The biggest problem we have in respect of Moreno is the lack of a world tournament to assess him in. Of course we have the Copa Americas but we are not well placed to determine the strength of the era given that Argentina didn't participate in a World Cup (with a full strength team) between 1930 and 1958. That lack of context is one of the key things that hurts Moreno.
It was often remarked that Meazza and Sindelar (to name some) did not reach their best form and fitness level at the World Cup. They are (rightly so) highly rated for the level in non World Cup years (or months if you like); in club championships, minor tournaments, friendlies, tours etcetera
The lack of WC is precisely what was viewed by one reporter that witnessed both as a disadvantage to Moreno (in terms of world exposure). Pele's the greater player, but doesn't mean he was unquestionably viewed as the better player. Pound for pound if we go by the sources, in terms of the qualities of the player and man, Moreno didn't have to envy anyone and held his own.
But I think the problem is that in judging greatness we are considering achievements etc as well as just proficiency. There are plenty of British based journalists who would rate George Best as the best (ie most technically accomplished, skillful and well rounded) player ever. However, we need to measure that against the many negatives that surround his career.
I just want to point out that based on what I have read there is no doubt that Moreno is one of the greatest players ever. I just think it is extremely difficult to gauge his level and put him on the level of Pele based on other factors.
It is the unfortunate situation that Moreno or others played in an era which deprived them from receiving global fame and recognition (obviously on the South American Continent he did obtain exposure and recognition). It's uncertain if Moreno had that negative propaganda that surrounded George Best (obviously Moreno liked that booze, according to my sources and it cost him his life apparently in the long run) but on the field it is said that he gave it his all. I can assure you he had his dips in form at some points in his career, but so did Pele... And I must point out: Pele was viewed as a player that had a bad character. Some would even say a 'dirty' player (ask Messiano). He didn't like to be tightly marked and was a player that could mock other players. He onetime against Racing (Arg.) tried to ridicule Bossolino. In sum: many of his negative antics are now washed aside in order to make his image look cleaner. Moreno also could be undisciplined, but no one is perfect.
I fail to see how there is no doubt. The problem is that mostly only Argentinian (South American) sources exist. There is a lack of views from other countries although they did know his fame. He was known outside of Argentina because Argentina was a major footballing nation. Indeed, also George Best was for a long time only in Britain seen as one of the greats, as the 1981 Placar list demonstrates (except for one mention, all other inclusions are British). Though a crucial difference is that George Best did travel to other nations and was meticulously assessed by foreigners, on a consistent basis. They saw him and he got nicknames as a result ('El Beatle'). The similarity is that fame within their own country is the force that propels their status. At the very least until a certain point in time (until it entered global consciousness). Basically, their status is based on the premise that both Argentina and England are major superpowers. Plus the propaganda power of English as lingua franca. Don't want to insult Vegan10 but that (for example) Dearman has Moreno down as top 20 all-time player, way over Sindelar and others of the 30s and 40s, is a writing on the wall. That status is only propelled by Argentinians. If there are many more than Smith, preferably also non-English who saw him play and had an impression of Cobbold his impact, who had the same opinion then it gains credibility. At the least the view that he was extremely important at his peak becomes credible.
It would be interesting to see who voted for Best in the World Sports Magazine poll of 1970 that you found the results of (he was in the reserve team interestingly as number 10, although maybe a lot of his votes were for him as a winger; no clue as to his number of votes from what you found though I remember unlike for the players making team 1). I guess he'd be highly thought of in Portugal at that time, although a lot of Europeans could have viewed the games against Benfica potentially. In 1981 no Portuguese voters chose him though. I know you also mentioned highly complementary results of a survey with questions about him in the Netherlands in the 1960's (but the favourable comparisons to Pele were mainly as current player vs current player and a majority didn't think he was better than Pele ever was IIRC?). I've lost track of exactly what I've read over the last few days on Big Soccer but somebody (not sure if it was you; possibly Vegan) posted Pele's impression of a top 5 in 1969 which had Best after Beckenbauer, Bobby Charlton and Eusebio and just ahead of Rivera IIRC. That's interesting as I always assumed the Pele quote about Best being the best was a contemporary quote not one in hindsight, and I'd guess before 1969 rather than after it probably. There were a lot of great players in the world at that time though and Best had possibly dipped a bit from his 1968 form. The Dutch magazine Voetbal International was also the one to put him in their top 10 in 1999 I saw so perhaps he was particularly rated in the Netherlands. In their Elftal van de Eeuw election to pick an all-time side in a 4-3-3 he did come behind Gento in the voting though for the left wing position. I guess with Best it makes a big difference how much of an emphasis is put on longevity as suggested, although he did have a number of years where he was a notable player for Man Utd.
No, you remember it right. In 1969 they did a comparison with Pelé and also Cruijff. George Best came out very favourably in the survey. That is right. I posted those results. Many thought he was the best and hugely talented but had not yet the accomplishments and longevity at that time. It is also right that Best was/is generally highly rated over here. Though even his fans mention that it is due to his iconic status, as cultural icon (such as the former editor of Voetbal International - who had him as the equal of Pelé).
This quote is relevant to your point I think too (not as commonly known as the one about being great in any team even wearing an overcoat); it appears on the video below too - credit to RoyoftheRovers for initially posting that particular video on another thread: "Pele was a great player. He must rank one of the best of all time. I've said that Tommy Finney was the best I've seen and I'd bracket Pele, Eusebio, Cruyff, Di Stefano and Puskas up there with him." - Bill Shankly Interestingly a number of people are saying Finney was better than Matthews, although I guess there is a Preston bias/perspective on there. I don't think it is such an unusual opinion though. Finney only had two inclusions on the 1981 poll (one from England and one from Italy) and wasn't in the 1970 all-star overall selection or the reserve side either, while Matthews made the 1970 team after 80 journalists were surveyed by World Sports Magazine ahead of Garrincha, got a number of votes in 1981 too although not as many as Garrincha and was put into World Soccer's top 10 in their 1999 vote too (although in the readers vote he came 17th, with Garrincha 20th and Finney just making the top 50 - all 3 being on World Soccer's guidelist of 100).
I wanted to post earlier. But i read the answer (that i believe) in between lines. I think that around the 50s, the football was enough development to comparing top players from each continent (SA & Europe) in a more strong basis, due to: - More touring overseas from the top sides (NT & clubs) - Intl. competition with a constant basis (esp. WCs) - Sport journalist more developed (better analysis, most editions and more people viewing stars from both continents, etc.) Before that, there are only regional/continental expertise to make comparisons. With a very few people who can make a proper analysis of the football on both sides (as a team & individually). I'm thinking more in coaches and players who performed in both sides (Guttman, Cesarini, Orsi, Monti, etc.) and also some journalists. But there is also the war time. About Cobbold's impact, i think for the above reasons, that it was almost imposible get a non-british "expert opinion" with a proper commentary about a 1880s player. One can claimed he was the best brittish amateur player, but it comes harder comparing with pros like Bloomer, Woodward, Hamilton or Smith himself.
Yeah, the same with Alberto Ohaco I guess for example (from Argentina rather than England). But also to an extent pre 50's generally like you suggest.
None who were non British that I'm aware of, but h never played agains non British opposition. Plenty of others who rated him the best ever http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cobbold What's strange to me is that people would completely ignore the pre WW1 era. In cricket the idea of considering the best players ever without WG Grace or Wilfred Rhodes would be ridiculous.
I also remember: Didn't you say within this theme that scoring goals is the most important thing in football? And that a goal is more important as a nice shimmy in midfield? With that reasoning, that goal records can separate the subjective from the objective, it is not entirely strange to put Shevchenko ahead. Not to nitpick about past words but pre-WWII players are often solely judged by goal records, e.g. Scarone was mentioned in that respect. Goal-ratio plays (understandably) a big part in how WWII players are rated. By that standards a Shevchenko would fare very well as far as club career is concerned Not bad reasoning (agree with what you say) but someone like Andrade or Scarone did get attention in various nations. Same for the above mentioned Meazza and Sindelar. So their standing is based on solid ground. Just the fame within Uruguay alone will not propel them forward in history. That is a subtle but crucial difference (with Moreno for example, but Moreno was unlucky). Simply put, instead of assuming that Moreno is an all-time top 20 player, or assuming that Moreno would not make the step to 'international star' status like Andrade (Sindelar, Meazza...), it is a case of 'unable to know'. Do you also happen to know the opinions of Guttman, Cesarini, Orsi and others??
In club career at Serie A and most importantly/significantly in Europe and Champions League. The pinnacle of club football.
Doesn't it in modern club football? League vs Champions League is like Paulista vs Brasileiro (in importance, not necessarily difficulty to score). Imagine if no video images exist and you base it only on the goals + appearances records. Which one would you chose regarding club career? Scarone was 'dismissed' based on those goals + appearances stats. If it is cherry picking, feel free to tell which cherries I failed to pick.
In stats/record he was HALF way of Pele. I meant: We lacked of his true footage (at his best) to appreciate his true latent. Same went with Di Stefano. I don;t want to turn this into debate- no point and I know we had not enough info to debate clear. but my opinion: Moreno and DI stefano were MORE like a MYTH. Pele was more of REAL DEAL. I did not mean Pele was a "clear better" player, but he at least got what it takes to be considered as ONE. Both Moreno and Di stefano just lacked of a lot of info, true records (film and paper doc) to back their status higher.
World Soccer have just done a very similar exercise. Sadly much more uniformity to the voting. http://www.worldsoccer.com/features/the-greatest-xi-how-the-panel-voted
Were you there as part of the voter, Comme? Can you tell more of the "voters" in credential, compared to you or higher?
Well no one is "perfect" ... and people always have different opinion. I do have different view from yours and from Vegan, Puck ... at some points You are surely among those knowledgeable ... at least in this forum