LISTEN TO THE FULL POD: linktr.ee/warr... In this video the boys pick their 'drop, bench, start' between Rio Ferdinand, John Terry and Virgil Van Dijk.
Your logic is flawed. If you compare individuals on their prowess you look at their skills, attributes, influence, own team strength, opposing team strength and accolades. A trophy is not unimportant but it is the result of a TEAM effort. Speaking of trophies though, only one on that list won UEFA men's player of the year.
The obvious and most logical answer would be van dijk > everyone mentioned for the simple fact that van dijk is the most complete defender you could muster when you design a near flaweless CB. Just look at the attributes and skillset. He is faster than the slow John Terry, more physical than Rio and more composed than your Vidic. Rio and Vidic needed eachother because they complement eachother. Virgil van Dijk doesn't need complementing and is able to lead a defensive unit with youngsters. Stats are another thing that is in his favor, but doesnt paint the entire picture since football era's differ where more is expected from a defender in modern football. On the flipside, the game today has less iconic strikers than in the age where Terry & co had to defend. But the gameplan in modern football is also changed where its normal to play with just one striker but use other offensive minded players to penetrate the backline, forcing defenders to cover more space. One point you could use against van Dijk is longevity and I'd agree that this disadvantage is hard to overlook. But imo he has been a proven player while being a latebloomer.
Terry wasn't slow, slower yeah... but then there are also intangibles like defensive intelligence where you could argue Terry takes it and, in my opinion, this is the biggest factor for a defender. VVD is great at defending large spaces, but 1v1s he can be made to look silly (like Vidic could). I'd say in terms of prime years VVD is the best I've ever seen a significant amount of (close with Nesta). But Terry really isn't far off and has the longevity. Also Terry proved himself across two different eras of football. Plus he lead the best defence I've ever seen. It's a good debate between those two. I think both are fair answers - Gareth
@@WarraFooty If we speak about football intelligence then van dijk edges it for me. Instead of being pro-active he mitigates the danger instead of using a tackle or a foul. (His fouling is very low). There are countless of examples for this. The CL final 1 vs 1 (Son), the 2 (with Sissoko and Son) vs 1, the 1 vs 1 (Mbappe) and the latest one being a 1 vs 1 against Haaland. He determines the best course of action to negate big scoring opportunities (buying time, navigating to offensive passing lanes, pressuring, etc). It has to be said that Terry is no slouch in 1 vs 1, but I reckon his *speed* will be his undoing. I think VVD uses his physicality better and this might very well be a non-argument, but his "aura" is present. Terry had that too, but I reckon you'd be more eager to try and get past Terry than a van Dijk or is this bias? As for *passing* range, there is no clear winner, though I do want to highlight van dijks long balls as an offensive treat and that his absence in the team also influences the attacking treat of Liverpool. But Terry scored lots of headers in his day so he has a point there too. With todays high lines I'd put a van dijk there instead of a Terry. *Pace* is just that big of a deal, especially now with backs playing as reverse wingbacks (like TAA does) or where a Robertson as a half winger. This season Liverpool opts for a more offensive 2-5-3 formation with a high line. In such a formation i feel John would be less apt. The other points like leadership and positioning are pretty even. Longevity is a default loss for van dijk. Lastly I feel it's more impressive to lead a defensive unit that doesnt consist of experienced/non-worldclass players: In his first season he contributed to Liverpool reaching the CL final with Karius in goal, Lovren next to him and at that time an emerging star in TAA and in lesser extent Robertson. Especially this season he had numerous CB partners due to injuries, including academy players. This tells me that he is the main big factor. But yes, van dijk only played in one era and the knowledge how he would cope with the Drogba's, Bergkamps and Henry's will remain unknown.
Probably the hardest convo in terms of Prem. Vin Dijk is almost a juiced up Rio. So it's gotta be JT, VVD, Rio
1.Terry
2.Vidic
3. Rio Ferdinand
4.VVD
any other list is wrong, unless VVD starts to win a lot of more trophies.
Your logic is flawed. If you compare individuals on their prowess you look at their skills, attributes, influence, own team strength, opposing team strength and accolades. A trophy is not unimportant but it is the result of a TEAM effort. Speaking of trophies though, only one on that list won UEFA men's player of the year.
Thiago silva is best
who can win the player of season in a huge famoous club such as Chelsea at age 38?
The obvious and most logical answer would be van dijk > everyone mentioned for the simple fact that van dijk is the most complete defender you could muster when you design a near flaweless CB. Just look at the attributes and skillset. He is faster than the slow John Terry, more physical than Rio and more composed than your Vidic. Rio and Vidic needed eachother because they complement eachother. Virgil van Dijk doesn't need complementing and is able to lead a defensive unit with youngsters. Stats are another thing that is in his favor, but doesnt paint the entire picture since football era's differ where more is expected from a defender in modern football. On the flipside, the game today has less iconic strikers than in the age where Terry & co had to defend. But the gameplan in modern football is also changed where its normal to play with just one striker but use other offensive minded players to penetrate the backline, forcing defenders to cover more space. One point you could use against van Dijk is longevity and I'd agree that this disadvantage is hard to overlook. But imo he has been a proven player while being a latebloomer.
Terry wasn't slow, slower yeah... but then there are also intangibles like defensive intelligence where you could argue Terry takes it and, in my opinion, this is the biggest factor for a defender. VVD is great at defending large spaces, but 1v1s he can be made to look silly (like Vidic could).
I'd say in terms of prime years VVD is the best I've ever seen a significant amount of (close with Nesta). But Terry really isn't far off and has the longevity. Also Terry proved himself across two different eras of football. Plus he lead the best defence I've ever seen.
It's a good debate between those two. I think both are fair answers - Gareth
@@WarraFooty If we speak about football intelligence then van dijk edges it for me. Instead of being pro-active he mitigates the danger instead of using a tackle or a foul. (His fouling is very low). There are countless of examples for this. The CL final 1 vs 1 (Son), the 2 (with Sissoko and Son) vs 1, the 1 vs 1 (Mbappe) and the latest one being a 1 vs 1 against Haaland. He determines the best course of action to negate big scoring opportunities (buying time, navigating to offensive passing lanes, pressuring, etc). It has to be said that Terry is no slouch in 1 vs 1, but I reckon his *speed* will be his undoing. I think VVD uses his physicality better and this might very well be a non-argument, but his "aura" is present. Terry had that too, but I reckon you'd be more eager to try and get past Terry than a van Dijk or is this bias?
As for *passing* range, there is no clear winner, though I do want to highlight van dijks long balls as an offensive treat and that his absence in the team also influences the attacking treat of Liverpool. But Terry scored lots of headers in his day so he has a point there too. With todays high lines I'd put a van dijk there instead of a Terry. *Pace* is just that big of a deal, especially now with backs playing as reverse wingbacks (like TAA does) or where a Robertson as a half winger. This season Liverpool opts for a more offensive 2-5-3 formation with a high line. In such a formation i feel John would be less apt. The other points like leadership and positioning are pretty even. Longevity is a default loss for van dijk. Lastly I feel it's more impressive to lead a defensive unit that doesnt consist of experienced/non-worldclass players: In his first season he contributed to Liverpool reaching the CL final with Karius in goal, Lovren next to him and at that time an emerging star in TAA and in lesser extent Robertson. Especially this season he had numerous CB partners due to injuries, including academy players. This tells me that he is the main big factor. But yes, van dijk only played in one era and the knowledge how he would cope with the Drogba's, Bergkamps and Henry's will remain unknown.