Michael Ballack: The biggest loser of them all?

A lot has been written recently about players driving their teams on to success; running entire tournaments on their own despite the presence of less gifted team-mates.

But what about the runners up, the nearly men? 

Naturally for every winner there has to be a loser and it seems that this year that man has been Michael Ballack, losing his third cup final of 2008 on Sunday night—this time with his national team.  All of this as well as finishing second in the Premier League.

However, looking back through the record books this has not just been the story of his year, but arguably his career. 

On first glance, it appears to be déjà vu for Ballack as in 2002 he also completed an unprecedented (until now that is...) season of second-best. He was the runner-up with Bayern Leverkusen in the German Cup, the Champions League and the Bundesliga and this was topped by not being able to play in the World Cup Final against Brazil due to suspension.

Of course, Ballack has also won a lot during his career: four league titles as well as five national cup competitions. 

Although all these honours are outweighed by six second place finishes in league competition, two national final losses, two Champions League final defeats not to mention coming off second best at international level in both World Cup and European Championships.

So, do these facts suggest that the line between success and failure really is wafer thin, and that it is as easy to win as to lose? 

Or does it prove that when push comes to shove, that some players are destined to always come off second best? 

After all, someone has to lose.

For all the German and FA Cups that he has won, Ballack has been unable so far to make the grade at the highest club level of Champions League or at international level.

Without a shadow of a doubt, Ballack is a superb footballer, one of the top players operating in Europe over the past half a dozen years. When it comes down to it in 50 years time, will he be remembered as one of the very best of his era, or more as someone who continually came up short on the biggest stages. 

Does winning define the best players? Can you truly be a "world class" player without winning the biggest prizes? 

On a side-note, who was the best player never to win anything?