Yes, that would make him 23, quite young for a defender, by the time WC90 came around - he made the team and played a couple of matches but the starters were Bergomi, Ferri, Baresi, Maldini. Not sure why he was excluded (along with Bergomi) from the WC94 squad, although it may have to do with some players not wanting to play for Sacchi including Mancini, Vialli and Ravanelli. Then Ferrara was set to start at WC98 but suffered an injury on the eve of the tournament which ruled him out, very unlucky.
Modern era and my very biased opinion: Steven Gerrard. He's played in the middle, final third, out on the right, as a fullback and now as a deep-lying playmaker. He can do it all: score goals, deliver excellent set pieces, play short, hit 40 yard "Hollywood" balls, read the game well, tackle, perform in big matches consistently, and grab games by the scruff of the neck. Ryan Giggs is another good shout, but Gerrard gets the edge because of his increased goal threat.
That's correct; because it makes better sense to compare full-seasons. So by 1990-91 he had reached a state/level where he was more to the detriment of the team than helping them? That's an interesting view. You're wrong though that "nothing was at stake." At the time of the ban, round 26, Napoli was four points behind behind a UEFA Cup spot. Eventually they came one point short (equal points = decider match; no goal difference as decider!). That's what they played for. One can't deny that they played against fine opponents in the remainder (even when 5 of 8 are at home). AS Roma, Internazionale, Torino, Juventus, Atalanta and Lazio were all above Napoli in the table at the time of his ban! (rnd 26). They played in the remaining eight games against six opponents higher up in the table. That's OK, but Carnevale also looked 'good' in his career without Maradona (looking at goals-stats). We talked about this before; if you take Blanc away (and replace it for another player) it doesn't mean you take all of his six set-pieces goals away. Also: Maradona did not take all set-pieces, even by 1989-90. They won all those games without their three star players, even when it was against 'weak' sides. So yes, it shows the added value. That's what I do not contest. If you like, I'll make a full overview of goals-output when Maradona played vs when not playing in the 1988-1992 years. That's still true. Betis did it (way overpriced) but quite clearly couldn't pay for it. Napoli could, and that's because they were for a little while a major club, and had definitely the potential to be one. They also made a number of overpriced transfers though, but the board was able to pay for it. http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm Between 1966 and 1988 the highest attendances, except for two seasons (1971 & 1973). Combined with a rich chairman, the opening of borders (two foreigners since 1982, three since 1988) and black money a lot was possible.
I thought @SirWellingtonSilva already made a thorough reply to your stats for Napoli with and without Maradona, I don't think you ever replied to him by the way but you are here rehashing the same topic with a different poster. By the way, stats are a tool to point out a conclusion. What exactly is your point to all of this, you have never clearly elucidated it despite the amount of time you have spent discussing this subject, which somehow holds a powerful attraction to you. You seem to be indirect on all of this, but I will repeat a point that to me is beyond arguing: Napoli does not win any of their trophies (Scudettos, Coppa and UEFA Cup) without Maradona.
Well, I dunno about detrimental. Thats the way you preferred to express it. I was just implying that had Maradona been at the level of previous seasons perhaps the stats of the team before the ban would have looked a bit better, thats all. But I dont think he was mentally as engaged anymore. Before the ban there were 26 games, but Maradona played only 18 of them. What I would like to know is what matches he played. Do you know that or do you know where I can find it? I also noticed Alemao missed almost as many games, would like to know which games he played too... Do you know is there a way to see this? Nobody did, thats not what I pointed out. There is a vast number of footballers that have looked "good" in their careers without Maradona... No, but it doesnt mean you get 6 goals added to the total tally either. And if you insert Blanc in 89-90 in replacement of another player, he would have likely added a few there. Its just one of the few factors I mentioned that help explain why Napoli had similar amount of goals for in 91-92 as in 89-90. It shows that the team managed to get the best of some of the worst teams of the league at the time. 1-0 over Ascoli as visitors (Ascoli was the worst team that season in Serie A), again 1-0 against Udinese at home (Udinese was the most conceding team that season and also lost the category), a goal-less draw against Cesena (1 point above relegated teams) as visitors and lastly a win over and at Verona (also relegated), with Careca already seeing action. I would be curious to see that but from 1984 to 1990... Most of all I would like to know what I mentioned above, can you advice where to find this kind of information? I dunno. Had Napoli been relegated after two seasons financial problems would have caught up with them sooner than they did too. Likewise, had Betis been as successful as Napoli was, they would have probably been able to stay away from them longer.
Bundesliga Rewind: 1989 UEFA Cup Final, Napoli vs. Stuttgart: Undone By Maradona Master Class by Adrian Sertl The 1988-89 UEFA Cup was Maradona’s only major European trophy but it was a significant feather in his cap in terms of his greatly successful career at Napoli, which spanned from 1984-1991. His performance over the 2 legged final was sublime and he was a major factor in nearly every goal his team scored. It also remains Napoli’s greatest European achievement to date. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Photo From: Mondial, December 1985 (Diagram of Maradona’s goal vs. Verona, October 20, 1985, Napoli 5-Verona 0)
I haven't seen SirWellingtonSilva his reply to be honest. I honestly cannot remember it or haven't seen it. It is true that this subject returns very often but in this instance it isn't me who started it. Indeed, it interests me why a number of claims always return; like "Maradona the most fouled player in history". IMO this and a number of other claims have little base (see the recent discussion about the 'most fouled player ever' tag; like how also Messi isn't the most fouled player of the current day despite attempting the most dribbles and being 'the best'; he's arguably the most incisive and direct player of his day but that doesn't make him "the most fouled"). At some parts Once does have a point, after he forced me to look at it; indeed, the meagre score lines at the beginning of the 1989-90 season against weak opponents does hint at the importance of the three foreigners (despite leading the table after 4 rounds without these three foreigners). But that Napoli had in 1990-91 nothing to play for after the 'shock & demoralizing ban' is, once again, without ground (and if they do not have something to play for one would expect less than perfect performances maybe??). Also the weak defence in 1991-92 interests me yes (while output stayed more or less the same). They used the open third foreigner spot for buying a defender! And Laurent Blanc was surely class. It is fine though to place him wherever one wants to place him. If you think he was the best and greatest ever that's al-right but I just feel that many claims are very exaggerated and have very little ground to stand on. Saying that he had more abilities in his arsenal than Pelé (or anyone else) does make better sense, though.
You need to search for his reply of a couple of days back, he puts in context all the stuff you continually post about Napoli's post-Maradona season in 91-92 with a lot of stats. Basically, they scored a shit load of goals against the teams on the bottom of the table and not as many against the top sides, where they struggled. But you should read it on your own. I would definitely say Maradona is in fact the most fouled player in Serie A during those times, no other player came even close to being so fouled and closely marked as him in Serie A during those times (and I would say possibly ever).
That was indeed a very good break down he did to compare the two season. Post #884 for those interested. I had not realized you had doubted the importance of the three foreigners. Thats pretty silly if you did... I dont think I have ever seen anybody putting in doubt the importance of the three foreigners. Just like I have never seen anybody thinking Maradona was not the most important one. Coincidentaly though, that championship season Careca missed about a third of it and when he played he was quite far from the level he had shown previously. Go figure. Those before the ban stats seemed so low to me I did not think they would still have anything to go for. They were at the time the 11th team of 18. Due to Milan's suspension they were indeed 4 points behind the last team qualifying for UEFA, with four other teams between them. Kind of a long shot. The results after the ban dont seem to me those of a team that is demorilized actually... Sometimes when when people think one should lose or has no longer a chance, that can actually become a motivator. So, you dont know a way one could see which games Maradona played exactly? What a shame, would have liked to know. Anybody else knows if there a site offering this kind of data?
Don't place words in my mouth I never said. I never ever doubted it. It is just that these results demonstrate that, after I paid attention to it. I do not doubt it on any place here. What I doubt is the "most fouled player ever" fairytale, which you clearly also adhere to. I'm perfectly clear about that one. The rest is not really worth responding to. To be perfectly honest with you, I found this sentence typical for the debate: In case you've missed it; if you insert world class defender Blanc in the 1989-90 team, how many more goals would the team concede? Because that's what happened in 1991-92 - a fall from the 3rd best defence to 10th defence. But rather than that, only the six extra set-pieces goals receive attention. Among other ones, this one has all the results and line-ups http://www.seriearanking.it/
Do you guys know what Country the Napoli games were broadcast to, or was it only within Italy? I know Pipiolo has been to Napoli to watch tapes of full games, and Sirwellington has tapes aswell. I'm just wondering where they were broadcast to at the time. I think vegan 10 posted it somewhere but I forgot where to look for that post.
Why are you so jumpy? Reading your words sounded to me as if my comments had confirmed for you something that doesnt really need to be confirmed, like the importance of Maradona, Careca and Alemao in that Napoli. Maybe you did not mean to make it sound like that, maybe you meant to make it sound like something else ... Anyways, a few posts back something similar happened when you spoke of a detrimental Maradona, and I did not jump like boiling milk the way you just did... This is the second time that this happens: I quote your post and something appears that is not actually in the visible post I originally quoted... Was this addressed to me or Pipiolo? Doesnt really matter. I dunno about "most fouled player ever" perse. Like someone shared somewhere, Busquets if fouled more often than Messi (if my memory dont fail me). But there are fouls and fouls. If we are talking about the offensive players that were most harshly marked, most harrassed by their markers and that most frequently were stopped with foul to prevent them moving on in an offensive move, I think Maradona is very likely among the top players. Certainly at the very top in WCs... The debate is HOW COME NAPOLI WITHOUT MARADONA WAS ABLE IN91-92 TO SCORE AS MUCH AS IN THE 89-90 SEASON WITH MARADONA? That sentence is one among other factors that I have presented that have to do with that issue. Thanks, I will check it out.
A few (possibly all?) South American nations, including some that in the 80s would probably be considered "backwater" in footballing status. By the way, I watched Maradona live on TV during his Napoli stint, it is not just replays many years later - I only watched two old matches of Maradona when I was in Napoli. @Jaweirdo
My apologies for that, but I found it a peculiar comment. When I pointed at the results after the ban (1990-91) the first sentence of your reaction was: "In 1990-91 Maradona was not really the Maradona of the previous seasons." What do you want to say with that? I read it as if he was by then detrimental for his team, and thus the results improved dramatically once he became cut out of the squad. Sorry for reading it like that. Or that the demoralizing effect was compensated by something else. But I was obviously talking about the usual narrative. Not saying it is (totally) false, but many say that Maradona was an inspirational figure, a leader, a champion, a talisman and - of course - the best creative player. Not to forget he was a crowd-puller and the city of Naples identified with him: when the 1991-92 season started they dropped from 42000 season tickets (at start of August 1990) to 13000 season tickets (at start of August 1991)! It was probably not only because of Maradona's ban but ofc a very peculiar drop in sales when the team was unbeaten from March 1991 until October 1991...
Maybe it's also good to bring the thread back to the main subject, RE 'most complete player'. I'd say there is a bunch of complete players available without picking a #1. To conclude I want to say though that Maradona his control was certainly special (the one of Baggio too, after looking at a late 80s Napoli vs Fiorentina game). The current best player, when in peak form, cannot match that level of control arguably.
again, one should re-define the term "complete" before it gets nasty again ... 1- Truely complete= great in any position with ability (like Pele, Cruijff Di stefano ...) 2- neo-complete= complete in his position/role *like Messi, Rivaldo, Zidane ... = complete attacker (only)
I think this doesn't work. Was Pele a great centerback? No. So I don't know why you would base anything on this kinda categorization. Further, I am a bit skeptical about saying that the modern completes aren't really "truly complete".
That's your opinion, and many would disagree. Regarding the "there is a bunch of complete players" argument, I agree.
For getting it back on track: Another quite complete player is Jean Tigana, except that he scored too little. In my opinion at least. As concrete example, in the 1988 game against Napoli he was playing very well as deep-lying midfielder, with a number of very, very precise passes. And still some occasional dribbles. Later, when the game was 10 vs 10, he was a semi centre back and protecting his side quite well. A number of very good interceptions and tackles, preventing counter-attacks. I think his role for Bordeaux was at time more 'all-encompassing' as his more 'restricted' role for the national team. "Great in any position" might be a stretch, but I made some time ago one for Cruijff his 1978 Copa del Rey final game. I've uploaded that now. It includes some 'defence' scenes too (so not only while at offence and/or possessing the ball). A few slow-motions are included, but I tried to not overdo it (so not every quick scene has a slowmo).
You said NO and you asked me? I would say Pele/Cruyff and Di Stefano would be very very comfortable as good CB ... at least the would not do dirty tricks like Pepe LOL
I think we should get back to the original question who is the most complete player ?.. I love maradona, messi ,pele and so on but in my mind they dont belong in this discussion... So my choices for most complete players i ve saw are ruud GULLIT, paulo roberto FALCAO and maybe lothar MATTHAUS ...
Yes those names deserved a big shout Gullit >= Falcao = Matthaus Falcao was better in attack while Matthaus was betetr in defense. Gullit could be both
I questioned your two groups, and one reason was that Pele is not a great CB. Sure, a good player might do well outside position. Or he could do badly. Who knows. But that's something else than they actually were great in those spots. And I don't get what those "true completes" have that, for example, Messi lacks. Smells like this is an example of you gotta be non-modern great to be considered a really great, and the basis of that line of argument is that the modern greats haven't had enough time to gain a sort of decades of legacy that the older greats enjoy.
how do you know that? let me guess ... because WIKI never said so? LOL For your info, you should learn from the elder, especially one of the greatest DF in football history: - Bobby Moore: "Pele was the most complete player I've ever seen, he had everything. Two good feet. Magic in the air. Quick. Powerful. Could beat people with skill. Could outrun people. Only 5ft 8in tall, yet he seemed a giant of an athlete on the pitch. Perfect balance and impossible vision. He was the greatest because he could do anything and everything on a football pitch. I remember Saldhana the coach being asked by a Brazilian journalist who was the best goalkeeper in his squad. He said Pele. The man could play in any position."