gerrard, lampard and scholes were all much more effective players. beckhams problem was he wasnt tucked inside until later in his career.
I believe every word of it, Beckham was a great player, name any other Englishman from our generation that even comes close.
for man u, he had a specific job, cross the ball. and he did it better than anybody else in the world. but thats not enough to be great and held him back, especially as he didnt have the pace to be a ronaldo or dribbling of messi. he should have been played as a creative attacking midfielder, but he wasnt and it will remain a question mark how good he could have been.
gerrard, scholes, lampard and beckham were unfortunate that they were all in the same england team. we had 4 of the best we have had in a long time, but they were all far too similar to be an effective unit. take any two out and put in a keane and giggs and you have a world class midfield.
as for gazza, he was a different generation. beckham was better as he was fit and had the mental and physical fitness. but if gazza could have kept his head straight and stayed away from injury. he would have been the best english player ever......by far.
do you remember how a fat, drunk, old gazza ripped the scottish league apart for a few years.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
17 May 13
Originally posted by Trev33sorry trev i disagree. beckham very rarely changed games by himself. i think its a myth that he won games, a legend built around his goal against greece, and since when did playing well for england mark a players ability. most of the best english players failed for england. as i said we had 4 or 5 players that were too similar and stifled each other. beckham put in a shif for england every time, but sometimes is eagerness had a negative effect on his game....far too many long passes, no other top team in the world would put up with his long passes, especially when we had rooney and owen up front.
The only thing Beckham lacked was pace. One of the few Englishmen who who change a game by himself, Paul Scholes? What did he ever do for England? Great for Utd, sucked for England, Beckham on the other hand carried England at times.
Plus he had the balls and talent to succeed in Spain and America. And at 37 he was still having an impact helping PSG with their first title in years.
If he is remembered as one of the greats it's for a reason.
17 May 13
2 edits
Originally posted by scacchipazzoProbably best crosser of the ball I've ever seen in the game and a wicked free kick taker too. No I'm not just talking about the free kick against Greece, he scored plenty more. People tend to forget what happened 10-15 years ago, he's been playing that long and still at the top level. He gave England and MUFC real width. As Trev said, he lacked that extra yard, but he could always cut back, do a couple of shimmies and still get a really good cross in. He gave defences a real headache.
Tell me at what exactly Beckham excelled? Bending wallets for his philantropies perhaps. Middling footballer at best. He was no Best, Charlton or even Keegan!
Yes he's milked the media and what have you in recent years but why not. He enjoys it and he's not doing anyone any harm in that.
Typical example of jealous peeps again.
Robbie Carbolic, I forgave him the day after the petulant kick. Couldn't understand the furor over it TBH.
AMen.
EDIT: More crap goals from Becks: -