Ronaldo Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Such an underachiever Viduka, speaks volumes about the extent to which tenacity plays a part. He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch. In what way? People only remember the battering ram Shearer they forget the Blackburn speedster & goals like he fired past Everton I certainly don't. He was clearly as his best at Blackburn Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Such an underachiever Viduka, speaks volumes about the extent to which tenacity plays a part. He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch. In what way? Certainly his technique, superior touch, you could also argue his finishing was more clinical from an earlier age. And of course the obvious one, size. Shearer scored a hatrick against the GREAT Arsenal back four on his debut Viduka was scoring in football on par with the Eldon Square 5-a-side league while playing for the Melbourne Knights. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMc Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Such an underachiever Viduka, speaks volumes about the extent to which tenacity plays a part. He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch. In what way? Certainly his technique, superior touch, you could also argue his finishing was more clinical from an earlier age. And of course the obvious one, size. In no way was Viduka a better finisher than Shearer.And being big is a natural talent? Shearer's control, touch and link up play were all surprisingly under-rated. There was a point when he was both the best crosser and finisher in the country .and rarely if ever wasted the ball. Viduka was never a patch on him Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Such an underachiever Viduka, speaks volumes about the extent to which tenacity plays a part. He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch. In what way? Certainly his technique, superior touch, you could also argue his finishing was more clinical from an earlier age. And of course the obvious one, size. I don't think his touch was any better than Shearer's, he just looked more classy on the pitch. Plus look at Shearer's scoring record, so no you can't really argue he was a more clinical finisher. Size doesn't mean anything if you don't use it effectively, Viduka as we know was soft as shite and useless in the air. Very good with his back to goal, but Shearer used his strength and size far more effectively. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubaricho Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 You can clearly see that when Viduka plays he is looking at a completely different game. He is a class above a whole lot of people who have graced the pitch around the world but his attitude and determination really let him down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Such an underachiever Viduka, speaks volumes about the extent to which tenacity plays a part. He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch. In what way? Certainly his technique, superior touch, you could also argue his finishing was more clinical from an earlier age. And of course the obvious one, size. I don't think his touch was any better than Shearer's, he just looked more classy on the pitch. Plus look at Shearer's scoring record, so no you can't really argue he was a more clinical finisher. Size doesn't mean anything if you don't use it effectively, Viduka as we know was soft as s**** and useless in the air. Very good with his back to goal, but Shearer used his strength and size far more effectively. In his later days he did. I'm by no means arguing that Viduka was half the player that Shearer was. I just think he was more naturally gifted. For example, irregardless of how he used that size, he had more of it than Shearer (that comment supports my initial point btw) With regard to touch, this is the one area where Viduka had a massive advantage over Shearer imo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Snrub Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Ronaldo looking for any excuse to have a sly dig at Shearer? Surely not.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Such an underachiever Viduka, speaks volumes about the extent to which tenacity plays a part. He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch. In what way? Certainly his technique, superior touch, you could also argue his finishing was more clinical from an earlier age. And of course the obvious one, size. I don't think his touch was any better than Shearer's, he just looked more classy on the pitch. Plus look at Shearer's scoring record, so no you can't really argue he was a more clinical finisher. Size doesn't mean anything if you don't use it effectively, Viduka as we know was soft as s**** and useless in the air. Very good with his back to goal, but Shearer used his strength and size far more effectively. In his later days he did. I'm by no means arguing that Viduka was half the player that Shearer was. I just think he was more naturally gifted. For example, irregardless of how he used that size, he had more of it than Shearer (that comment supports my initial point btw) With regard to touch, this is the one area where Viduka had a massive advantage over Shearer imo How did he have a massive advantage? Like I said Viduka looked more classy but that doesn't mean he had a massive advantage with regards to his touch. I can barely ever remember Shearer miscontrolling a ball. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Such an underachiever Viduka, speaks volumes about the extent to which tenacity plays a part. He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch. Can you elaborate? That whole natural talent thing is rubbish I think personally. Physicality and determination are as much football skills as controling the ball imo. spoken like a true African, no offense intended whatsoever I'm still insulted tbh. Hell, my favorite player is Kanu who definitely is not known for physicality and determination. If had those things, maybe he would have had an even more illustrious career. These things are undoubtedly important imo. Messi is one of the best not only because of his ball skills, but his quickness and his deceptive strength and low center of gravity. Cristiano Ronaldo is great not only because of his quick feet and shooting ability, but because he has great height and can run like a horse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Kanu is worth mentioning here as compared to Viduka he has the superior technique, superior touch, you could also argue his finishing was more clinical from an earlier age check his record out Ajax. And of course the obvious one, size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Such an underachiever Viduka, speaks volumes about the extent to which tenacity plays a part. He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player. You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch. In what way? Certainly his technique, superior touch, you could also argue his finishing was more clinical from an earlier age. And of course the obvious one, size. I don't think his touch was any better than Shearer's, he just looked more classy on the pitch. Plus look at Shearer's scoring record, so no you can't really argue he was a more clinical finisher. Size doesn't mean anything if you don't use it effectively, Viduka as we know was soft as s**** and useless in the air. Very good with his back to goal, but Shearer used his strength and size far more effectively. In his later days he did. I'm by no means arguing that Viduka was half the player that Shearer was. I just think he was more naturally gifted. For example, irregardless of how he used that size, he had more of it than Shearer (that comment supports my initial point btw) With regard to touch, this is the one area where Viduka had a massive advantage over Shearer imo How did he have a massive advantage? Like I said Viduka looked more classy but that doesn't mean he had a massive advantage with regards to his touch. I can barely ever remember Shearer miscontrolling a ball. Viduka's first touch was magnificent to the extent you cannot teach. Shearer's was very consistent to be fair but not quite in the same league imo. He seldom miscontrolled it but couldn't really manipulate the ball as well as the Duke. We all know who the better player by far was. I think Shearer had to work a lot harder to become the player he was, is all i'm saying. In a nutshell, Shearer's mentality and discipline combined with Viduka's natural talent (including size) would just about equal the man himself, almost Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Snrub Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Just because Viduka had the first touch of a South American doesn't mean it was any more effective than Shearer's. He didn't look pretty doing it, but there was no one better at holding off defenders and bringing the ball down than Shearer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Just because Viduka had the first touch of a South American doesn't mean it was any more effective than Shearer's. He didn't look pretty doing it, but there was no one better at holding off defenders and bringing the ball down than Shearer. Try and keep up mate, the discussion isn't at all about effectiveness, we all know who was more effective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 I have not seen him play as much as you lot, but to me Shearer was above all a finisher, one of the greatest in the game. Viduka - I think - was a more complete player in the sense he was more comfortable on the ball and could carry and do something with it. I remember when I was a teenager and watched the PL highlights, all Shearer goals were always him uncannily putting the ball in the general direction of the net, he just didn't participate in the buildup play like Viduka did, and rarely created his own chances. Again, I know who I'd have on my team. Heck, why didn't he just put his boots on and took the field last season instead of the fat Aussie? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 No chance was Viduka the more "naturally gifted" player. Because he was a big lad & had great control ? Its no more complicated than them both having different strengths. Shearers made him the better player & he had a lot more over viduka than simply being more determined and disciplined. No real basis to believe Vidukas control came to him naturally either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Think Shearer's first touch was as good as Viduka's, tbh. He may not have been as comfortable on the ball in general, but I can't imagine there have been many better in football at putting the ball exactly they want it with their first touch (and that includes balls launched at him from all angles and heights). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Viduka was better technically but Shearer had a lot more ambition and desire. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubaricho Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Some people on here are very deluded and looking at things through some serious black and white lenses. Shearer's first touch as good as Viduka's? Come off it. You know it's crap when you're typing it out and yet you still do. Viduka was a far more creative player than Shearer would ever hope to be as well. Like someone stated above, Viduka's game was much more about being creative and doing something with the ball rather than playing with his back to goal and holding off defenders (which to be fair Viduka also did well in his prime). To me, Viduka's first touch is on par with Berbatov's who has a first touch that is clearly above what Shearer's ever was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Some people on here are very deluded and looking at things through some serious black and white lenses. Shearer's first touch as good as Viduka's? Come off it. You know it's crap when you're typing it out and yet you still do. Viduka was a far more creative player than Shearer would ever hope to be as well. Like someone stated above, Viduka's game was much more about being creative and doing something with the ball rather than playing with his back to goal and holding off defenders (which to be fair Viduka also did well in his prime). To me, Viduka's first touch is on par with Berbatov's who has a first touch that is clearly above what Shearer's ever was. yep, bang on. Shearer was twice the player but by no means had anything like the first touch of Viduka Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 As I said further up Kanu has a better 1st touch than Viduka. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 As I said further up Kanu has a better 1st touch than Viduka. Maybe twenty years ago when he was about 25. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 As I said further up Kanu has a better 1st touch than Viduka. Maybe twenty years ago when he was about 25. You do know who Kanu is? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 As I said further up Kanu has a better 1st touch than Viduka. Maybe twenty years ago when he was about 25. You do know who Kanu is? The one who left for Wolfsburg? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 As I said further up Kanu has a better 1st touch than Viduka. Maybe twenty years ago when he was about 25. You do know who Kanu is? The one who left for Wolfsburg? Nah the lad is at Anderlecht on loan at Cercle Brugge Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 As I said further up Kanu has a better 1st touch than Viduka. Maybe twenty years ago when he was about 25. You do know who Kanu is? The one who left for Wolfsburg? Nah the lad Anderlecht who is on loan at Cercle Brugge Ah. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now