Why not evidence ? An easy evidence is his very few achievement of trophy that can be understand he would have had a hard time to win any World player of the year award in case it was existing. Matthews in the 2nd half 1940s is inferior to V.Mazzola as he didn't win any trophy. For the 1st half 1950s, there were too many top legends for him to beat, Puskas, Di Stefano, Kocsis, Liedholm, Nordahl, etc. Between 1949 - 1952 (3 Seasons) Matthews scored just a goal in 87 domestic games (League and Cup). He also scored no goal for England for 7 years in row between 1949 - 1955. Winger must help the team to do scores as the proportion they have potential to do and Matthew failed in this function. Therefore, you should give your idea which year Matthews would be right to win.
You can't use your own opinion as evidence. Presenting tables of "player of the year" that you've made up (which I've already shown to be loaded with unrealistic bias) and using Matthews not being in the tables as proof that he wasn't well regarded is just nonsense. By the 1950s he was already at an age when most players have retired. Sadly the war wipid out the entire period that he'd have been at his peak. Remove the playing years between 24 and 30 of any great player, and see how he'd be remembered. It would have been his play in the 1930s that created his reputation. He was not much of a goalscorer, but not many out-and-out wingers were. His job was to set up the goals, not score them. Comparing his goal-scoring record to players in positions who were expeected to score a lot is stupid. Using that statistic to regard him as a failure is beyond ridiculous. His lack of trophies is largely down to not playing for top clubs. While decent clubs, neither Stoke nor Blackpool were teams regularly challenging for honours. The transfer system at the time made it much easier for modest clubs to retain talented players. If you think he played for Blackpool and Stoke because the top English sides of the day didn't think he was good enough, then it really shows you don't understand at all.
I am one of those who dont quite know how to rate Matthews. Dont want to sound disrespectful. For the sake of comparison, what other world-class none-scoring out and out wingers that were required only to set up goals but not score almost at all are out there to compare him with? Cant think of any right now...
You are a true stupid man to refer I use my opinion as evidence. I have said his few acheivement is one of evidences. Players can be considered as the best player in the World basically have won any trophy or at least very closed. You cannot explain why my point can be disagreed as I have said winger role have to help the team to do scores as one of responsibilities and Matthews fail in this function. I am not said he failed in overall performance. For the greatest ever group, you have many legendary candidates so just a big disadvantgae point can affect the level of status. It is unacceptable to be rated him as the best player in the world in any year. It is not just my opinon. No one in history group rate him as the best player in the World in any year except an biased person like you. It is very easy to see your biased attitude as you are from England. Sorry, but you cannot realize yourself that is embedded biased attitude in your brain by circumstances to overrate in English players. There is no special thing for a kind of guy like you as I have discussed so many times. You cannot leave an narrow attitude and lose your emotion to accept the reality, it is very shameful. If you really wanna discuss with me fairly. You have to answer in the correct issue. Many candidates in his era all are better than him.
oh dear, dear dear, my dearman. what in god's holy name are you blathering about ? do you speak english sir? parla usted inglese? at what point has anyone here given a definitive rating for the great sir stanley mathews? other than to point out that the footballing intelligensia decided to award epy to a 50 year old man for the first and last time ahead of puskas/hidegkuti/ didi/ vava/di steffano/sivori/kopa/walter/ charles etcetera etcetera. heres a question you should be able to answer in any language. please tell me a few names that you consider to be contemporaries of mathews that played similar roles that you could compare him against? not that im interested in your answer or opinion. its more of a rhetorical question to prove that you know very little and as a result should potentially hold your tongue rather than lashing out the ad hominems.
Prizes are as always an in-definitive indicator for assessing the quality of a player. In the case of Matthews, there are a couple of reasons why he did not won very much and it wasn't his fault anyway I think.
He probably played his best football at Stoke. Stoke are not a big club, and as good as he was, he couldn't win titles on his own. He went to Blackpool, who aren't big either, and he did at last get a medal there. It would have been rather tough for him to win the world cup with England in 1930/34/38, and by the 1950s England had be bypassed tactically. Winning medals, footballing ones at least, during the war was also a tad tough. So using "medal won" as a barometer of talent is hopelessly flawed. He was an outside right, not an inside right or centre-forward. Scoring goals was a bonus for an outside right, not an expected part of playing the position. He also scored 1 game in 5 for England, and had the same strike rate at Stoke (1st spell) which is more like what you'd expect. His goalscoring rate dried up as he aged. Yet it's acceptable for a defender for a hopeless Italian team to be rated by you as the best in the world in 1917 (and three other years) ? When did I say he was the best player in the world? Again, consider your inclusion of players from a feeble embryonic Italian era as the world's best, and consider what you've just said. Sorry, but you are just one of many who seems to think obsessively compiling a list in a spreadsheet makes the information in it become fact.
If you can be greatest ever, you have to prove yourself in high level standard of competition enough. Medal and Trophy are evidence of this consideration. If you played in an middle level team or not much above-average, your team has not many ball possession and team capability is not support you enough and this is a main obstacle for you to reach your high level of potential. So, you have to find other better circumstance that is more suitable for you to fulfill your potential. Many legends in history have talent to be one of the top the greatest players ever like Rivelino, Jose Manuel Moreno, etc but circumstance is not support them enough. So, you are really misunderstood about definition of greatest ever. It doesn't mean greatest talent and skill ever but it is the greatest performance ever that is much depend on standard of competition they have proved. 1917 is far from 1940s and 1950s in status of international football as there was very few tournaments in the era. Therefore, rating of best defender in the World during the year has no international tournament is established for their suscessively worldwide fame as the best thing to do.
Do you understand the transfer system in England in that era? Players couldn't press for a transfer to a top club. If you played for Stoke, as he did, and your contract expired, then you had two choices a) sign a new contract on the terms offered. b) quit League football. That was it. If you didn't sign a new contract then you couldn't play for any other league club. Ah, so it's not about ability, it's about the medal count. That's why it's therefore proven that Lawrie Sanchez was a greater midfielder than Matt Le Tissier, because Sanchez has an FA Cup medal, and Jimmy Greaves fails to compare to Stéphane Guivarc'h because the latter was part of the French '98 world cup final team. And you seriously believe that Renzo di Vecchi, who played during Italy's early incredibly weak days, had worldwide fame? I repeat, this is a nation whose top clubs and national team were being outclassed at home by an a club from the third tier of English football. And you don't perhaps think Matthews' fame in the 1930s might have been a shade higher that di Vecchi's?
Richard, I don't know how age of you but your statement is very kid. It is useless to example case of Givarch to be a better player than Greaves because of Medal. This really indicates your persepective is narrow. Pele and Maradona are considered as the contemporary greatest ever because they are very influenced to their team to win trophy. Givarch had nothing to influence his team and even the worst player in the 1998 France squad so the medal is not significant for him to be rated high. It measure in level of performance that impact to their team. Matthews may impact Stoke to be great as it could be but he must prove himself enough in the international level to be considered as as the top player in football history. In case of Vecchi, it is absolutely different circumstance to Matthews so you cannot apply logic-to-logic correctly. The 1910s is not much reliable in the rating as the evidence is very few to do it and even we have evidence, it is still not easy to select the best as there were a few international competitions for top players to be competed together.
richard, this is painfull, please just leave this brainless simpleton to his own devices. he has derailed the thread and now its just a case of watching him wade through a swamp of mis-statements and simplifications in a language he has no grasp of. just let him accept that italian football in the teens has 'too little evidence to judge' and that mathews not winning all the wcs in the 1930s and 40s was due to his lack of talent rather than the fact we didnt play any wcs in the 30s and there was a little event called the war that put paid to wcs in the 40s.
I agree. I think the "medals are more significant than ability, but Givarch can't be considered because although he has medals, his ability isn't as good" reasoning marked it out as a lost cause. My answer overall was "no" anyway. There's nothing like being called a kid by someone unable to respond to the holes in his argument to remind me why I stopped posting here for about a year.
Matthews wasn't essential to win World Cup but the fact that he is not even a World Cup legend. If you still refer his talent must help himself to be successful in the 1938 WC or even 1942 and 1946 if WW II didn't happen, Everyone can refer this thing for their players. Jose Manuel Moreno and Di Stefano can be refered by Argentinian to be the greatest ever if just make beleiving not in reality. Didi, Romario, Baggio, Meazza and Zizinho all proved themselve more than Matthews in history of World football. Lost and Richard, This overrating of Matthews refer to his status in World Football not just for your country. Hence, you must clarify to complaint why Matthews must be ahead of many legends in history but I am afraid that you know very little about a true legends of the World in the past. So, if you don't have knowledge enough about legends from other countires. Both of you is by far disqualify to discuss on topic in reality. Lost is the second example of English man who lost their emotion just cannot endure to see the reality of overration of Matthews. It is very shameful to be unavoidable biased attitude embedded in your brains. Lost, I have something to tell you. If you really positive Matthews is great enough, you are just able to keep it in your mind if you don't have capability to make advanced discussion here. 1910s is much diffrent from the 1930s so you cannot apply logic-to-logic between 1910s and 1940s correctly. There is no problem I accept my rating in the 1910s is not reliable but the 1930s - 1940s is available in many evidences enough to conclude Matthews is overrated if anyone rate him in top 20. Finally, Richard and Lost just refer to high level of Matthews skill despite he had not proved himself in highest standard enough. You cannot refer that Matthews should be successful in the 1938 World Cup if he never compete. Sorry, Richard, Youself refer to example of Givarch versus matthews case. It is really failure as you could not realize influenced characteristic of player at first. You have to accept your low level of thinking. Otherwise, it seems you are not accept yourself.
There's just too much to be said about Matthews, but as a short comment, "The Wizard" has been regarded as the greatest English player of his time, because his talent made him stand out from the rest. As a right winger, he is definitely only behind Garrincha in my book and in most observers'. He mastered the outside right position, just doing what a right winger was supposed to do back then, over, and over. I will not deny however that I think his charisma made him even more famous. Experts have ranked Matthews within the top 20 or near it several times, for example, Guerin Sportivo, on what you could call a "pro-Italy players" list, ranked him #31, and the IFFHS ranked him #11 overall and #8 best in Europe. That has to account for something. Dearman, if you want to help your argument, you should list 20 (or 30) players you consider better than him and explain why. It would be interesting and informative, I'm sure. The problem with putting too much weight on titles (or lack thereof) is that football is a team sport, and Stanley Matthews is one of the prime examples of great footballers that just never played in great clubs, and thus didn't win a huge amount of silverware, but that shouldn't take away from his merits if he was an outstanding player otherwise. And counting his goals stats is just not fair. If his assist stats where available (and I'm sure detailed match reports are out there), then that would be a better indicator, statistically speaking, of his contributions. Meanwhile, I'll just leave this nice vid here: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9YJbJRdK6M"]Stanley Matthews - parte 1 - YouTube[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va54tLIAsQ0"]Stanley Matthews - Parte 2 - YouTube[/ame]
...which still all boils down to him not being rated by you because he doesn't have the medals. The fact that he was not able to sign for a club that could realistically challenge for honours, nor played for an international team that played in world cups during his peak, is disregarded. You contradict yourself by saying he can't be a top player because his ability is unproven at the highest level, but you then say there is evidence that he was overrated. What is this evidence? If it's that he didn't even win many domestic honours or play for a top club, then it's clear you aren't even reading the replies. If it's that he didn't win international honours then I'd like to hear your assessment of the international careers of George Best and Ryan Giggs. You keep going on about bias, and about being blinkered into believing Matthews is one of the top 20 best ever, yet if you'd actually read what has been said you'd have noticed nobody is claiming he is. You do admit your own bias for the earlier years of the game, which is a start, but haven't managed to take the step of wondering if your judgement wasn't just clouded for those later years too. After all, if your default position is that the English game was hugely overrated, it's going to be pretty easy to cherry-pick little bits of "evidence" to back up the assertion. Overall though, it boils down to this. You are defining greatest as "most successful". I think most would define it as "most talented".
can you name any players of the era and position of mathews to compare him to? youve been asked this question so many times, if you were anywhere near as knowledgable as you tell yourself you are, you could answer this one, but you cant, and you wont. until you offer some names , which can then be tested against firm reasoning, then your opinion and posts are pointless.
[IMHO, this isn't fair to "Sir Stan" because he was almost always lined-up as the "chalk on his boots", touchline-hugging winger who stayed out wide while the "flying column" winger on the opposite flank (the likes of Cliff Bastin, Eric Brook & Sir Tom Finney w/England and the likes of Bill Perry @ club level) barnstormed into the danger area to stick the ball in the opposition's net. It's like calling for Franz Beckenbauer to be down-graded on your lists because we don't see the "attacking"-type of libero around much these days, Dearman.]
Dearman, I have to take exception to your belittling of the legendary Moreno in this way. If Pele or Maradona played during his time, they also would not have won WCs and that's because they would not have had a chance to participate in them (perhaps only one if lucky). By the way, Moreno > DiStefano.
[You mean except for the part where Matthews won the inaugural Ballon d'Or in '56 (much of it on the back of his performances w/England)? ]
That's like a historian saying that Napoleon Bonaparte must be a myth because we don't have footage of his battles. What we do have about Charro Moreno is written records from his time about how he revolutionized football, as well as oral and written memories of some fans and players from the era who are still alive and recognize his greatness, including Alfredo Di Stefano himself.
First I do not disagree with you about Moreno's greatness and his "La Maquina" . WHat I meant we (unfortunately) lacked of his footage to confirm how great he was History is a totally different than Football. There were always historians written of events even before AD/BC ... and you could make a "THESIS" out of Napoleon if you want to based on "available info"
Yeah, I would like to have seen footage of him too, and La Maquina. And also of some of the old Boca greats like Varallo and Cherro. What I can tell you is that growing up my uncles used to swear that Charro Moreno was the greatest, the Maradona of his era, and they are legit fans who knew the game, they used to go to the stadiums and one of them played for a while. I trust their evaluations. And obviously I respect Di Stefano's admiration for Moreno too. He's not the type to throw praise around lightly (like for example Pele).