daniel agger is a better striker of the ball. he's scored some absolute beauties from long range. so in that sense, i am going to say danny agger is better than vidic.

I wonder is that how many goals scored by defender is the way to judge a CB??

first of all, your sentence made no sense.
2ndly(hopefully you can read better than you write), read my post properly. i said he is a better player in the sense of striking a football.

A better player in the sense of striking a football but then you add that "he's scored some absolute beauties from long range. so in that sense, i am going to say danny agger is better than vidic."
I don't understand you. Your post is as basic as they come.

Imo Vidic is ages better than Agger. Agger is obviously the more attack minded and more technically gifted but Vidic's positioning and defensive discipline is unmatched. His game reading is so precise, pace is irrelevant. If there was a top 5 for the best EPL defenders, Agger wouldn't even come close. Terry, Ferdinand, Alex and Carvalho are all a class apart. Vidic is a lot closer to that lot.

Vidic to me.
He is good in the air and scored some goals for MU too.
Some even said that the combination of Vidic and Ferdinand is the best in the world.
FYI, MU conceded the least is the premier league.
But as a Chelsea Supporter, I would like to reiterate that Terry is the best among all. No offend though. Personal opinion only.

agger?when was the last time he play?

cant u see vidic on the pitch?oh no..

yup..terry got much concentration in game..his header also scared the goalkeeper..

i think vidic would be more aggresive in defending than agger..
agger isnt that aggresive than vidic..
althou.. agger does score some remarkable long range goals..

Erm, Vidic?
Coz for a full back, u must be physically big and strong, has a good sense of tackling, read games, and good at heading...
vidic kind of has all the above, Agger? Not yet.
To put agger ahead just because he scores from long range is irrelevant, and its definitely not wat u expect most from a defender..
none the less, vidic scores too, from set pieces, because he's just making good use of his head and his physique, just like what terry always do...
So, Vidic is the clear winner.

there's actually no competition here to be exact..Although Agger do show some promising performance but all in all Vidic is a much better defender..He's those no-nonsense defender who gives his all and tend to challenge for the ball all the time..Much to the likes of Puyol..Puyol is one crazy bugger in terms of defending la ofcuz..

AGGER. he can defend and score better

vidic also can score goal lar ...

If it's his opinion that Agger is a better player whether it be because he is better looking or whatever, let it be. It is a thread for discussion and he made his point. If you disagree, so be it.

Agger hasn't played in enough games to warrant a comparison at this point. When he has played however, he has showed composure on the ball. Defensively, Liverpool has one of the best defences in the league and yet people don't rate Reina, Carra or any of our defenders which baffles me. What is it? Is Lady Luck Scouse? Some may say that a defenders job is purely to defend (i.e. Carra) but a defender can also contribute to the attack. Many attacks start from the back. If a defender is unassured or uncomfortable on the ball, he'll tend to hoof it up the park and possession is lost. If on the other hand, he is composed on the ball, he retains possession. Vidic may be better defensively but I think you have to consider a defenders overall contribution to the game i.e. Roberto Carlos is crap at defending but excellent getting forward.

Vidic vs Agger? Man Utd vs Liverpool? Seems it's a case of this. Well let's look at it this way. You say Terry, Ferdinand, Alex & Carvalho are the best in the league. You didn't mention who the 5th player was so can I assume it's Vidic? If this is the case, how is it we have a defensive record comparable to the other top sides with average defenders like Carra and Agger? Can I assume this is where the argument that we are a defensive team comes into play?

tbh ... i dun see agger much ... if i were to rate i think skrtel higher that agger heheheh

vidic is more solid at the back. while it's kinda exiting watching agger going forward.
both have their own weakness and strength but based on current form and overall consistency, i'll pick vidic.

i havent really seen agger play dat much..since im a man utd fan of coz i noe abt vidic better than agger..so i hav to say vidic is a better player..look at the amount of clean sheats him and rio managed..but den again who noes..agger is still young and if he trains really hard and wif experience he could bcome as gud as vidic..oh,is agger injured now?these past few weeks dat ive been watching EPL highlights...when they show liverpool playing i nvr see agger..

both also good defenders la,but Agger is more versatile right?i like Vidic though for his no-nonsense style of play and bravery in heading the ball...can't really decide

i think its not fair la to compare both of them..agger is facing a hard season now bcoz of his injury,for vidic that currently having a good spot with his team ..we may seen dat vidic has shown a lot of improvement bcoz of his regular play this season...but dont forget that rafa has scout both of them with intention to buy b4 they came to epl,they both has the similarity in style of play..both can distribute the ball from the back,no nonsense defending,good arial ability and can adapt with epl phisycal play..but if rafa put vidic his 1st target for liverpool its mean vidic must got something xtra...but agger also has shown what he can do on the pitch..so for me both of them got the plus n minus...

i'm longing to see vidic comin back into action

vidic of course.

solid defending.brave header.a perfect combination with ferdinand.

i think this already been discussed way before
liverpool played more defensive than man utd and arsenal
chelsea i dun know