Five Balloons D'Or That Went To The Wrong Player


Sometimes the voters just get it wrong. Really wrong.


In recent times the Ballon d’Or has taken on a central focus in the minds of players.

Nowadays, it’s not uncommon to hear players having Ballon d’Or clauses inserted into their contracts, stating that if they win that bastion of individualism, they will be financially rewarded for doing so.



Down the years there have been players who have been justly rewarded for their year of brilliance, other choices have been equally as head-scratching.

These are five mistakes that the voters of the Ballon d’Or got wrong, and who should have won instead.


1998: Zidane should have been: Ronaldo


It’s well-known that a good showing at an International tournament can go a long way in deciding the outcome of the Ballon d’Or, but in 1998 this was taken to a whole other level.

Zinedine Zidane essentially won the Ballon d’Or for scoring two goals in a single game - albeit the biggest in world football at the time - and securing the World Cup for France.

Yet, it’s fair to say that in 1997-98 he wasn’t even the best player at Juventus, let alone the world.

Despite having the most productive season of his five-year stint at Juve (11 goals and eight assists in all competitions), Zidane somehow cruised to the award, winning with a staggering 244 points, some 176 more than second-placed Davor Suker.


Yet, as was the case with Zizou, myth often masked substance. Zidane was sent off in the second game of France 98 against Saudi Arabia for stamping on an opponent.

When he returned after his two-game suspension, a solid performance against Italy in the quarter-final was followed by a quiet display against Croatia in the semi final.

Zidane’s final performance glossed over what was a very ordinary event for him. Euro 2000 would come to be Zidane’s defining tournament with Les Bleus, when he produced one marvellous display after another.

The award really belonged to Ronaldo, El Fenomeno, who somehow finished third on the podium, despite guiding Inter to the Uefa Cup – when it still mattered - and almost single-handedly taking the Scudetto away from Juve in 97-98.

Ronaldo scored 24 times in all competitions for the Italian side, in addition to his four goals that took Brazil to the final of France 98. He was the best player in the world in 1997, and he still was - by a distance - in 1998.





2000: Figo should have been Zidane


This was Zidane’s year. It’s difficult to fathom how the award was given to Luis Figo, who, whilst at the peak of his powers, didn’t stamp his authority over Euro 2000 anywhere close to the manner in which Zidane did.

The Ballon d’Or came two years too soon for Zidane, and he really ought to have won it here.

Despite a terrible season for Juve (five goals, one assist from 39 games in all competitions), his performances in Euro 2000 illuminated the tournament, and were reminiscent of Michel Platini’s domination of the same event for France 16 years earlier.

Zidane really was at his balletic peak as a footballer in the summer of 2000. At France 98 you sensed that Zidane was still finding himself within the French side, and that manifested into flickering moments of greatness.

This wasn’t the case two years later; Zidane was the undisputed leader of a side laden with serial champions.

Figo, it has to be said, enjoyed a very good 2000. He led Barcelona to the semi-final of the Champions League and second in La Liga, scoring 14 goals and creating 14 assists from 51 games in all competitions.

Following his hugely controversial transfer to Real Madrid that summer, which made him the world’s most expensive player, he continued his fine form with Los Blancos until the end of the year.

Moreover, Figo, like Zidane, had blossomed into a leader for his country, with Figo being the standout performer in Portugal’s ‘Golden Generation’.


For all of Figo’s individual brilliance, he failed to win anything in 2000. Portugal reached the semi final of Euro 2000, before falling to Zidane’s France. Figo was the nearly man of 2000, whilst Zidane demonstrated that he was the man.

No single player has dominated a European Championship since Zidane. In fact, it could be argued that it’s one of the last great one-man displays at an International tournament.

In 2016, Figo stated that Francesco Totti should’ve actually won the award at his expense. Totti, who had thoroughly impressed at Euro 2000, finished 14th in the voting.

Whilst perhaps Figo was being courteous to Totti (the remark came in a birthday message), the reality is that the 2000 Ballon d’Or did belong to someone else - Zizou.





2001: Owen should have been Raul


In a recent Instagram live session between Alessandro Del Piero and Ronaldo, the Brazilian remarked that Del Piero, along with Raul, Francesco Totti, Paolo Maldini and Roberto Carlos should have won the Ballon d’Or.

If there was ever a case to be made for Raul, it was in 2001.

Looking through 2020 eyes, Michael Owen’s inclusion on the list of winners seems out of place, almost jarring, but the fact that his career slowly descended into mediocrity from the age of 25 can obscure what a remarkable talent he was at the beginning of his career.

Even still, it’s difficult to justify Owen winning. He was injured throughout the 2000/01 season, playing 28 times in the league, but scoring a respectable 16 times.

It was a combination of Owen’s memorable brace in the FA Cup final against Arsenal and the hat-trick against Germany in Munich in the October that got him over the line.


Yes, Liverpool won three trophies in 00/01, but Owen scarcely featured in the League Cup, and netted only four goals in the Uefa Cup run, with none of his four coming in the latter stages.

Raul, by contrast, rattled in 24 goals in 36 La Liga games for Real Madrid as they strolled to the title, and he won the Pichichi for the second time in three seasons.

A further seven goals were scored in the Champions League as they reached the semi-final before succumbing to eventual winners Bayern Munich. The Spaniard would never produce such numbers ever again.

What perhaps let Raul down was his International form. Owen always seemed to relish playing for England, more so than for Liverpool.

Raul, by comparison, was the opposite; he always looked more comfortable in the white of Madrid than the red of La Roja.






2013: Ronaldo should have been Ribery


“More than a disappointment, it’s the biggest injustice of my career,” remarked Franck Ribery in an Interview with L’Equipe in 2019.

Six years after being denied the award for a thrilling 2013 in which he would win every major trophy at club level with Bayern Munich, the decision to give the award to Cristiano Ronaldo is still shrouded with rancour.

It’s easy to see why. Whilst the Frenchman’s statistics aren’t as jaw-dropping as the 60 goals Lionel Messi scored or the 55 that Ronaldo plundered, Ribery played a seismic role in Bayern’s complete dominance of 2013.


Ribery scored 11 goals and produced 23 assists in 2012/13 in all competitions, including sliding the ball through for Arjen Robben’s winner in the Champions League final at Wembley.

Furthermore, his relentless energy and wizardry produced two assists in the semi-final second leg against Barcelona at Camp Nou that turned what was an already embarrassing aggregate scoreline into a truly calamitous one.

What perhaps most rankles with Ribery is that the award was handed to the Portuguese superstar, who won nothing in 2012/13.

Messi, who finished second on the podium by a margin of 165 points, guided Barcelona to La Liga and won the Pichichi award ahead of his long-time rival, could also feel hard done by with the end result.

This was Ribery at his irrepressible peak, and it’s a decision that he won’t forget in a hurry.




2010: Messi should have been Sneijder


Probably the biggest Ballon d’Or mistake of the modern era. In terms of what boxes a footballer needs to tick in order to be considered for the award, it’s fair to say that Sneijder hit every single one in 2010: Instrumental at club level? Tick. Won trophies? Tick.

Scored goals and created assists? Tick. Dragged your nation to the final of the World Cup? Tick.

Sneijder in 2010 was as influential as any player could be in a single season throughout the decade.

Whilst statistically his season was nothing out of the ordinary (41 games, eight goals and 15 assists in all competitions), it was his influence; the effect that he brought to Inter during 2009/10 was a true testament to his 12 months of brilliance.

Simply put, a Sneijder-less Inter wouldn’t have come close to winning the treble. Inter, having sold Zlatan Ibrahimovic to Barcelona in the summer, struggled for creativity in their opening game of the season against Bari, looking completely sterile and bereft of ideas.

The Dutchman was signed in the final few days of the transfer window and was, with the benefit of hindsight, the missing piece in Jose Mourinho’s expensively-crafted jigsaw. Both Inter and Sneijder never looked back.


Sneijder, like Kaka for city neighbours Milan in 2007, left his standout performances for the latter stages of the Champions League, contributing four assists and two goals as Inter unexpectedly swept to the trophy.

Sneijder’s Inter form transferred to the Dutch national side in South Africa, where he scored five times en route to the final against Spain.

Had Arjen Robben dispatched Sneijder’s beautifully-weighted through ball in the second half of normal time, perhaps history would’ve played out differently.

As it was, Robben missed, and Andres Iniesta smashed home the winner in extra-time.

What’s most remarkable about the Sneijder snub was that the Dutchman didn’t even make it to the podium, finishing fourth.

Whilst no one doubts the consistent genius of Lionel Messi, was his 2010 really as influential as Sneijder’s?

His performances at the World Cup were mixed, as he struggled to make sense of an Argentina side beset by strange player selections made by the coach, a certain Diego Maradona.

If there was one of his six Ballon d’Or’s that Messi didn’t truly merit, it was this one, and it should’ve went to Sneijder.

http:///s2cf51b9200620en_ng?client=newslite

cc Mynd44, Dominique

h

t

h

g

Interesting.

a well detailed and sweet post...for me I'll say Shielder undoing was bcoz they didn't win the world cup..
that ballon d or would av gone to xavi or iniesta for giving spain its first world cup..

I agree with everything. Owen's win was the first example of the dangers of English hype... Zidane's was the world cup Euphoria in France and Balon D'Or is awarded by a French magazine which is why it lacks credibility.


The worst was Sneijder's 2010 robbery.

Messi was defeated (by Sneijder) in the CL semis, he crashed out 5-1 in the World Cup quarter finals yet they termed him the best player. How?

If he was good, how about the players that disgraced him? Were they gods?

Sneijder won EVERYTHING that year except the World Cup which he lost by a single goal in the dying minutes.
2010's Best Footballer for sure.

Henry as against Zidane 2003. Henry was the highest scorer for EPL with over 30 goals, won the PFA, scored a fantastic hatrick against inter Milan at San siro for champions league. Inter 1 Arsenal 5
I remembered the commentator saying it during the match at San Siro that who is the looking for Balon d or player when he is here.
The next week FIFA called zidane

From an Old Gunner

ucheo:
Henry as against Zidane 2003. Henry was the highest scorer for EPL with over 30 goals, won the PFA, scored a fantastic hatrick against inter Milan at San siro for champions league. Inter 1 Arsenal 5
I remembered the commentator saying it during the match at San Siro that who is the looking for Balon d or player when he is here.
The next week FIFA called zidane

From an Old Gunner

Nonsense. Henry did well in England alone and the EPL was a shitty league back in 2003. We don't have short memories here. You English fans keep trying to make it look like the EPL was a good league EVERY era, it wasn't. The EPL started getting good around 2008/9 when Serie A started dying.

Around 2003 that you are talking about, Serie A rejects and retirees usually relocated to England to become the best players there. Zola, Di Canio, Veron, Stam, Di Matteo, Kanu, Henry, Desailly & co.

2003 deservedly went to Nedved (not Zidane) who won everything that year apart from the CL which Juve lost on penalties to Milan. And everyone knows that if Nedved hadn't missed that final due to suspension, Juve would have beaten Milan. Nedved was unstoppable that year. He single handedly dragged unknown Czech Republic to the Euros too and it was an era that good all-round football was rewarded not just goals, penalties and social media noise like today.

2003 was deservedly Nedved. Henry tried but his feats did not match Nedved's. Fact

Pochettino:


Nonsense. Henry did well in England alone and the EPL was a shitty league back in 2003. We don't have short memories here. You English fans keep trying to make it look like the EPL was a good league EVERY era, it wasn't. The EPL started getting good around 2008/9 when Serie A started dying.

Around 2003 that you are talking about, Serie A rejects and retirees usually relocated to England to become the best players there. Zola, Di Canio, Veron, Stam, Di Matteo, Kanu, Henry, Desailly & co.

2003 deservedly went to Nedved (not Zidane) who won everything that year apart from the CL which Juve lost on penalties to Milan. And everyone knows that if Nedved hadn't missed that final due to suspension, Juve would have beaten Milan. Nedved was unstoppable that year. He single handedly dragged unknown Czech Republic to the Euros too and it was an era that good all-round football was rewarded not just goals, penalties and social media noise like today.

2003 was deservedly Nedved. Henry tried but his feats did not match Nedved's. Fact

Not true. EPL was already a top league by 2003. Man U won the 1999 UCL, Leeds and Man Utd got to semifinal of 2001 and 2002 UCLs respectively. In 2003, Henry scored over 40 goals and 20 assists. Henry was the EPL player of the year in 2003.

Henry drove France to win the FIFA Confederations cup in 2003 and was the player of the tournament, so his influence was not only in the EPL. He also performed excellently in crucial UCL matches against Roma, Inter Milan and Valencia, scoring 6 goals and 2 assists in those three matches.

No other player was statistically better than Henry in 2003 in the top leagues across all competitions both national and club combined.

In 2003, Henry was the most exciting top player to watch in Europe with his demonstration of speed, flair, skill and va-va-voom.

Combine all of the above factors and it's obvious that Henry deserved the 2003 Ballon D'or over Nedved whose only major impact was in the UCL for Juventus.

ucheo:
Henry as against Zidane 2003. Henry was the highest scorer for EPL with over 30 goals, won the PFA, scored a fantastic hatrick against inter Milan at San siro for champions league. Inter 1 Arsenal 5
I remembered the commentator saying it during the match at San Siro that who is the looking for Balon d or player when he is here.
The next week FIFA called zidane

From an Old Gunner

You are right, Henry deserved it. However, what Zidane won was the FIFA World player of the year. T'was Nedved that won the Ballon D'or in 2003.

@InvestingExpert, could you please put the sub-headers of your write-up in bold for easier reading. Also adjust the spacing to make them more uniform. Then copy Mynd44 and Dominique at the end as it deserves frontpage.

At least in 2000, Zidane eventually got the better recognition by winning the Fifa world player of the year over Figo.

It is important to note that prior to 2006 when Ballon D'or started automatically to be won by whoever won the Fifa player of the year (Cannavaro in this instance), the Fifa World player of the year was the more prestigious of the two as the Ballon D'or holder was only largely synonymous with the European footballer of the year i.e best footballer playing in Europe.

Whoever won the Fifa best player award was officially seen as the best footballer for that year e.g

- Zidane in 2000 over Figo who won the B. D'or
- Figo in 2001 over Michael Owen who won the B.D'or
- Zidane in 2003 over Pavel Nedved who won the B.D'or
- Ronaldinho in 2004 over Shevchenko who won the B.D'or

So I believe Zidane got the better of the bargain in 2000.

ThierryJay:


You are right, Henry deserved it. However, what Zidane won was the FIFA World player of the year. T'was Nedved that won the Ballon D'or in 2003.

@InvestingExpert, could you please put the sub-headers of your write-up in bold for easier reading. Also adjust the spacing to make them more uniform. Then copy Mynd44 and Dominique at the end as it deserves frontpage.

yh bro I'm still to get a hang of the nairaland setting
I could only adjust the spacing, sub heading takes time to edit and I also don't know how to copy the names of those you mentioned, thanks for the recommendation though, I appreciate

more suggestions are highly welcomed

InvestingExpert:



yh bro I'm still to get a hang of the nairaland setting
I could only adjust the spacing, sub heading takes time to edit and I also don't know how to copy the names of those you mentioned, thanks for the recommendation though, I appreciate

more suggestions are highly welcomed

Just highlight each sub-header with your cursor and click on the "B" tab/widget on the top left side of the editing box. It should automatically embolden it.

You copy the mods/supermods by mentioning them at the end of your post like this: cc Mynd44, Dominique

C'est fini

ThierryJay:


Not true. EPL was already a top league by 2003. Man U won the 1999 UCL, Leeds and Man Utd got to semifinal of 2001 and 2002 UCLs respectively. In 2003, Henry scored over 40 goals and 20 assists. Henry was the EPL player of the year in 2003.

Henry drove France to win the FIFA Confederations cup in 2003 and was the player of the tournament, so his influence was not only in the EPL. He also performed excellently in crucial UCL matches against Roma, Inter Milan and Valencia, scoring 6 goals and 2 assists in those three matches.

No other player was statistically better than Henry in 2003 in the top leagues across all competitions both national and club combined.

In 2003, Henry was the most exciting top player to watch in Europe with his demonstration of speed, flair, skill and va-va-voom.

Combine all of the above factors and it's obvious that Henry deserved the 2003 Ballon D'or over Nedved whose only major impact was in the UCL for Juventus.

Nonsense.

The EPL was ranked 4th in 2003.
Nedved almost won the treble in 2003 so what are you saying? Nedved won UEFA best midfielder that year too.

Henry was not even UEFA best forward in 2003, it was Van Nistelrooy, so please again, what are u saying?

The gap between Nedved and Henry in the voting was just too much. As a matter of fact, Maldini who came third behind Henry by just 5 points should have been 2nd.

Fact is Henry achieved nothing in 2003, no league title, kicked out of d CL group stage!!! Haba! All he did was score 30 goals in the EPL.

You said Henry scored 6 goals, Van Nistelrooy scored 12 in the CL. Henry did not even qualify from his CL group in 2003, Arsenal finished 3rd!!

You must be a deluded Arsenal fan. Please argue with facts.

Pochettino:


Nonsense.

The EPL was ranked 4th in 2003.
Nedved almost won the treble in 2003 so what are you saying? Nedved won UEFA best midfielder that year too.

Henry was not even UEFA best forward in 2003, it was Van Nistelrooy, so please again, what are u saying?

The gap between Nedved and Henry in the voting was just too much. As a matter of fact, Maldini who came third behind Henry by just 5 points should have been 2nd.

Fact is Henry achieved nothing in 2003, no league title, kicked out of d CL group stage!!! Haba! All he did was score 30 goals in the EPL.

You said Henry scored 6 goals, Van Nistelrooy scored 12 in the CL. Henry did not even qualify from his CL group in 2003, Arsenal finished 3rd!!

You must be a deluded Arsenal fan. Please argue with facts.

I see that you lie a lot, with confidence. You also have comprehension issues. A combination of both depicts a worrying gap in the logical department.

First - EPL was not ranked 4th in 2003. Between 2000 - 2005, EPL was ranked 2nd, AHEAD of the Serie A based on UEFA coefficients per country. Check link for proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_coefficient. Its not surprising as Arsenal beat Juventus twice during this period, beat Inter scandalously and defeated Roma in their own backyard. Man Utd and Liverpool also defeated Juventus and AC Milan when they played during this period. Only spanish teams were the bane of EPL teams during this period and rightly so. See extract at the end of my post if the link is too long.

Second - Juventus only won the league in 2003, so where did Treble talk come from? Ac Milan won both their Copa Italia and UCL in 2003.

Third - The gap between Nedved and Henry in the voting is irrelevant. Afterall, we are talking about what should/could have been. Why did you now say you agree that Sneijder should have won over Messi in 2010 when the gap was even more astronomical as Sneijder wasn't even in the top three finalists? The focus is on other relevant parameters other than the actual voting results which is being under scrutiny here, Comprendre?

Fourth - Henry achieved nothing in 2003?? Gosh what a blatant lie. He won the FIFA confederations cup as its best tournament player and also won the FA Cup for Arsenal. He also won the EPL player of the year.

Fifth - Henry scored 6 goals in three matches against top opposition in 2003 - Inter, Roma and Valencia- that was my point. He scored 7 goals in total in the UCL in 2003 which is an overall decent UCL performance.

My point is Nedved may have won the Ballon D'or but Henry had a very good case to win it as well which is why he was recognized in contention for the 2003 Fifa world player of the year gong while Nedved was not. The absolute truth is that in 2003, Thierry Henry was a better player than Pavel Nedved.

ThierryJay:


I see that you lie a lot, with confidence. You also have comprehension issues. A combination of both depicts a worrying gap in the logical department.

First - EPL was not ranked 4th in 2003. Between 2000 - 2005, EPL was ranked 2nd, AHEAD of the Serie A based on UEFA coefficients per country. Check link for proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_coefficient. Its not surprising as Arsenal beat Juventus twice during this period, beat Inter scandalously and defeated Roma in their own backyard. Man Utd and Liverpool also defeated Juventus and AC Milan when they played during this period. Only spanish teams were the bane of EPL teams during this period and rightly so. See extract at the end of my post if the link is too long.

Second - Juventus only won the league in 2003, so where did Treble talk come from? Ac Milan won both their Copa Italia and UCL in 2003.

Third - The gap between Nedved and Henry in the voting is irrelevant. Afterall, we are talking about what should/could have been. Why did you now say you agree that Sneijder should have won over Messi in 2010 when the gap was even more astronomical as Sneijder wasn't even in the top three finalists? The focus is on other relevant parameters other than the actual voting results which is being under scrutiny here, Comprendre?

Fourth - Henry achieved nothing in 2003?? Gosh what a blatant lie. He won the FIFA confederations cup as its best tournament player and also won the FA Cup for Arsenal. He also won the EPL player of the year.

Fifth - Henry scored 6 goals in three matches against top opposition in 2003 - Inter, Roma and Valencia- that was my point. He scored 7 goals in total in the UCL in 2003 which is an overall decent UCL performance.

My point is Nedved may have won the Ballon D'or but Henry had a very good case to win it as well which is why he was recognized in contention for the 2003 Fifa world player of the year gong while Nedved was not. The absolute truth is that in 2003, Thierry Henry was a better player than Pavel Nedved.

Mister, I really don't see what you are driving at here.
Most of your defence for Henry are in areas where he either lost out or finished 2nd best.

1. Nedved won his league title, Henry didn't
(And please FA cup or Coppa Italia is not relevant for Balon D'Or if not, Kanu should be winning 2008 Balon D'Or too lol).

2. Czech Rep did not play in the Confed cup so we can't really say if Nedved would have been better.

3. The tournament they both played that year, the CL, Nedved finished 2nd while Henry crashed out of d group stage!

4. Nedved was declared the best midfielder of the year in Europe, Henry was not the best UEFA forward that year.

5. Henry scored 6 goals in CL, there were at least 8 other players who scored more than him.

Nedved was also Serie A player of 2003, UEFA midfielder of 2003, UEFA team of the year etc. He was not a striker so we can't compare using goals.

Nedved dragged Czech Rep to Euros that year, Henry had the likes of Zidane, Desailly, Deschamps, Vieira, Barthez, etc to support him.

Also, we all know the reason why Messi polled more votes than Sneijder was social media. Nothing else. In 2003, the votings were pure. No twitter, instagram bullshit.

And, in 2003 FIFA awards, Nedved came 4th. Stop lying.

Too much

hstar:
Too much

read patiently

InvestingExpert:

read patiently

I read everything from A-Z and I enjoyed it

What I meant by too much is the way you analyze it, it's too much and very okay

Bia, next time, Na fight I go fight u o
If you don't know what I mean by my too much, u for don ask me wetin I mean by too much

I'm not a lazy reader, and I'm not one of those Nairaland yeye people.

hstar:

I read everything from A-Z and I enjoyed it

What I meant by too much is the way you analyze it, it's too much and very okay

Bia, next time, Na fight I go fight u o
If you don't know what I mean by my too much, u for don ask me wetin I mean by too much

I'm not a lazy reader, and I'm not one of those Nairaland yeye people.

hstar:

I read everything from A-Z and I enjoyed it

What I meant by too much is the way you analyze it, it's too much and very okay

Bia, next time, Na fight I go fight u o
If you don't know what I mean by my too much, u for don ask me wetin I mean by too much

I'm not a lazy reader, and I'm not one of those Nairaland yeye people.

InvestingExpert:

On a more serious note
Ur analysis is top notch

What makes the thread more interesting is the argument of Thierry jay and his friend

I learnt one or two things because all throughout France 98 world cup, da Lima was my favorite player

not mine though that's why I link to the source

ucheo:
Henry as against Zidane 2003. Henry was the highest scorer for EPL with over 30 goals, won the PFA, scored a fantastic hatrick against inter Milan at San siro for champions league. Inter 1 Arsenal 5
I remembered the commentator saying it during the match at San Siro that who is the looking for Balon d or player when he is here.
The next week FIFA called zidane

From an Old Gunner

It was a surprise Thierry Henry didi win it...


Just like Okocha losing CAF player to Hadji of Morocco

what about messi

Pochettino:



Mister, I really don't see what you are driving at here.
Most of your defence for Henry are in areas where he either lost out or finished 2nd best.

1. Nedved won his league title, Henry didn't
(And please FA cup or Coppa Italia is not relevant for Balon D'Or if not, Kanu should be winning 2008 Balon D'Or too lol).

2. Czech Rep did not play in the Confed cup so we can't really say if Nedved would have been better.

3. The tournament they both played that year, the CL, Nedved finished 2nd while Henry crashed out of d group stage!

4. Nedved was declared the best midfielder of the year in Europe, Henry was not the best UEFA forward that year.

5. Henry scored 6 goals in CL, there were at least 8 other players who scored more than him.

Nedved was also Serie A player of 2003, UEFA midfielder of 2003, UEFA team of the year etc. He was not a striker so we can't compare using goals.

Nedved dragged Czech Rep to Euros that year, Henry had the likes of Zidane, Desailly, Deschamps, Vieira, Barthez, etc to support him.

Also, we all know the reason why Messi polled more votes than Sneijder was social media. Nothing else. In 2003, the votings were pure. No twitter, instagram bullshit.

And, in 2003 FIFA awards, Nedved came 4th. Stop lying.

I am not lying, unlike you that I've exposed your mistruths, I was referring to the top three finalists who were the credible contenders. You don't expect me to bring in all the 30 nominated players into the discussion do you? Even Fifa/UEFA uses the top three to separate wheat from the chaff.

My point is Henry came 2nd in Fifa award, and 2nd in Ballon D'or which shows consistency in performance level to warrant nomination as the best across both awards. Nedved only appeared in contention for Ballon d'or and was missing for Fifa award which implies a bit of inconsistency somewhere, as most Ballon d'or holders eventually go on to win the FIFA award.

Nedved dragging Czech to Euro 2004 is not a big deal. It would be a big flop if Czech did not qualify to be among 16 countries out of 28 total European countries when there were only 7 European powerhouses (England, Holland, Spain, Italy, Germany, France and Portugal) meaning 9 slots were still to be jostled for by the remaining average and below-par Andorras, Faroe Islands and the Liechensteins which are in the majority. How is this a feat when Czech were even better than the level of Belgium and Croatia then with Karel Poborsky, Big man Jan Koller, Liverpool's Milan Baros, etc?

In 2003, Nedved only trumped Henry in the area of UCL performance, Henry's contribution to the EPL that year was more spectacular than Nedved's input to Juve's Scudetto win in terms of goals, assists and overall brilliance of play. On the national front, Henry bested Nedved by propelling France to Confederation cup win in the absence of Zidane. That Czech did not qualify is because France and Henry bested them at the Euros and not a matter of choice as you are making it look like. Would CR7 or Messi say that Lewandoski's imminent win at the Club world cup is only because they did not participate when they also had the opportunity to qualify for that tournament by besting Bayern? How silly would that have seemed?

Social Media definitely did not vote Messi as Ballon d'or winner in 2010, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Point is Sneijder wasn't even on the podium yet we are still talking about how he deserved the award. How much more someone that is on the podium and you are now trying to use voting points gap to say he doesn't deserve it. How inconsistent!

paulolee:
a well detailed and sweet post...for me I'll say Shielder undoing was bcoz they didn't win the world cup..
that ballon d or would av gone to xavi or iniesta for giving spain its first world cup..

Then y did they now give modric ??

interesting
where do you guys get your detailed analysis from

ThierryJay:
[s]

I am not lying, unlike you that I've exposed your mistruths, I was referring to the top three finalists who were the credible contenders. You don't expect me to bring in all the 30 nominated players into the discussion do you? Even Fifa/UEFA uses the top three to separate wheat from the chaff.

My point is Henry came 2nd in Fifa award, and 2nd in Ballon D'or which shows consistency in performance level to warrant nomination as the best across both awards. Nedved only appeared in contention for Ballon d'or and was missing for Fifa award which implies a bit of inconsistency somewhere, as most Ballon d'or holders eventually go on to win the FIFA award.

Nedved dragging Czech to Euro 2004 is not a big deal. It would be a big flop if Czech did not qualify to be among 16 countries out of 28 total European countries when there were only 7 European powerhouses (England, Holland, Spain, Italy, Germany, France and Portugal) meaning 9 slots were still to be jostled for by the remaining average and below-par Andorras, Faroe Islands and the Liechensteins which are in the majority. How is this a feat when Czech were even better than the level of Belgium and Croatia then with Karel Poborsky, Big man Jan Koller, Liverpool's Milan Baros, etc?

In 2003, Nedved only trumped Henry in the area of UCL performance, Henry's contribution to the EPL that year was more spectacular than Nedved's input to Juve's Scudetto win in terms of goals, assists and overall brilliance of play. On the national front, Henry bested Nedved by propelling France to Confederation cup win in the absence of Zidane. That Czech did not qualify is because France and Henry bested them at the Euros and not a matter of choice as you are making it look like. Would CR7 or Messi say that Lewandoski's imminent win at the Club world cup is only because they did not participate when they also had the opportunity to qualify for that tournament by besting Bayern? How silly would that have seemed?

Social Media definitely did not vote Messi as Ballon d'or winner in 2010, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Point is Sneijder wasn't even on the podium yet we are still talking about how he deserved the award. How much more someone that is on the podium and you are now trying to use voting points gap to say he doesn't deserve it. How inconsistent![/s]

1. So explain how Zidane won 2003 FIFA Best and Ronaldo came 3rd yet both of them also did not make Balon D'Or top 3 that same year (just a reverse of Nedved's case).


2. You agree that Nedved trumped Henry in CL performance that year (this is the ONLY tournament they participated together).


Now let's even profile Henry's 'almighty' 2002/03 season for Arsenal;
*Henry won NOTHING noteworthy with his club.
*Individually, he was bested by others. How?
He was not the highest goal scorer, Ruud Van Nistelrooy beat him to that
Van Nistelrooy also won EPL Player of the season (Nedved won this)
Henry did not win the league, Van Nistelrooy did with Man United (Nedved won this)
CL, Van Nistelrooy got to the semis & was highest goal scorer, Henry scored half of his tally & crashed out @ group stage (Nedved got to the final)

So Oga, explain to me, how Henry can even be considered better than Van Nistelrooy that season not to talk of Nedved. Looking at it closely now, Henry was wrongfully considered for the awards by FIFA & French magazine. He had no business being there because he was 2nd best in everything.


3. As for the Confed cup I'll educate you, qualifiers are not played for the Confederations cup Oga . The winners of all continental tournaments play it like Cameroon, Japan etc. Hence France since they won Euro 2000 (a tournament Zidane shone like a million stars and not Henry). As a matter of fact, Trezeguet outshone Henry in that tournament, scoring the winning goal and earning the label 'golden boy' which prompted Juventus to fork out millions to sign him and kick Henry out.
Zidane was Euro 2000 player of the tournament, golden boot was Kluivert. Henry won nothing in Euro 2000. So please don't spin us another lie like we have short memories or uninformed about football like you.


4. Another lie you have written is that Nedved did not contribute to Juventus' 2003 success. So explain how he won Serie A player of the season 2003??


5. Social media has a HUGE influence in swaying public opinion towards any player for an award. To deny this means you must live a life of lies as you have continually displayed on this thread. 2010, 2013 balon d'ors, 2014 World cup golden ball, and most recently Modric's Balon D'Or award.

I have deduced that you know nothing about football. Liar.

Beverlyjean:


Then y did they now give modric ??

GBAM!!!
I love this

Anyone who supports Modric's 2018 Ballon D'Or and is against Sneijder's 2010 robbery is a hypocrite (like the fulani maluu I quoted above)..
The exact same thing happened.


Modric won everything in club football but didn't score well since he is a midfielder. Played magnificently @ World Cup but lost in the final.
Result= Won Ballon D'Or against CR7 who was the social media favourite because of goals scored.
Sneijder won everything in club football but didn't score well since he is a midfielder. Played magnificently @ World Cup but lost in the final.
Result= Lost Ballon D'Or against Messi who was the social media favourite because of goals scored.

Hypocrisy

Beverlyjean:


Then y did they now give modric ??

we all know cr7 would av won it If he was still in spain...modric winning is more like perez influence because even modrid knew it belogs to cr7 not until he left for juve..
dts why i said i don't seee him winning it again even if juve win the ucl wich is a very hard task..