Maybe Maradona is better but Platini is one of the first picks in any team for me. Regardless of tactics, position or playing style. Sad he is now part of the corrupt apparatus and is exercising a job as official but what a great footballer, and captain, he was.
Some comments made me laugh. ;I'll take a Van Basten as lone striker over the TWO combined: Kilnsman+Rossi any day. Van Basten was often regarded as the best European striker ever produced = very complete and skillful (a la Eusebio/Ronaldo/Romario ...) Klinsman and Rossi were just very good one with a "fairly good skill" as OPPORTUNIST. A lot of surveys put Basten even ito TOP10 best all time (prior to Ronaldo + Zidane time) before WC98 - Neither Klinsman nor Rossi would be NEAR TOP75 - big difference! Zico was clearly the BEST PLAYER entering WC82 (a head of Platini an Maradona_ ) an in fact he was betetr than them there as well (4gls+4ass/5games) Zico > Rossi + Tigana combined LOL
Interesting idea. btw, there's a thread on my profile where you can pick all-time xi's also with only one player per nation (and excluding the nations used by the previous picker) - not advertising it particularly , although if anyone adds a team I'll look at it obviously. Here's another different idea - an 80's xi using only one player from each season (players not necessarily listed with their best season): 1979/80 - Peter Shilton 1980/81 - Karl-Heinz Rummenigge 1981/82 - Zico 1982/83 - Gaetano Scirea 1983/84 - Michel Platini 1984/85 - Junior 1985/86 - Diego Maradona 1986/87 - Manuel Amoros 1987/88 - Franco Baresi 1988/89 - Marco van Basten 1989/90 - Lothar Matthaus ---------------Shilton-------------- Amoros---Scirea-----Baresi----Junior -------Matthaus-----Platini--------- ----------------Zico--------------- -----Rummenigge------Maradona----- --------------van Basten----------- My actual 80's xi would be quite similar I think anyway - maybe 1 or 2 changes. Second and third teams using one per year: 2nd 1979/80 - Jan Ceulemans 1980/81 - Socrates 1981/82 - Johan Cruyff 1982/83 - Kenny Dalglish 1983/84 - Falcao 1984/85 - Bernd Schuster 1985/86 - Rinat Dasaev 1986/87 - Gary Lineker 1987/88 - Frank Rijkaard 1988/89 - Paolo Maldini 1989/90 - Andreas Brehme ----------------Dasaev--------------- --Brehme-------Rijkaard-------Maldini-- ----------------Schuster------------- ---------Falcao--------Socrates--------- ----Ceulemans----------------Cruyff---- ----------------Dalglish---------------- ----------------Lineker---------------- 3rd 1979/80 - Osvaldo Ardiles 1980/81 - Glenn Hoddle 1981/82 - Pierre Littbarski 1982/83 - Maxime Bossis 1983/84 - Jean Tigana 1984/85 - Neville Southall 1985/86 - Micheal Laudrup 1986/87 - Ruud Gullit 1987/88 - Careca 1988/89 - Pietro Vierchowod 1989/90 - Roberto Baggio ---------------Southall-------------- ----------------Gullit----------------- -----Vierchowod-------Bossis-------- -----Tigana-------------Ardiles------- ---------------Hoddle-------------- ------Littbarski--------M.Laudrup------ ---------------Baggio---------------- ---------------Careca--------------- NOTE - Yes, the formations did get hyper-ambitious there but after all they're all-star teams and picking 1 per year isn't as easy as it seems. Other players that missed out due to the years included the strikers Paolo Rossi and Preben Ekljaer and other examples off the top of my head would include John Barnes and Enzo Francescoli. I felt team 3 was a bit attacking to put Cabrini in, and he was more of an outright left-back anyway.
I did say Van Basten is the best striker of the past 25 years, I just think Rossi, Klinsmann, Kempes all follow closely behind. Besides Euro 88, I didn't find Van Basten a clutch player for Holland. One of my first tournaments watched was the Youth WC in 83, where Argentina, led by Zarate, beat the Netherlands with Van Basten in the quarterfinals. If he could not get past Argentina with a mediocre keeper in Islas, and no future superstars, it shows that at international level Van Basten was not as great as his club level. Still, he is indeed the best striker since Pele himself. Indeed, both Platini and Maradona would lead my all-time team, not just eighties but all of soccer history. Well, Rossi beat Zico when it mattered, but I agree that Zico is the greater player, though I rate Platini slightly ahead of him in the al-time ranking. Oh, and in case you don't know, Van Basten > Romario or Ronaldo. Broken record, and a boring song at that. Vierchowod ahead of Francescoli? Only if you have no value for the beaty of the game.
Eh? I definately value the beauty of the game (in fact much prefer open attacking football and line-ups without a particularly solid midfield - though not to the extreme of the sides I showed in my exercise perhaps ). I couldn't really pick any less defenders in those teams if they were to resemble a proper football team though surely you'd agree (I have Gullit as sweeper too). So Vierchowod isn't chosen ahead of Francescoli, but instead of other defenders. If you meant the year I chose for Vierchowod, I have to admit I'm not an expert on Francescoli's career but perhaps around 84-86 would be his best period while he was playing for River Plate?
I know the facts might disappoint some people but the awful truth is that Paolo Rossi's club goalscoring career is somewhere between David TrezeguetandHernán Crespo. I think I can predict the future - in 30 years kids will tell me that Diego Forlán was much better than Andriy Shevchenko, Ruud Van Nistelrooy and Samuel Eto'o.
Francescoli had a great season in 89, also took Uruguay to the final of the Copa America, where they beat Maradona's Argentina but lost in Brazil to the hosts led by Romario and Bebeto. Just as stats is not very applicable for midfielders, it's also not everything for forwards. You know the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Very well said. As much as I respect the World Cup its not the ONLY way to measure a quality player. Example is George Best. One of the best (probably the best) LW of all time. Poor guy never really played in a WC, becasue he was from N.Ireland.
Man, you got it the other way round, Pele was a forward/AM, Rossi was a pure striker. And nice to see change goalposts with Rossi; goals are not everything when his numbers over the season were poor yet for his WC 82 you were the one constantly praising his performance because he scored against so many goals against blah blah.
schwuppe, all you do is look at stats from sundry sites and then make incomplete assessments. Why even bother watching matches then? The WC is the greatest measure for a player, it is not the only one but it should be given its proper weight. Anyways, Rossi was not at all a Schillacci type who hardly did anything else aside one WC. You keep attacking any opinion of mine on this board, and we all know the reason why: you are upset that I deem Rossi's WC82 performance greater than Pele's in WC70.
Oh that's very clever, why bother to use facts? Because without them people can state whatever they want not even giving a reason, just like you do. So are you going to provide me with some more seasons where Paolo Rossi was a World Class striker on a club level? No need for stats here just interested when they happened. Was it in 1985/86 when he scored 2 goals for Milan? Oh damn using stats again, they might be deceptive in this case. Oh if you actually cared to watch any matches you would have noticed that Rossi offered next to nothing if he wasn't scoring goals.
I agree with this one, Rossi was easily more important (not sure about better) to his team. Brazil probably wins it all without Pelé, while Italy's eliminated after the 2nd round if Rossi doesn't play. Overall it might be hard for people to seperate single tournament performances from whole careers - goes both ways.
Why is importance to team the be all end all in evaluating players? So Landon Donovan is one of the best players in the last decade because the US were useless without him?
Ok, I knew he'd had success with Uruguay in the Copa America (they won it in '85 and in the 90's I think didn't they?). I knew they were highly rated going into WC86 although they including Francescoli didn't play up to expectations (Denmark played great in the 6-1 game though and Uruguay did lose a player to a sending off). Francescoli continued to do well in France then I assume as well as being Uruguay's top star. I'll have to check out some of the old Copa America's on Youtube I think. I've seen some highlights of the '91 tournament with Caniggia in top form etc, and '89 might be a good place to continue if I can find good footage. Overall, I know Francescoli is among the star names from the 80's and did mention him, but choosing by year (perhaps otherwise too, perhaps not) I didn't include him in the top 3 teams I listed - he'd have been a close call as I do recognise his quality and have at least seen some compilation footage etc. Vierchowod could dribble a bit for a defender though too you know .
Who said that? Did I? Hmm doesn't seem like it, so please stop making things up. Oh not that I care for the Pelé v. Rossi discussion but if you can't see the difference between what Rossi did in '82 and Donovan did for US team I smell something there.
Nonsense! Unlike nowadays when people use FIFA’s World Player of the Year to boast who the best player in the world is -- this was not the case back in 1982. However, the press, players and coaches did voice their opinion (even if it did not officially reflect on record) and according to the magazine of El Grafico that I own dated July 6, 1982, after Argentina were eliminated from the competition, it clearly states that the unanimous view is that Maradona was regarded as the best player in the world (also the most expensive) entering Spain ’82 -- A PDF file that I had previously uploaded from my personal archive months ago: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=S8G9B8U8 (It’s written in Spanish). These comments are a fine example when success can be misleading. He didn’t take anyone to the final – it was Ruben Sosa who had the game of his life and Uruguay's defence against Argentina – while Enzo was just a spectator in that match and for most of the tournament. Uruguay won CA’s in ’83, ’87 and ’95 – thanks primarily to Enzo riding the coattails of Aguilera, Alzamendi, Bengoechea and Alvez. Most (if not all) of Uruguay's success was virtue of other players stepping up and delivering the final blow to the opposition in the decisive matches when all the marbles were up for grabs. Because Argentina had the best player on the field that day (El Grafico magazine rated him with a match-score of 9) and were able to survive every bullet that Uruguay threw at them in the last 20 minutes when Ruben Paz came on, and deserved to go through.
He provided a couple of assists in WC78 and one against Argentina in WC82, so he did offer more than just goals. His career was hampered by suspension and injuries, but he his first four seasons with Vicenza were great, as well as two outstanding seasons with Juventus. If you're going to select Vierchowod, he should be in the left flank of the defense, not in midfield. Their defense was not too strong, Bossio and Bautista were disasters at the WC, as was their keeper Rodriguez. Alzamendi also disappointed. Agree that Maradona was the best player going into WC82, but he didn't defend his title successfully (similar to Messi in WC10). Diego himself would say at the end of the Cup: "I was its biggest loser". You are completely wrong in attributing those Uruguayan wins to anyone bu Francescoli. He was awesome in the win against Argentina in CA 87, and also had a strong match against Chile in the final.
Alvez was their starting GK in '86. Uruguay did more kicking than playing in Mexico, and were eliminated by a better team that deserved to go through. I’m not concerned with how well he defended his country’s title or his reputation (never really thought that Argentina could repeat anyway – given how poor their defence looked prior to the competition in friendlies, and the responsibility and pressure was thrown on the shoulders of one player, with Zico himself accusing Argentina before the WC began that they were a one-man team) but simply pointing out how James’ claims were unsubstantiated. No, mate. Enzo’s squad won in ’87 thanks to Alzamendi scoring the match-winner against Argentina and Bengoechea’s goal in the final vs Chile, while Periera’s excellent goalkeeping kept his goal sheet clean. But the best players in those matches for Uruguay were defenders: Gutierrez and Dominguez. And I must remind you that Francescoli was sent off in the final in the 27th minute and other guys had to finish the Chileans off. And there was absolutely nothing awesome about Enzo against Argentina since Uruguay played almost the entire 90 minutes defending and their only chance that I could remember came on a counterattack which resulted in goal. On the other end, Argentina had a dubious call ruled against them when Caniggia had scored and solid defending and goalkeeping from the Uruguayans fended the Argentines off. Uruguay also benefited due to the flawed system that had them receive a bye all the way through to the semifinals. This allowed them to catch Argentina (who fielded many B players in the cup, since there was no Pumpido,Valdano, Burruchaga and Enrique, etc) and Chile in disadvantage since they started the tournament from the beginning. Enzo was a very good player but to suggest him as the main reason that those teams won championships is just flat-out wrong and completely undermines the work and effort of other players that got the job done, especially when Francescoli was sent off in the final and the rest of the team had to pick up the slack and deliver the championship.
I put him as the right centre-back with Bossis to his left and Gullit as sweeper, so he wasn't in midfield.