'Messi scores all his goals because of Xavi and Iniesta making sick assists...'

I really think that Messi is a great player. w-w-w.hua-ye-tra-de.c-o-m

 

I really think that Messi is a great player. w-w-w.hua-ye-tra-de.c-o-m

 

And what would be your reasons for that?

You have a point. I will give you that. But how much influence did Puskas have in that runner-up silver medal?

Does it warrant the classification of "great" ?

 

I think it is more so to Pedernera than Moreno, that Di Stefano said he owed a great deal to, since Di Stefano spent quite a bit of time playing along side Pedernera for the Millonarios, where Pedernera was also the player-manager for some seasons.

He nonetheless definitely had a great deal of respect for all the members of La Maquina.

 

agree ... "el Maestro" was more like a playmaker type than Moreno that could influence Di Stefano's style

what made Di Stefano stood out later, for he was key to put up the great empire of Real Madrid... Blame on Moreno and Pedermera to NOT not able to play in Europe (like Di Stefano), NOR to show the world their skillset (like Pele)

 

Platini became third in the Ballon d'Or in 1978 with a very mediocre team (Platini did not win anything in that year though, except the domestic cup). In fact, if the French representative had voted for him, he would've beaten Kevin Keegan and won the award. As a sidenote: the Dutch representative awarded the full five points to him.

He was for sure a big promise.


As for your other point:

Yes, there are exceptions like Di Stefano, Best, Van Basten and even Rivellino. But most of them had softening circumstances around them.

George Best came out of Northern Ireland. It is funny that NI reached the world cup two times after his retirement but it is nevertheless a softening circumstance.

D Stefano is one of the most complete players of all-time, if not the most complete. Players who played against him regarded him as the best ever. Dutch defender Hans Kraaij recently recalled his ability to clear balls from his own goal-line and score a goal five minutes later. Kraaij said he saw some players like Puskas and Wilkes as technically better but no one was important for his team as Di Stefano was. And he played against him on several occasions.

Van Basten took his responsibility shortly before WC1990. He warned for a catastrophy on February 1990. And also took the leadership role in late 1989. It was bad management and stubborness that caused this failure. No one in Holland seriously blame him for this failure - in contrast to the loosing of the final in 1978. Some still blame Cruijff for being absent in that World Cup. But no one blames Van Basten for the failure of 1990, honestly. Ruud Gullit, who had some scores to settle, is already a bit more criticized.

And Rivellino was unlucky to a) take over the legacy of Pele and b) playing in a turbulent age of Brazil, when the country was socially and politically not very stable. Plus, he has the excuse of meeting bad coaches, despite being out of shape in some tournaments.

 

What were the differences between Moreno and Pedernera in terms of abilities?

 

It are the sentences in bold why I ignore you. Discussing in a respectful manner seems to be very difficult for you.


I've nothing to add. I've explained my position. Argentina was in 2010 a nation with 40 million citizens. Granted, Samuel and Zanetti were unavailable.

Holland was in 1974 a nation with 13 million citizens and played with second and third best alternatives at the defense. Not with their first alternatives, no, with the sixth or seventh option.

 

Moreno was more dominant than DiStefano...it went from La Maquina to La Maquinita for a reason. The team of Moreno, Pedernera, Lostau, etc. was greater, and while Pedernera was more complete as the playmaker, Moreno was the most talented player of that generation.

Is it really fair to blame Moreno and Pedernera for not playing a WC during a time when the WCs were not held?

Uruguay pop in 1950 = 1million
WC50 final: Uruguay 2 Brazil 1

Holland pop in 1974 = 13milllion
WC74 final: Germany 2 Holland 1

So is Schiaffino > Cruyff then? I personally rank him higher, and according to your argument above, you should too.

 

This 'LOL' shows what kind of troll you are.

Of course the Netherlands isn't as good as Brazil in the last 50 years. It is very difficult to have two top class players for each position, especially because the number of subs is still expanding.

Besides, the refs are psychologically induced to favor the bigger nations. The matches against Brazil 1994 (offside goals Brazil) and Brazil 1998 (obvious PK not given in the 88th minute, Arabian ref later admitted his fault) spring to mind. Funnily, exceptions like vs Denmark 1992 and Portugal 2006 took place against fellow 'small' nations. In those matches Holland had not calls against them and lost in a fair way. Italy 2000 was also a match without controversy.

As for your other point: maybe Schiaffino was indeed better than Cruijff. Who knows. But this is irrelevant and an obvious attempt to provoke debate. The key point is that it is perfectly possible to play a good tournament without a top class defense. Also Schiaffino did this apparently - with Andrade as famous exception.
Besides, 'Maradona was a failure as a coach' is a right argument but also partly post-hoc reasoning. It wasn't like Brazil 1978 or Holland 1990 where the NT was under heavy criticism at the very first day in office.
In contrary, Maradona was initially seen as a great appointment and with his vision and intelligence he would led Argentina to great heights, they thought.

 

Third world country Brazil at 1950: 50 million citizens.

Well-organized superpower West-Germany at 1974: 62 million citizens.


And by the way, Uruguay had 2.2 million citizens in 1950. Check FAO. Check 'populstat'.

 

Not a troll at all, I just find it extremely funny. I'm not sure Schiaffino is better than Cruyff, it's very difficult to make these assessments but I was pointing out that according to your logic against Messi, then Schiaffino ranks higher than Cruyff.

So Brazil had 25x the population of Uruguay in 1950 while Germany only 5x. Also, you should check the head to head record between Brazil and Germany.

 

Which logic?

My only logic was:

The sixth available option in a nation with 40 million citizens is probably better than the sixth best defender of a nation with 13-16 million citizens.

And Argentina 2010 didn't face the need to pick the sixth option.

By the way: I'm not in the position to exclude the possibility that Schiaffino was indeed better than Cruijff so I'll not argue against this opinion.

Done. Brazil won with 1:0 in West-Berlin on the 16th of June in 1973. Germany played with Overath, Beckenbauer, Vogts, Breitner and Müller.

Brazil played without Pelé.

Holland met a post-Pelé Brazil too a year later on the 3th of July 1974. Holland won with 2:0, with a goal and assist by Cruijff, who struggled with a flu.

 

I meant their entire historical head to head record, where Brazil dominates Germany. So Uruguay met a bigger opponent and won compared to Holland's loss. Both matches were in the final at their opponents ground as well. The only point favoring Holland is that Germany was already a WC winner at that point in 74, which Brazil hadn't achieved yet in 1950.

 

And there was no Havelange yet.

Plus: Germany and Brazil did not play against each other until 1963.

Between 1963 and 1974 the head-to-head was:
Three wins for Brazil, one win for Germany (in Germany) and one draw (in Brazil).

 

He certainly was, but the focus was more about him being one of the top players in the world in 1978, not a candidate of being the successor to Pele. The primary candidate by 1979 to carry the throne was a player from South America.

Platini, as great as he was, rarely was in such a discussion.

 

And you think the Brazilian Ronaldo ever was?

This is quite strange to me. In my book, media are very quick to call someone 'the best ever'.

When Van Basten retired in 1995, the Italian media called him "maybe the best foreigner ever to grace the Italian league."

As example.

In the rsssf link you provided Van Basten is placed just outside the top 10. Over here he ended in 8th place:
http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/best-x-players-of-y.html

In 1999, many publications rated Van Basten over Müller. But this has changed.


And I also think Platini is rated higher and higher over the years. Some make a dive as the years pass by (Van Basten), some others climb (Platini I think).

Maybe Platini is not in the discussion to be the best ever, but he is at the moment in the debate to be the best European ever, I feel.

 

Ronaldo received a lot of buzz when he moved to Barcelona and the inevitable comparisons were made. Now whether he fulfilled that promise is another story.

Platini was a great player, no doubt about it. But historically, it is generally viewed that there have been four kings: Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff and Maradona.

 

Yes, Platini is doing well to be rated with players like Zico and Garrincha.

 

http://blip.tv/Simonsaidwatch/video-journa-1x3-6071371

 

He certainly had respect for all of his teammates.

In the magazine of El Grafico dated 18 November 1980, there’s a column dedicated to Moreno and it states what his teammate Di Stefano remembered and learned from Jose.

These are Di Stefano’s exact words regarding Moreno:

“Give it to daddy…!”

"Seeing him and listening to Moreno I Learned to become the leader of my teams. At Real Madrid, I asked for the ball like Jose used to do in River: 'Give it to daddy!'

In 1947, in my first year as a player in the first division of River, one afternoon we struggled against the opponent and with the ball, and Moreno would yell to Rossi and to me: "To daddy, give the ball to daddy!

Then he would say to Labruna and Loustau: “What are you doing kicking the ball always to the left and making 200 passes without ever striking on goal”?

Since we were not giving him the ball, he threatened us by saying: "Now, in the dressing room, I'll grab you both and kill you" ...

We walked to the tunnel, quickly saying this madman is capable of fulfilling his promise ... He went to get them both and took us to the bathroom. He didn’t hit us. But he gave us a lection on what to do in the second half and we listened. We ended up winning 3-0.

And after the game, Moreno was the center of attention of a lot of journalists and club representatives and he explained how the game changed by giving the ball to him.

He was a show-off, a guy that liked to brag a lot, but was a wonderful player. When he passed the ball it was done with great precision right in front of me on the run, just the way I liked it.”

________________________________________________________________
Di Stefano was great but he was taught by masters. In 1980, Moreno was voted by hundreds of journalists in Argentina as the greatest Argentinian footballer in the history.

 

That and the notion that he was a ‘total footballer’.

But according to my sources, Moreno had it all as well, and he was the leader that Di Stefano looked up to as a young player.

 

It's not only some but most of Argentina's Sports' Journalists in 1980 that voted him best Argentine footballer in the history.

Only Maradona exceeded him in another vote in the early 90s.

 

He was a stronger leader with a tremendous character and no one possessed his cockiness and self-confidence.

He was the type of guy that played injured and there are many anecdotes that I possess that demonstrate the valiance that he had.

But to your point: Whether one prefers one player over the other is a matter of preference but what is irrefutable is that Di Stefano was taught by masters.

 

What did Moreno possess over Pedernera?