Why is Michael Laudrup not considered one of the best players ever?

[Eye of Ra]

His merits speaks for himself.

Not many in the history of soccer had the skills Laudrup had. What Maradona did in WC 1986 was normal-mode for Laudrup.

Click to read more...

 

[Corto]

He was great, I don't see many people who'd disagree. One of the greats, sure.

Absolutely amazing in his peak years.
Players like him are what make you watch football.

 

[Eye of Ra]

He was great, I don't see many people who'd disagree. One of the greats, sure.

Absolutely amazing in his peak years.
Players like him are what make you watch football.

there is no hype about him. people talk about puskas, di stefanio, maradonna, pele, zidane etc but never is laudrup mention among the best, this is shocking for me.

 

[Evilo]

He's not among them that's why.

 

[davemess]

It doesn't help his cause that he burned his bridges when he left Barca, that fan base should be the ones who keep his name alive but they wont after he left for Madrid.

 

[Ajacied]

I agree he's underrated, but he isn't in that same tier of best of the best all time.

Though I only have Pele and Cruijff in tier one. I don't rate Maradona as much as anyone else, but that's an entire different discussion.

 

[YNWA14]

Messi deserves to be in the same tier at Pele and Cruyff, at least.

 

[Ajacied]

Messi deserves to be in the same tier at Pele and Cruyff, at least.

Ah, yes, I agree.

 

[Stray Wasp]

He's not among them that's why.

I loved watching Laudrup, so it gives me no pleasure to agree.

We return to the simple truth that football is the world game, and has held that title for so long it was able to organise a World Cup as early as 1930. To be ranked, say, 250th best player of all time in football is a far higher accolade than in, for example, hockey. The competition to reach the top 25 is so fearsome that any attempt I make to compose such a list ends with me fretting over who I was forced to omit rather than feeling satisfied with the inclusions. Off the top of my head, I'd venture there'd be little to choose between number 25 and number 40 in real terms. Alas, in list form a 15-strong gap looks stark and is bound to end with people howling, 'X is 15 places better than Y, are you on crack?'

A nice cop-out might be to borrow from the film critic Andrew Sarris' approach to rating directors in his book The American Cinema, when he simply created a number of categories into which he bunged whoever he thought belonged there.

Laudrup failed to set Serie A alight with Juventus and glorious as his Danish team was they didn't do themselves justice in the business end of any major tournaments. (The 92 Euro winning team that won with Brian instead of Michael was far less talented than that of 86). Set against the gold standard required to make my top-25 those are relative shortcomings.

Even on a cool autumn night in London approaching 10pm, the memory of that goal against Uruguay makes me want to dash outside with a tennis ball and mimic Laudrup like I did when I was a kid. But there are players I'm less fond of who I wouldn't want to deny what I consider their due.

 

[les Habs]

He would be, but he went and ruined it all by signing for Madrid.