I means every categorization must have its separating line between positions. In example for a line to separate CM and AM, some players who are considered in both CM and AM is closer to separating line that pure CM and pure AM. Please see the divisions ; AM Zone Maradona (AM/SS) Zidane (Pure AM) Schuster (AM/CM) _______________________________ Separating Line between CM and AM zone CM Zone Didi (CM/AM) Toninho (CM) Bozsik (CM/DM) Rijkaard (DM) In what I means is that Schuster and Didi is closest to separating line and they are set in different zone of positional categorization although the similarity of position between them is very clear. So, the reason I created another list (the 10x100 positional ranking list) was to expand number of categories.
I don;t know where you get that idea? If Didi was "zero" in defence, then the likes Zidane, Figo, Iniesta ... should be labeled as FW ...
Plus, 2003 should belonged to NEDVED (a left winger at Juve ) why you put Beckham there? 2002 was marked out one of last best of Beckham I think ... From 03 to 07 he played more like a CM not even side MF
I understand your general reasoning. But in the especific case of Schuster/Didi. Is clear that Didi was 50-50% (AM/CM) in term of career years, but CM considering peak years. In the case of Schuster, i think he was more CM in both (prime and seasons played)
I agree with Dearman ... Bernd Schuster was more of AM then CM - His well known nick Blone Angel came from his best AM skills , only his last very few season no longer at peak form people saw him as CM (well he had no longer quick) But you're right about Didi. He was in best form in both AM (52-58) and CM (59-65)
He was still no CM at the 1958 World Cup. See the positioning and general movement. The starting position from which he makes deep runs or other type of movements for receiving the ball.
I settle down that Nedved reached his peak as AM in 2003. He occasionally switched to winger area but not as often as in AM area and he was also more effective as AM. In 2003, Beckham was a better performer of Man Utd as side-midfielder than as central midfielder of Real Madrid and if I correctly remember, Beckham also played as right-side midfielder for England in 2003. If consider his peak and frequency of playing in 2003, I go for side-midfielder position.
For my eyes in that tournament, he was surely not a pure 100 percent CM in that tournament as he moved around but still primarily in central midfield area and sometimes went more advanced (Actually almost all CMs occasionally went as advanced as AM during the game).
So I regard this occasion to discuss on criteria of categorization. For my criteria, I set three options as followings ; 1) Skills fit to Position : In CM-AM case, the more different between defensive and offensive skill, the more AM. 2) Frequency of Role : The area in the field players mostly base on. 3) Position During Their Peak Career : It has to settle down in 1) to make this clause. In my primary consideration ; As of 1), It has to be more discussed to compare Didi and Schuster's defensive skills. In general, Didi is better in offensive skills and is also better in stamina which is for both defensive and offensive skills. In general, I set the similar gap between the two. Result : Equal As of 2), Didi was AM in the mid-50s and then move deeper as CM/AM since the late 50s. Schuster was AM/CM until moved deeper in his late career. Result : Equal As of 3), Didi reached his peak as CM (primary)/AM (secondary) Schuster reached his peak as AM (Primary)/CM (Secondary) Result : Schuster is more AM for me The result is still gone for Schuster as the more AM but it is very closed. At least if needed, I'd prefer to move Didi to AM category than move Schuster down to CM list but Gerson, Van Hanegem, Masopust, etc are needed to move also in the similar case.
Masopust and Van Hanegem were way more defensive players as Didi. To an extent that it is not debatable even. Winning the ball from deep positions was even a trademark move of Masopust. Didi also stayed relatively advanced on the pitch (high positioning) when his Brazil team hadn't the ball, IMO.
While I agree that Van Hanegem played more deeper (in average heat map) than Didi, your opinion is just misinfo, maybe based on a few (odd) games you watched(!) For example, if some younger fan never watched Etoo' in his Barca days, but happened to watch him in few games UCL2010 at Inter under Mourinho, he might (misinfo) conclude: "wow what a complete FW as he can do link up well with MF and even went deep to defend for the team" ==>hence Eto'o looked just like Cruijff at Ajax???? NO
Well, the impressions of Didi are indeed often based on his Brazil NT games (and his well-covered and highly anticipated spell with Real Madrid as well). Is that different in your case? Btw, I also said that Masopust played (often) deeper. Not always though. But he became famous as a superb ball-winner.
well in which "particular games" and please do NOT say all of Didi's all 15games WC level? Pele rarely praised (with honesty as player, not diplomacy after his retirement) a player during his playing time and at his peak 58-68. Only a few names that he mentioned: 1- Zizinho's dribbling and vision in attack 2- Didi's mastering mind/passing in MF 3- G.Best in his best form 68 4- Bobby Moore as his tough opponent lastly, I kinda agree with you about Masopust, that's why I had no added comment on him
only IF you said most of his games in Brazil NT (12 or 15 in quantity) are all like that (= weird) other than that = MISINFO. Yes totally different in my case: 1- Didi was a true "deep" and CLASSIC playmaker (= CAM a la Rui costa, Riquelme in last few decades ...) That's why he NEVER WORN a #10 (more advanced inside FW) but #8 (more withdrawn inside FW) 2- Besides his games in NT (15 games) of which he had a good advantage with a Zito (true best DM that Brazil ever produced) that allowed him more freedom in attack. But NOT at his club level (>500games) Look at a brief of his greatness: http://mundobotafogo.blogspot.com/2009/09/didi-da-folha-seca.html Didi showed Garrincha (his best pupil) in FK (dry leaf) ABOUT HIS DEBUT and STYLE: And exhibited what he knew of the ball: everything. So much so that in 1950, inaugurating the Maracanã, midfielder Didi would score the first goal of the stadium, acting by Rio selection won by São Paulo by 3-1. In 52, the club won the Copa Rio and would be half owner of the Pan-American country of Chile - the first trophy of the Brazilian selected conquered abroad. At this point, the classic style, elegance, creativity and leadership, was the natural successor to Zizinho. (53 marked his debut to become Brazil play maker/leader ) ABOUT HIS WC54: Worldwide this, Nilton Santos says in the book that, in protest, Didi - forbidden by Brazilian leaders see Guiomar - went on hunger strike. Just pretend that, since the Botafogo Nílton secretly fed him, stealing food for him in the kitchen of the Swiss hotel. Upon failure of the national team in this World Cup has added to the ignorance of top hats, more attentive to ******** the playmaker that the rules of the contest. But Didi made his name in Europe with subtle dribble and pass. ABOUT HIS WC58: However, the peak of Didi would be the World 1958: winning the World Cup and unanimity to be the best athlete in the competition. To any mortal, it was already full. And be elected in a contest played by Pele, Garrincha, Nilton Santos, Skoglund, Nestor Rossi, Iashin, Kopa and other stars would be what? Confirming the apogee, the nickname given by the French on Didi, says it all: "Monsieur Football".
It was not just an idea. It was fact ... I followed Brazil games as much and as close as I could ... until late 80's - quality declined big times I have to go back to my pile of Placar and other magazines ... but may be some other time when I coudl locate a good indication ...
Can I ask on what basis you rate Bulgarelli so high? What do you have for assessing his number of 'supreme amazing awesome phenomenal class' years (sorry, don't remember all those designations you use for valuing individual seasons). I'm not disagreeing but just a question.
I have no evidence of seasonal rating of him. So, rating to him is probably some error. I read some articles such as this one http://www.storiedicalcio.altervista.org/bulgarelli_giacomo.html and discussed with Italian in XT. I implied that he is one of Bologna's greatest player not far behind Haller and he has above-average offensive skills among top 50 CM. Anyway, His int.club is almost nothing and his international career is rather short.
Well, for ManU 2003 Beckham was playing as AM with Nicky Butt and Roy keane as 2 DM in middle (just like Nedved) Only when moving to Real, he was FORCED to play like a CM ... next to another DM. So in either case 2003 belonged to Nedved as the best MF - while Zidane was more like a "honor" best AM/Play maker ... (in stead of Nedved like you mistaken)
But Man Utd at that Season was primary base on 4-4-2 formation. Beckham occasionally switch to central area but he primarily performed as side-midfielder as I correctly remembered.
Yes and so was Nedved playing for Juve 4 4 2 (but on left side ) --------Del Piero ------ Di Vaio ----------- * -------Solsjaer -----------Nistelrooy ----------- Nedved -----------------------Camonaresi * -Giggs ------------------------------Beckham -------E Davids ------ I Tudor--------------*---------- Butt ----------RKeane--------------- What I meant they both had a very good season for their club but Nedved shone brighter than Beckham that same year 2003
But I saw Nedved was actually set between SM and AM area and Zambrotta usually support offensive game on the left side allow Nedved to be more free in central area especially his role is a representative of Zidane. Beckham's effectiveness between his role as CM and SM is incomparable (SM is by far a better alternative).