Fabricio Coloccini

[Disco]

The last two seasons he's hardly played.  I wouldn't say he's been the best in the world like..

 

Name a better one over the last 8 years. Nesta is the only one who comes close.

 

Rio in his prime actually reminded me a lot of Nesta.

 

The only English CB that had that kind of composure and was able to comfortably play the ball out from the back.

 

He's not actually that good on the ball IMO just way better than any other English defender on it hence why it is highlighted more.

[Teasy]

Woodgate better than Ferdinand. Yeah, right.

 

Then I guess you haven't seen him play when he was in NUFC? Leeds sold Ferdinand with a smile on their faces because they knew Woody was better. Too bad he's crippled. He would have kept either Ferdinand or Terry out of the national team.

 

They knew Woody was better yet sold him 6 months after Ferdinand for a third of the price.

You do talk some complete drivel don't you? Yes, at the time (broadly) Woodgate was as good if not better than Ferdinand. It's not difficult. You talk like an experienced campaigner whose omnipresence allows him to see every match everywhere. In actual fact, you were about 10 when the bloke in your avatar was creating havoc across Europe. You aren't as well informed as you would like to think you are sunshine.

 

His comparison of the fees as evidence of who was the better defender is dodgy for a few reasons.  Firstly Woodgate came through the youth system, while Ferdinand cost Leeds £18m (of course they're going to turn down £20m, that's only a £2m profit).  Secondly Woodgate was injury prone even back then.  Finally Leeds were totally in the shit financially by the time they sold Woodgate.  Ferdinand is a better Footballer, but Woodgate was the better defender IMO.

[alpal78]

Ferdinand is way over rated just because unlike most other English CBs he doesn't hoof the ball every time he gets the ball. When he played for England, some of his 'passes out of defense' was just as bad as Terry's which were pretty appalling hoofs and some of the high profile mistakes he's made over the years shows a defender that does not focus 100% all the times (perhaps too cocky for his own good)

[Raconteur]

Ferdinand is way over rated just because unlike most other English CBshe doesn't hoof the ball every time he gets the ball. When he played for England, some of his 'passes out of defense' was just as bad as Terry's which were pretty appalling hoofs and some of the high profile mistakes he's made over the years shows a defender that does not focus 100% all the times (perhaps too cocky for his own good)

 

I'll never forget when Harry Kewell (who weighs four- fifths of fuck all and has the strength of a gnat) knocked Rio off the ball before going on to score in an Australia v England friendly many moons ago. I couldn't believe "one of the best defenders in the world" could be brushed aside by a flyweight...

[Punk77]

Rio was always the better footballer, the better athlete and the more assured tackler. He's been the best defender in the world over the last 8 years or so.

 

Are you just trying to pick an argument? The only way  I can make sense of your statement is if I factor in your age:  When Woody played for us, you were not old enough to remember and most importantly UNDERSTAND how good Woodgate was. The ONLY reason why Leeds sold Woodgate was because they were knee deep in debt. They HAD to sell. That's why you rate Ferdinand as a better player too, because him you can remember.

 

Ferdinand is a better athlete in the sense that he's not injured all the time. But Woody ON the pitch is all about athleticism. He's unbeatable in the air, a fantastic tackler and fast. The fact that you manage to say that Woody is an inferior athlete (on the pitch) compared to Ferdinand, proves to me that you never saw him play when he was at his best. But what really separates Woody from Ferdinand is the formers coolness even in stressful situations. Ferdinand can loose his head sometimes then, Woody never did. When Woody played, Bramble and O'Brien suddenly took their game to another level. Woody was only 23 when he was with us (1 year younger than you're now) and already then he was a complete defender. How's that for class.

[Guest Stephen927]

If Ferdinand was Spanish and played in La Liga, people would be wanking all over him.

[Beren]

Rio is definitely underrated and IMO one of the greatest CB of the modern day game - maybe his "I missed the drug's test because I was getting my linen washed that day" saga has sullied people's idea of his intelligence - but in terms of footballing intelligence, he is massively underrated. Absolutely fantastic CB.

 

Having said that, Woody at his best > Rio. Easy (which tells you just how good Woodgate was).

[Guest]

How the hell is Rio underrated? 4-5 years ago he was rightly considered one of the best in the world, and the fees paid for him and praise he's received over his career have rightfully reflected this. 

[Beren]

Well I don't think fees paid reflect how well someone is rated, because of different economic market conditions across Europe.

 

Haven't seen him feature in many(/any?) World XIs, alongside continental defenders who people seem much quicker to glorify. Fully willing to accept that my view of him as being underrated may just be based on an unrepresentative sample of people Don't think it was though.

[Ronaldo]

Rio was always the better footballer, the better athlete and the more assured tackler. He's been the best defender in the world over the last 8 years or so.

 

Are you just trying to pick an argument? The only way  I can make sense of your statement is if I factor in your age:  When Woody played for us, you were not old enough to remember and most importantly UNDERSTAND how good Woodgate was. The ONLY reason why Leeds sold Woodgate was because they were knee deep in debt. They HAD to sell. That's why you rate Ferdinand as a better player too, because him you can remember.

 

Ferdinand is a better athlete in the sense that he's not injured all the time. But Woody ON the pitch is all about athleticism. He's unbeatable in the air, a fantastic tackler and fast. The fact that you manage to say that Woody is an inferior athlete (on the pitch) compared to Ferdinand, proves to me that you never saw him play when he was at his best. But what really separates Woody from Ferdinand is the formers coolness even in stressful situations. Ferdinand can loose his head sometimes then, Woody never did. When Woody played, Bramble and O'Brien suddenly took their game to another level. Woody was only 23 when he was with us (1 year younger than you're now) and already then he was a complete defender. How's that for class.

 

That's why Ferdinand ended up at Man U and Woodgate at us, clearly.

 

The bias on here in regard to Woodgate is incredible, frankly, but that part in bold is beyond a joke.

[Punk77]

Rio was always the better footballer, the better athlete and the more assured tackler. He's been the best defender in the world over the last 8 years or so.

 

Are you just trying to pick an argument? The only way  I can make sense of your statement is if I factor in your age:  When Woody played for us, you were not old enough to remember and most importantly UNDERSTAND how good Woodgate was. The ONLY reason why Leeds sold Woodgate was because they were knee deep in debt. They HAD to sell. That's why you rate Ferdinand as a better player too, because him you can remember.

 

Ferdinand is a better athlete in the sense that he's not injured all the time. But Woody ON the pitch is all about athleticism. He's unbeatable in the air, a fantastic tackler and fast. The fact that you manage to say that Woody is an inferior athlete (on the pitch) compared to Ferdinand, proves to me that you never saw him play when he was at his best. But what really separates Woody from Ferdinand is the formers coolness even in stressful situations. Ferdinand can loose his head sometimes then, Woody never did. When Woody played, Bramble and O'Brien suddenly took their game to another level. Woody was only 23 when he was with us (1 year younger than you're now) and already then he was a complete defender. How's that for class.

 

That's why Ferdinand ended up at Man U and Woodgate at us, clearly.

 

The bias on here in regard to Woodgate is incredible, frankly, but that part in bold is beyond a joke.

 

If you care to remember, when we bought Woody we were a top 4 club. And why should Man U buy Woody when they just bought Ferdinand. Woodgate was REPLACING Ferdinand, he just came up through the youth system. And Woodgate was sold to an even bigger club than Man U, Real Madrid. But injuries ruined his career with them too. Get your facts right before you start hammering away.

[Thespence]

I am surprised Rio has lasted so long at MUFC.

[Ronaldo]

If you care to remember, when we bought Woody we were a top 4 club. And why should Man U buy Woody when they just bought Ferdinand. Woodgate was REPLACING Ferdinand, he just came up through the youth system. And Woodgate was sold to an even bigger club than Man U, Real Madrid. But injuries ruined his career with them too. Get your facts right before you start hammering away.

 

What on earth are you talking about?

[Punk77]

If you care to remember, when we bought Woody we were a top 4 club. And why should Man U buy Woody when they just bought Ferdinand. Woodgate was REPLACING Ferdinand, he just came up through the youth system. And Woodgate was sold to an even bigger club than Man U, Real Madrid. But injuries ruined his career with them too. Get your facts right before you start hammering away.

 

What on earth are you talking about?

 

Replacing him in Leeds....

[Ronaldo]

They played together for almost 2 seasons.

[Frazzle]

Rio was always the better footballer, the better athlete and the more assured tackler. He's been the best defender in the world over the last 8 years or so.

 

Are you just trying to pick an argument? The only way  I can make sense of your statement is if I factor in your age:  When Woody played for us, you were not old enough to remember and most importantly UNDERSTAND how good Woodgate was. The ONLY reason why Leeds sold Woodgate was because they were knee deep in debt. They HAD to sell. That's why you rate Ferdinand as a better player too, because him you can remember.

 

Ferdinand is a better athlete in the sense that he's not injured all the time. But Woody ON the pitch is all about athleticism. He's unbeatable in the air, a fantastic tackler and fast. The fact that you manage to say that Woody is an inferior athlete (on the pitch) compared to Ferdinand, proves to me that you never saw him play when he was at his best. But what really separates Woody from Ferdinand is the formers coolness even in stressful situations. Ferdinand can loose his head sometimes then, Woody never did. When Woody played, Bramble and O'Brien suddenly took their game to another level. Woody was only 23 when he was with us (1 year younger than you're now) and already then he was a complete defender. How's that for class.

 

That's why Ferdinand ended up at Man U and Woodgate at us, clearly.

 

The bias on here in regard to Woodgate is incredible, frankly, but that part in bold is beyond a joke.

 

I seem to remember you calling Woodgate an alcoholic so-and-so etc. and you didn't seem his biggest fan.  Seems the bias works both ways.

[STM]

I actually think Woodgate is as talented English centre back as their has been in a long while.

 

Comparing the two is pretty tough, as Woody never saw his prime (he's past it now IMO) and Ferdinand joined a stable club where it was "easier" for him to show his talents.

 

Ferdinand was and probably still is an excellent centre half who has a remarkable physique. It's a real shame that Ferdinand never got to play with a better centre half than Terry for England and that Woodgate is so injury prone.

 

Anyway Coloccini is better than both because he stays fit and has curly hair

[tmonkey]

That's why Ferdinand ended up at Man U and Woodgate at us, clearly.

 

The bias on here in regard to Woodgate is incredible, frankly, but that part in bold is beyond a joke.

 

Woodgate always looked a better centreback than Rio imo when they played together. The key with Woodgate was injuries - he started getting them at Leeds, and it only get worse with us. That, and Leeds' reluctance to sell him at the time (he was their "crown jewel", so they let Rio go thinking they'd build around the better defender) are the primary reasons as to why Rio moved on to a top CL club and Woodgate stayed (plus the offer from ManU was too good to turn down). He only came to us a few years later when Leeds' financial position became dire and Woodgate had struggled with injuries. £9m was a heavily reduced fee, one of the few times we managed to hold another club to ransom.

 

On a side note, ManU paid a premium for Rio too because of the almighty wankathon that followed his performances in the 2002 World Cup, where he did brilliant things like closing a Nigerian striker down who he had let go in the first place - that wankathon was prior to getting raped by the Brazilians of course. Not that it was a bad deal for them, but certainly Rio improved with ManU and turned out to be good value because of his fitness and consistency on top of being a very good centreback.

 

And it needs to be remembered that Real Madrid, a bigger and more prestigious club than ManU, signed Woodgate for more than what we paid, despite his constant/persistent injuries with us. If he wasn't a phenomenally good centreback, why did they do that, especially when they had signed Walter Samuel at the same time (one of the best centrebacks in the world prior to flopping there)? Dodgey handshakes and brown envelopes is the only explanation that would make any form of sense, and that would just be clutching at straws to avoid acknowledging how good Woodgate was for us.

[Keefaz]

Rio's had some bloody horrendous patches where he's been worse than shit, tbh. It's not worth comparing them, anyway: Woodgate's had such bad injury problems it's impossible to make a clear comparison.

[Stu]

Rio was always the better footballer, the better athlete and the more assured tackler. He's been the best defender in the world over the last 8 years or so.

 

Are you just trying to pick an argument? The only way  I can make sense of your statement is if I factor in your age:  When Woody played for us, you were not old enough to remember and most importantly UNDERSTAND how good Woodgate was. The ONLY reason why Leeds sold Woodgate was because they were knee deep in debt. They HAD to sell. That's why you rate Ferdinand as a better player too, because him you can remember.

 

May 1996 Ferdinand makes debut for West Ham

November 1997 Woodgate makes debut for Leeds

November 1997 Ferdinand makes debut for England (youngest defender at the time)

October 1999 Woodgate makes debut for England

November 2000 Ferdinand joins Leeds from West Ham for £18 million

July 2002 Ferdinand joins Man Utd from Leeds for £30 million

January 2003 Woodgate joins Newcastle from Leeds for £9 million

 

 

Given the timeline above, how does your attack on Ronaldo work?

[Heron]

None of the defenders mentioned in this thread can match up to Coloccini, other than José Enrique. FACT.

[Colocho]

Rio was always the better footballer, the better athlete and the more assured tackler. He's been the best defender in the world over the last 8 years or so.

 

Seriously? Rio's started something like 45 games in the last 2 and a half seasons ... Would have Terry/Puyol ahead of him any day.

[Mick]

Woodgate always looked a better centreback than Rio imo when they played together. The key with Woodgate was injuries - he started getting them at Leeds, and it only get worse with us. That, and Leeds' reluctance to sell him at the time (he was their "crown jewel", so they let Rio go thinking they'd build around the better defender) are the primary reasons as to why Rio moved on to a top CL club and Woodgate stayed (plus the offer from ManU was too good to turn down). He only came to us a few years later when Leeds' financial position became dire and Woodgate had struggled with injuries. £9m was a heavily reduced fee, one of the few times we managed to hold another club to ransom.

 

On a side note, ManU paid a premium for Rio too because of the almighty wankathon that followed his performances in the 2002 World Cup, where he did brilliant things like closing a Nigerian striker down who he had let go in the first place - that wankathon was prior to getting raped by the Brazilians of course. Not that it was a bad deal for them, but certainly Rio improved with ManU and turned out to be good value because of his fitness and consistency on top of being a very good centreback.

 

And it needs to be remembered that Real Madrid, a bigger and more prestigious club than ManU, signed Woodgate for more than what we paid, despite his constant/persistent injuries with us. If he wasn't a phenomenally good centreback, why did they do that, especially when they had signed Walter Samuel at the same time (one of the best centrebacks in the world prior to flopping there)? Dodgey handshakes and brown envelopes is the only explanation that would make any form of sense, and that would just be clutching at straws to avoid acknowledging how good Woodgate was for us.

 

 

Good post.

[Thespence]

it needs to be remembered that Real Madrid, a bigger and more prestigious club than ManU, signed Woodgate for more than what we paid, despite his constant/persistent injuries with us. If he wasn't a phenomenally good centreback, why did they do that, especially when they had signed Walter Samuel at the same time (one of the best centrebacks in the world prior to flopping there)?

 

I wouldn't use Real Madrid's signing policy as anything to go off as they have been prone to sign anyone who has as been playing worldie football for about 6 months.

[Punk77]

That's why Ferdinand ended up at Man U and Woodgate at us, clearly.

 

The bias on here in regard to Woodgate is incredible, frankly, but that part in bold is beyond a joke.

 

Woodgate always looked a better centreback than Rio imo when they played together. The key with Woodgate was injuries - he started getting them at Leeds, and it only get worse with us. That, and Leeds' reluctance to sell him at the time (he was their "crown jewel", so they let Rio go thinking they'd build around the better defender) are the primary reasons as to why Rio moved on to a top CL club and Woodgate stayed (plus the offer from ManU was too good to turn down). He only came to us a few years later when Leeds' financial position became dire and Woodgate had struggled with injuries. £9m was a heavily reduced fee, one of the few times we managed to hold another club to ransom.

 

On a side note, ManU paid a premium for Rio too because of the almighty wankathon that followed his performances in the 2002 World Cup, where he did brilliant things like closing a Nigerian striker down who he had let go in the first place - that wankathon was prior to getting raped by the Brazilians of course. Not that it was a bad deal for them, but certainly Rio improved with ManU and turned out to be good value because of his fitness and consistency on top of being a very good centreback.

 

And it needs to be remembered that Real Madrid, a bigger and more prestigious club than ManU, signed Woodgate for more than what we paid, despite his constant/persistent injuries with us. If he wasn't a phenomenally good centreback, why did they do that, especially when they had signed Walter Samuel at the same time (one of the best centrebacks in the world prior to flopping there)? Dodgey handshakes and brown envelopes is the only explanation that would make any form of sense, and that would just be clutching at straws to avoid acknowledging how good Woodgate was for us.