Maybe it would be useful to look at and possibly compare to what we have from Guerin Sportivo etc. I have got a feeling it would take a while though even for one tournament indeed as it was a couple of hours job just to pick out the 6/6 ratings. Maybe picking out only specific players would be a quicker job but I'm not sure as yet if I feel I want to do it myself and wouldn't want to suggest anyone else should. Good idea though and it had crossed my mind.
Regarding the 86 edition, this is another article with quotes from Bilardo about Maradona, but in honesty I am not sure how true this story goes: Bilardo: “Maradona was out of form too before 1986″ Posted at:19:50 on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 Former Argentina coach,Carlos Bilardo, who was under control of the Albicelesteduring their 1986 World Cup triumph, drew parallels between the current situation of Lionel Messi and the situation of Diego Maradona back then. According to Bilardo, who now acts as Argentina’s technical director of national teams, Maradona also had a slip of form in the build-up for the 1986 Mexico World Cup tournament “I said: let me have Maradona for 30 days and then we’ll talk. Messi has to have a good World Cup and he can do it,”Bilardo told the Argentina-based sports dailyOle. “I also had problems with Diego before going to Mexico. I was asked why I’d put him in the starting line-up or gave him the captain’s armband. I have the cuttings from four newspapers,” he added. “Diego talks a lot to him(Messi). He’s one of the best players in the world and we have to get him to play to his best,”said Bilardo, who is currently in Madrid for Argentina’s upcoming friendly against Spain on Saturday. After being at risk of not qualifying to the World Cup for the first time since 1970, Maradona and Messi both were heavily criticized by worldwide press, the former for poor decision making and the latter for under-performing. “Argentina played well for the first 20 minutes against Brazil, against Ecuador, with Uruguay… and there were matches in which they didn’t play well,”Bilardo claimed. “My team also lacked cohesion before going to Mexico. You go finding that with matches. The players know it and now Diego will work in order to find it.” Bilardo concluded the interview by defending Maradona’s decision not to perform morning training sessions, while complaining about lack of practice time. The Argentine coach was accused of laziness and not wanting to get up early for training. “The same happened to me,”Bilardo said.“If I trained in the morning, I was criticized because the matches were in the afternoon. The coach trains when he wants to. That’s his right.” Read more:http://www.totalbarca.com/2009/news/bilardo-maradona-was-out-of-form-too-before-1986/#ixzz2hzuhNLtn
Yes, that was already good work by you but as you yourself said, sometimes a rating was really too generous or other games of a player deserved a 6/6 too at hindsight (a game of same level); or sometimes a game was so good that all other performances do not look as good despite reaching a 5/6 or 6/6 level too. And sometimes on the losing side can also mean a downgrade perhaps; e.g. Cruyff getting a 3/6 in the final with Beckenbauer a 5/6 while that El Grafico article that Vegan10 posted, with the journalist only focusing his attention on these two players specifically instead of all twenty-two, came to different thoughts (not necessarily more accurate thoughts though!). Do not want to start a discussion about this case but it is an example of how impressions can diverge and perhaps depend on how a observer distributes his attention to the 22 players on the field. Would be interesting to know players receiving a 5/6 or 6/6 despite ending up on the losing side in a match.
Funnily enough I was already going to check on Igor Belanov as I was thinking about that USSR-Belgium game after I mentioned Ceulemans, and also because some players seem to get a 6/6 by virtue of scoring a hat-trick and I knew that had been seen by some as a MOTM performance by Belanov on the losing side (and could see the merit in that). Anyway, Belanov did get 5/6 in that game so he's an example of someone on the losing side with a 5 but not a 6 (if they'd won maybe that would have converted to a 6, but unfair to say it definately would I suppose, and I wouldn't say he completely ran the game and did many many great things outside of his hat-trick).
It doesn't surprise me since Passarella was a Menotti guy, and Menotti was anti-Bilardo. Do you have any sources from 1985-86? I'm more skeptical when things are written many years after the events.
Thanks James. I see that a 1990 thread doesn't exist. Either way, four years later he had no column any more during the World Cup (both in 1982 and 1986 he was at the location itself) because of his commitments for Barcelona and it was also expected that he would be manager of his national team. But he wanted to venture his view before the tournament started and said then this: "With Uruguay as dangerous outsider, Johan Cruijff regards the Netherlands, Brazil, Italy, West Germany and Argentina as the ones with the biggest chances for the world title. 'If it is about the chances of Argentina, that will entirely depend on what Maradona does. The advantage of Italy as home playing side is well known, while the Germans always perform well as a tournament team. Even if they do not play good. The current Brazilian team plays unfortunately not like the Brazilians. The team adapted themselves, doesn't play as good looking, but whether it is particularly effective will show itself later on.'" http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/id/ddd:010646097:mpeg21061:a1394 Note the first sentence. Anyway, this for sake of completeness (to note development compared with 1982, see that thread, and 1986) and how Maradona was observed (also posted some things and views of Pelé in the past, as the others did too).
I guess i post the ranking for El Grafico, here But, these lists will help for a quick search of the most valuable players
Agree so ... as I also said not sure how true it was ... but I was so lazy to dig in my piles of old magazines .. (I am not as organized as you or Puck though )
You're so welcome ... Since you mentioned Pele's ...I posted thsi in oteh rthread and copy here: Menotti's words of wisdom ============================================================= In brief, when asked of his wisdom about the "media rumor" that Is Messi the greatest a ka Pele and Maradona? Menotti: "to me Pele is the greatest player of all time. He was a force in combination of a Di Stefano, a Cruijff, a Maradona and a Messi, all in one player" when asked, what about Neymar, CR7 with Messi now? Menotti: "If one wants to be a Messi, go play for Barca now, and if he wants to be a CR7, then go play for Real Madrid!" when asked, what about Pep's genius behind this Barca's tikitaka? Menotti: "The last time I knew about football with passing the balls that was with Cruijff's Barca in 90s and Pep was just a player. Even (before that) I did make Barca 80's playing possession with Maradona as center false #9 (like Messi now) and they were very much critisized and forced to change " when asked, what about Inter of Mourinho 09 (vs this Barca)? Menotti: "Well Inter indeed won the trebble, but I know Mourinho type, among those who always thinks of "winning " is everything and failure is not their fault- they are around !"
That's some great stuff. On one day he says that the team is as good as two years earlier and on the other day he claims the opposite. In fact he was right in both cases : on paper that 86 team was as good as the EC84 one if not better. But In reality, there were several issues : his own sate of form as well as Giresse's, José Toure's injury and the Bossis/Battiston partnership (both were sweepers and were said to be too similar to complement well each other). Finally, the first two issues happened to be serious ones : Giresse and Platini did reasonably well but were nowhere near their best and the team missed a high quality striker up-front (José Touré had the potential to fill that gap). However the Bossis - Battiston pair worked very well.
Thanks. I also think the grass and the ball did not suit the French. As posted, Cruyff mentioned in his columns how he saw from close range that the ball did not roll very well on the grass. Some more saw that too, including players. It was the first World Cup that was played with a (partially) synthetic ball and combined with the dry grass it made 'true' circulation football hard to execute - on a consistent and accurate/flawless basis for the full 90 minutes. In this country we call it a 'syrup ball' LOL. The real prominent complaints about the match ball started at the 1994WC though, I think, when FIFA made some radical adjustments in order to increase scoring and change the appearance of the game. Euro84 on the other hand, apart from playing in their own country, had circumstances tailored to their style, I can imagine (cf. Platini his comments at the last paragraph).
Just to leave things clear... I dont know what I have said here that you shouldnt trust, but I care little for what you feel the need for... You dont trust me just because I am "Latin"? Nice going, mate. I on the other hand do have a good reason not to take what you say for granted when you describe what an article says, at least when the piece is in Spanish or other Latin languages. You have shown me that I shouldnt in this very same thread, and had done it in the past too. And whats with the sneaky switcharoo here, mate?! Issue was whether it was known by that date that Passarella was not going to play the tournament, not whether he was experiencing health problems. Not the same thing. I asked you if you knew for a fact that the fact that Passarella was not going to play was known by 29/5. Now you have started talking about his health issues were known by that date, not exactly the same thing. I asked you if you knew what Bilardo had said exaclty, but you never provided a source and instead kept saying the same thing on and on. That first paragraph (which contained the "The observers" part left me wondering what you meant. You start by saying "also", so I assumed you were citing here another factor that explained Argentina's low odds in addition to those brought up by Comme. But I found it very confusing. In any case, if the impression was that Bilardo was not picking the best talent for his squad, logic would suggest Argentina's chances should have diminished because of that in the eyes of the "observers" (which as said seem to have managed to look past a hell of a lot more than the not so much fancied names). So I dont understand how this could be a reason why Argentina ranked so high in the list, so maybe it was the opposite... Which is why I ask you Because I basically want to know how does this in your opinion help explain Argentina's low odds. Is your claim here that the odds would have been even lower for Argentina if not for Bilardo making certain choices? Is it or is it not what you meant?! Your response to that question was: Ok about the gap, but was it or not what you had meant by the highlighetd part? That is what I am asking you and what you did not answer. Then you claimed I said things I did not say about Barbas, accused me of believing things and such, claimed a certain article said things it didnt say... It all became messy. I said you had not answered my questions, because you really hadnt, and you never lot go of that.
I thought this was meant to be the last word of this 'conversation': https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...e-1986-world-cup.1981497/page-3#post-28873883 Apparently I was wrong. You are still putting in blatant lies by the way, but I'll leave it at this.
It was, along with this other bit I had to leave for later: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...e-1986-world-cup.1981497/reply?quote=28880524 So you were only half wrong. I would ask you what it is you are calling blatant lies, but I am pretty aware by now that you have no intention of explaining yourself or even telling things like they are. Too bad.
I had already made up the same conclusion for the 1958 qualification campaign of Spain and what role Di Stefano had in that single game against Switzerland. Regarding a lie you (again) make: "And whats with the sneaky switcharoo here, mate?! Issue was whether it was known by that date that Passarella was not going to play the tournament, not whether he was experiencing health problems. Not the same thing. [...] I asked you if you knew for a fact that the fact that Passarella was not going to play was known by 29/5. Now you have started talking about his health issues were known by that date, not exactly the same thing. " There is no switching or whatsoever. That is a lie. I did not claim that Passeralla would not play in the tournament or whatsoever. I answered it in a way it was the case, seen from what I know and from my perception. The original question and answer: There is no switching or evading the question. If you still insist that this is not answering the question, and switching to health problems, like you do in post #88 above, I really don't care. And if you don't trust or believe me beforehand, why asking? That seems to be the whole problem in the first place.
Good for you. Funnily enough, I do remember having to take the trouble to translate quite a bit of material there too just to show that there was quite a bit more to it than just the part you were interested in sharing... (From "blatant lies" to a lie?) Lets see how it went: I ask Your answer: So, you are literally claiming that it was known by 29-5 that Passarella was not going to play. Thats is three days before Argentina's first game on June 2... Which I found surprising, since I much like Vegan was under this impression: After that I post in response to Vegan, who had posted a long article about each team of the WC that deemed Passarella a key man for Argentina alongside Maradona (all or almost all articles or notes that have been shared during the course of the discussion highlight the importance of Passarella for Argentina in one way or another, by the way). I post: Against this you seem to have felt the need to state once more what you claim to know about it, like this: So, once again you state categorically that it was known by 29/5 that Passarella was not going to play. This time I chose to push it a little: Now you seem to no longer feel the need to address the subject even though I am addressing you specifically instead of Vegan: You never again responded to me about it, but later on, once you had whimsically moved the discussion to this thread, you posted the following: I misinterpreted and accused you of a switcharoo. I admit my error here. Sorry about that. The risks of doing this in a hurry... But I still wonder where from is it that you learned that by 29/5 it was known he was going to miss any playing. But who is the liar here, mate? Check out my original question with regard to Passarella and your answer. They are up there in this post an they are underlined... You did claim it was known by 29/5 that Passarella was not going to play, but now you deny it? I admit it when I make a silly mistake... I dont fully trust your ability to portray what articles or notes and such in Spanish or other Latin languages actually say. That is what I dont trust, so I have to ask. Problem in the first place is that I get the feeling you chose to believe certain things that are not necessarily supported with evidence, thats all.
What you showed was your categorical dismissal of what the Barcelona paper wrote, thinking that they were homies of the Barcelona players, while immediately believing what the Madrid side stated. The good reader will see that both were not positive about Di Stefano his performance in that game (just as with almost all other players), but that the Madrid paper puts most on the blame on Kubala and the Barcelona one on Di Stefano. Familiar pattern I'd say. So when I witched to the statistics (total amount of shots, and shots on target), which seems to be the only sort of impartial evidence available, then that was dismissed too. WTF, I only linked to a post someone else wrote/summarized about that game, when you brought that up. First of all, the odds are of 31/5. The day of the kick-off. Secondly, I never said that it was then completely certain that he would not play at all. "It was known by the time of the Ladbrokes odds but maybe not at the time of the odds you quote. It was throughout the first group stage a question whether Passarella would feature again (at least until he received a second set of physical problems, shortly before the third group stage game)." For you I have highlighted the second sentence, instead of the first sentence. So you did not accept the answer too in this case. For the umpteenth time: that is fine but do not say that I don't answer the questions. And once I had answered it, I did not want to start a whole discussion about it in that thread.
"Categorical dismissal"?! Pfff... They were bashing Di Stéfano pretty good. Then I read the next page of the same paper and noticed that after the game the Swiss manager had deemed Di Stéfano as the best of the Spanish team, individually speaking... Then you came back with an attempt to prove my bias because of what the subheader of an article of a Madrid based paper and some stats. So I took the trouble of translating the rest of the piece (you are welcome again) to show you they did not attack Di Stéfano the nor blamed him like the Barcelona paper had. Its all there, we spoke about it pretty thoroughly, including the stats. Are you gonna move that discussion over to this thread too? What are you talking about? With that bit I was precisely referring to the fact that when you brought up the Madrid paper I was just talking about, you only cared about one line of text (subheader) and the stats: We must not be talking about the same thing... You are right, but it makes little difference within our discussion. Well, you can highlight whatever you want, but that first sentence did not go away, did it? Your answer clearly claims it was known by 31/5 that Passarella was not going to play (first sentence) and that throughout the first group stage (that is after 31/5) there were uncertainties about his featuring again (second sentence). What are you trying to pull here? In this case, its not about agreeing or disagreeing, liking or not liking. I just want to know how you can be certain that by 31/5 Ladbrokes knew Passarella was not going to play. If you have any evidence (unless it all is result of nothing but your "perception"), why not just share it and put an end to this. Whats the big deal? And whats with that thread. Is it a holy thread that cannot be tainted with questions about your statements? This one, one the other hand, is where you have decided they belong... And apparently, this one thread can also be "spoiled" with talk about Di Stéfano...
Since you dont care to shine any light on the Passarella issue, here what Mundo Deportivo announced at the time. On 29/5/86 it says "Passarella is recovered and Bilardo's heart regains its pulse" http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1986/05/29/pagina-18/1145880/pdf.html# On 2/6/86, the day of Argentina's debut, it says "and again 33 year old veteran Daniel Passarella taking the central defender position", and shows him among the Argentina starters under LOS 22 PROTAGONISTAS http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1986/06/02/pagina-12/1148375/pdf.html#
So it was known at 29/5/1986 that he had issues right? The archive you use mention it for the first time, the problem of gastroenterocolitis (the stomach problems that - together with a later hamstring injury - sidelined him for the whole tournament), at 24/05/1986: http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD01/HEM/1986/05/24/MD19860524-020.pdf This article above is a 'proof' for my claim that the odds of January and halfway May 1986 were (probably) not aware of Passarella his vulnerabilities - in contrast of the posted odds made at 31/05/1986. Two days later at 26/05/1986 it was still not forgotten. http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD01/HEM/1986/05/26/MD19860526-014.pdf And again a day later on 27/05/1986 the statement that Passarella lost three kilograms in weight, by the Argentinian team doctor. Plus the statement by the journalist that he could be sidelined for the first game (that is surely no bad translation of my part), although that is a statement by the journalist and not the doctor. http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD01/HEM/1986/05/27/MD19860527-019.pdf Now, the article of 29/05/1986 says that Passarella resumed training, but it says not much more. That the article of 02/06/1986 expects Passarella to start at the match of the same day, which eventually did not happen because of the very same issue (the loss in weight of 3 kilograms was still the situation when he was transferred to the hospital at 22/06/1986), is a viewpoint of a later date. So the sidelining of Passarella did not come as a total surprise, and certainly the odds published at 31/05/1986 were aware of these problems, and that his presence for the first game (or whole tournament) would be doubtful. Of course, how instrumental Passarella was seen for the odds and in what way they assessed all the available information is something the bookmakers only know. How they looked at the projected length of stomach issues, informed by past experiences, is something I don't know. But the problem was known, and like I said in my very first answer, it was at least until he received the hamstring issues (shortly before the third game) a question whether he would feature again in the tournament. If you want to track down the information about this case, please be fair and note that the diagnosis was already made at 24/05/1986, which stayed a problem throughout the tournament (together with the hamstring, which might be in itself a consequence of his illness).
That he experienced health problems and whether THAT was known or not was not what we have been going on about. I never disputed that. You claimed it was known by 31/5 that Passarella was not going to play. That was not true, and when I questioned you for it you never had what it takes to just be straight about it while funnily enough, accusing me of lying. Once again it will be me the one telling what the note of 29/5 that I provided and you quoted actually says: Below the image says: "Passarella is recovered and Bilardo's heart regains its pulse" In the text says: "According to Bilardo, visibly satisfied with the clear recovery of the 'libero' Daniel Passarella, who resumed practice, altitude is not the main problem but the time in which games are played". Sure, the note is not about Passarella perse, so it doesnt mention him much. Yet not once but twice the paper says Passarella is recovered from his health issues. He was assumed a starter until pretty much game time against the Asians as far as I know. I bet more than one was surprised not to see him in the lineup. http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1986/05/29/pagina-18/1145880/pdf.html# And I wonder why you felt the need to bring up those other odds nobody asked you about again since your so much quoted "original answer"... You just really feel like being right about something, even when nobody questioned it, I guess.
Like I said, it was throughout the first group stage a question whether he would feature again. Which is often the case with most injuries. If managers are willing to field half-fit Zidanes and Pelé, maybe Bilardo could also be swayed to put an underweight Passarella in the line-up. But also in this case only the bookmakers know how they assessed this. So it doesn't say much more besides that he resumed training, like I said. That is right isn't it? And do you really believe that Passarella was fully recovered? And really 'fully'? Only five days earlier he became ill, lost three kilograms (of muscles I assume?), couldn't train at all for a number of days... And then also the past experiences of athletes who suffered from the same illness, and how long that usually takes. A statement as 'recovered' is very relative. Surely the sidelining at the first game did not come as a total surprise. This is really an insincere reply. You accuse me of not being clear. So it was my intention to put that straight. Secondly, I don't know what your intentions are so that can make that answers contain superfluous paragraphs. Third, you yourself have used the odds of the various dates interchangeably. You originally quoted the odds of halfway May. So to prevent any more confusion, I had to mention this. Fourth, why typing down the question if you don't trust the answers you are about to receive, and already know the answer to your own question beforehand? It really seems you had a hidden intention behind the questions you raised.
I know, you did say that right after stating that it was known by 31/5 that Passarella was not to play, which was not true. Of course, once he in fact did not play the debut on June 2 questions surely came up as to whether he would eventually feature. No matter how you wanna say it over and over again, these are two different things. It actually says that Passarella is recoverd, then that clearly recovered he had resumed training and nothing more at all on the subject. This happens 4 days before Argentina's first game. Thats beyond the question. Issue is what was known at the time, not whether he actually was fully recovered or not. At least Mundo Deportivo does not mention issues with Passarella's health again and 4 days after saying that he was clearly recovered places him among the starters for Argentina's debut. Of course, now you know what happened in the end and why. But at the time the impression was that Passarella was going to play until the last moments (that is after 31/5). Not about that, mate. That was never not-straight, so there was not real reason to bring it up the way you did. Thats all Im saying. My intentions are to find out whether what you hold is based on evidence or on what you have chosen to believe. As far as I know, I only confused the Ladbrokes odds to be from 29/5 instead of 31/5. Conceded it was my mistake as soon as you brought it to my attention. Did not change anything in our argument. I originally quoted those, you said it was not known (or probably not known, dont remember) by then that Passarella was not going to play, which is what I thought too, but immediately stated that this was known by the time of the Ladbrokes odds on 31/5. We did not talk about the first thing again, since there was nothing more to say about it, and kept discussing the second. It was pretty clear to me, didnt figure it would confuse you. Like I said, I wanted to know whether you had evidence or just your personal "perception".. And once again, it is your ability to portray the contents of articles written in Latin languages what I dont fully trust.
So you think it looked by 31/5 as if he would play the game? Maybe I was swayed too much by sources from my home country but as far as I'm concerned it still did not look very likely, given the nature of the problem and the lack of training for four days, combined with the loss of 3 kilograms of muscles. And when I said that it was throughout the tournament a question whether he would feature again (that is: for his home country because it was known beforehand that he would retire after the World Cup) then I meant all games. Like I said, it is always a possibility that managers field understrength 'superstars'.