Platini Top Ten All-Time?

[squidward123]

That's what happened to Holland (who had a superior team than Germany): they felt the pressure and didn't play as usual...

say the same about germany at the beginning of world cup

pay disputes
coach depressed

etc

as they were under pressure after the euro72 avalanche to reproduce that (average age of 25)

to say holland in 74 were better than germany in 74 is probably not right.

unless you base it on JUST the 6 previous games to the final. Although germany really picked up their act in the 2nd group stage.

[kingkong1]

say the same about germany at the beginning of world cup

pay disputes
coach depressed

etc

as they were under pressure after the euro72 avalanche to reproduce that (average age of 25)

to say holland in 74 were better than germany in 74 is probably not right.

unless you base it on JUST the 6 previous games to the final. Although germany really picked up their act in the 2nd group stage.Squid,

Far from me saying that Beckenbauer's Germany was not a fabulous team!...

Not necessarilly in that World Championship though, and even less in that way 'below the expectations' final game.

Besides, losing to East Germany definitely took the brilliance out of that title, let's concede!...

Player by player Germany & Holland were comparable, but Holland's campaign (when it mattered, i.e. the 'last 6 games'') WAS superior.

Losing that final positively had not only to do with Germany having a relatively good team performance and Holland having a lousy day (by its standards), but mostly and definitely with the fact that Germany felt more 'at ease' precisely because was playing at home.

And that's not to affirm something absurd, is it?...

Germany WAS a great team, yes, but Holland at that time was, more than anything, a seminal force.

They created a whole new school of football, and that's even more important than winning a title...

PS: If Brazil hadn't won a single title (as it happened with Hungary), it would still be considered a seminal force...

[squidward123]

ok i agree with you.

except that i do think germany also played total football at the euros before th WC.

i suppose it isn't quite as seminal as it happened at a euro which didn't get teh attention that a world cup does.

(also, the people who promote these things to most of the world aren't too fond of germans ;) which is why euro72 and wembley72 are swept under the carpet)

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/englandfootball/story/0,9565,541541,00.html
http://football.guardian.co.uk/euro2004/story/0,,1233212,00.html
http://football.guardian.co.uk/obituary/0,,2114649,00.html

[621380]

In World Cups finals IS Your German 'manmarking' system didn't look like that much effective in 2002...

Tell us quick (in 2 or 3 lines, please): what happened?!!!...

Besides, what an honour to us you compare a WC final against Cruyjff's Holland in Germany with a FRIENDLY against Zico in Brazil...

Looks like friendlies after all have their value, isn't it, dear 621?...

It's evident that - when it convenes to you - you have the the highest regards towards those mere...'amistosos'! :rolleyes:

its irrelevant..your fans wasnt amused with your teams performance 1977 against germany and bonhof has manmarked zico relativ out of the game...this are similare what voigts did 3 years earlyer against cruiff..a good and sucessful tactic....2002 isnt 1974 or 1977 and germany hasent used a manmarking system against opponents playmakers in this game or in this years...so whats your point???

[621380]

In World Cups finals IS a guarantee...

Brazil x Uruguay in 1950 was really the only exception among all WCs finals in which the hosts went to the final game...

In 7 WC finals hosted by powerhouses, only Brazil didn't win.

An EXCEPTION, I repeat.

And of course exceptions (of all types) happen: there resides the charm of football...

Our problem then was never 'big pressure', but rather 'lack' of it...

Stupidly, Brazil...relaxed (and who 'came' was Uruguay)! :p ...

Brazil x Sweden in 58 wasn't exactly an exception though (Brazil - for those who knew - was the favourite, not only because of its campaign but also because of his past accomplishments in WCs)...

Of course home factor favoured the Sweddish, but if that game had been in neutral country or South America, we might even have had two-digit figures in that semi vs France and in the final!...

But in general in a WC final vs the home team, if the host has a great tradition in football like Germany, the visitor will be disputing a 'world war' against a whole nation...

Exceptions (like in 50) are rare.

That's what happened to Holland (who had a superior team than Germany): they felt the pressure and didn't play as usual...

BTW the 1974 final was one of the most frustrating from the technical & tactical point of view...

Two great teams in a WC final producing that ludicrous exhibition...:

your team defeat 1950 was a exception of 7 worldcups..so what is your point???are you trying to say your defeat is more impressive than ,example germanys victory 1974??..what is that for a logic???your team was host,germany was host.. .....your team failed at home..other teams not inclusive germany 1974....
your team wasnt in a relaxing position against uruquay..need a draw is far away of comfortable..your team didnt score a goal in the first half...this has worked against your team and has made a bit quit your 200000 fans..this was a total diffrent game than the game against spain or sweden...uruquay knew very well how to play against you...the 1:0 lead was the point where you had a clear advantage, but only for 17 minutes...the 1:1 draw was finally the turning point, your team and your fans got nervous and uruquay got the upperhand in the last 20 minutes...overconfident and arragonce has played a part too prior to this game...the final wasnt played and everbody in brasil believed brasil is allready worldchampion...

another point is that wc 1950 was one of the weakest worldcups ever, only wc 1930 was weaker than 1950 in my opinion..1974 all strong teams was part of worldcup qualifers and/or worldcup...1950 only 13 teams have played in brasil and the worldcup qualification in europe was a farce....

worldcup 1950.
brasil
uruquay
chile
paraquay
bolivia
mexiko
usa
england
italy
sweden
spain
swiss
yugoslawia

the strongest team from europe didnt play in brasil..hungary where allready has startet his run in europe..no strong teams of austria and cssr in brasil ..no eastern country...scotland,belgium both qualfied refused...germany wasnt allowed to play...argentina didnt play...italy few months before has lost many NT keyplayers in a airplane crash (ac turins super team)and the lmited italien NT is travelled with the ship to brasil..france was intrest but refused for the reason of the organisators gameplan ,where forced the french team for long distances between games in first round..not acceptable for the french team ...the only exception in this worldcup where a team wasnt forced of long travelling was your team kingkong..this was one of the negative storys of this worldcup..the protection of brasil...yugoslawia a team in your group was forced of travelling long distances between EVERY game..your team has played all games in rio...germany 1974 wasnt proteced..

the final defeat wasnt your only waterloo in this worldcup kingkong...
the second game in the first round against little swiss was a little waterloo too..do you remember?? yugoslawia had a comfortable 2 games win start 4:1 and 3:0 against mexiko and swiss..your team a 4:0 and 2:2 start against mexiko and swiss....and my recorces tell me that your team in the final minutes nearly was beaten from little swiss...in the last groupmatch only a win against yugoslawia saved you the next round..yugoslawia has startet with 10 players this game due a injury of a player of yugoslawia few minutes prior to this game, the yugoslawian player has joined the field the goalscores was 1:0 for brasil...the referee has not waited few minutes longer giving yugslawia the chance playing 11:11 from beginning....

this storys doesent support your brasil relaxing story....

the games between both german teams 1974 was very important from the german perspective..but from a standpoint of qualification for the next round a meaningless games..both teams the BRD and DDR allready was qualifid....this was in oposition of brasils first round final match against yugoslawia..

netherland wasnt the superer team than germany..netherlend has played the best football in the first 6 games in this worldcup, this was so good that nehterland is called the best team from wc 1974....germany was the better team in the final and the referee decisions iagainst germany in some actions clearly hasnt favorited the german team..right???.netherland olso wasnt forced playing a game under so bad fieldconditions the germans and polands have played in the semifinal,,this is one of the reasons this game between poland and germany never had the chance to be a wc classic game..so this has worked in favor for netheland too...and the game germany-sweden played in 90 minutes nonstop rain easly challlenge the best games played in this wc 1974..so it wasnt only the final game ......

germany with 6 wins and 1 defeat has shared with poland the win statistic in this worldcup..netherland was third with 5 wins 1 defeat and 1 draw..another point is that netherland hasent played against poland..germany has defeated with netherland and poland 2 of the 3 top teams from worldcup 1974...brasils and argentinas name sounds great kingkong , but the performance and the statistics of both teams wasnt..brasil with 3 wins,2 draws and 2 defeats speaks a volumes, and argentinas performance and stats wasnt impressive too....netherlands performance in this worldcup was historical and deserve his place in worldcup history but finally it wasnt good enough beating germany......

in the locker room netherlands players allready have celebrated and did singing few minutes prior to this final game..paul breitner in a interview has confirmed it and he olso has pointed out that this arogance has made him and some other german players angry..this speaks not for your suggestion the dutch players was under heavy pressure..maybe the dutchplayers was good actors??

germany 1972 has played a slighlty variant version of total fooball and won comfortable the eurochampionship 1972...in european medias germanys performance was descripted the best since hungary in the 50s in europe....only a liltle information for you kingkong....

[kingkong1]

your team defeat 1950 was a exception of 7 worldcups..so what is your point???are you trying to say your defeat is more impressive than ,example germanys victory 1974??..what is that for a logic???your team was host,germany was host.. .....your team failed at home..other teams not inclusive germany 1974NOBODY WILL EVER SAY BRAZIL WON ANY OF ITS FIVE WC TITLES IN FUNCTION OF THE HOME FACTOR.

UNFORTUNATELY YOU ARE NOT IN POSITION TO SAY THE SAME ABOUT YOUR NT (NOR URUGUAY, NOR ITALY, NOR ENGLAND, NOR ARGENTINA, OR FRANCE) - PERIOD.your team wasnt in a relaxing position against uruquay..need a draw is far away of comfortable..your team didnt score a goal in the first half...this has worked against your team and has made a bit quit your 200000 fans..this was a total diffrent game than the game against spain or sweden...uruquay knew very well how to play against you...the 1:0 lead was the point where you had a clear advantage, but only for 17 minutes...the 1:1 draw was finally the turning point, your team and your fans got nervous and uruquay got the upperhand in the last 20 minutes...overconfident and arragonce has played a part too prior to this game...the final wasnt played and everbody in brasil believed brasil is allready worldchampion...

another point is that wc 1950 was one of the weakest worldcups ever, only wc 1930 was weaker than 1950 in my opinion..1974 all strong teams was part of worldcup qualifers and/or worldcup...1950 only 13 teams have played in brasil and the worldcup qualification in europe was a farce....

worldcup 1950.
brasil
uruquay
chile
paraquay
bolivia
mexiko
usa
england
italy
sweden
spain
swiss
yugoslawia

the strongest team from europe didnt play in brasil..hungary where allready has startet his run in europe..no strong teams of austria and cssr in brasil ..no eastern country...scotland,belgium both qualfied refused...germany wasnt allowed to play...argentina didnt play...italy few months before has lost many NT keyplayers in a airplane crash (ac turins super team)and the lmited italien NT is travelled with the ship to brasil..france was intrest but refused for the reason of the organisators gameplan ,where forced the french team for long distances between games in first round..not acceptable for the french team ...the only exception in this worldcup where a team wasnt forced of long travelling was your team kingkong..this was one of the negative storys of this worldcup..the protection of brasil...yugoslawia a team in your group was forced of travelling long distances between EVERY game..your team has played all games in rio...germany 1974 wasnt proteced..

the final defeat wasnt your only waterloo in this worldcup kingkong...
the second game in the first round against little swiss was a little waterloo too..do you remember?? yugoslawia had a comfortable 2 games win start 4:1 and 3:0 against mexiko and swiss..your team a 4:0 and 2:2 start against mexiko and swiss....and my recorces tell me that your team in the final minutes nearly was beaten from little swiss...in the last groupmatch only a win against yugoslawia saved you the next round..yugoslawia has startet with 10 players this game due a injury of a player of yugoslawia few minutes prior to this game, the yugoslawian player has joined the field the goalscores was 1:0 for brasil...the referee has not waited few minutes longer giving yugslawia the chance playing 11:11 from beginning....

this storys doesent support your brasil relaxing story....THANKS, 621! :cool: ...

ALL YOU SAID WAS IN MY FAVOUR!..

HOW COME NOT TO BE TOTALLY RELAXED IF (ACCORDING TO YOU, SEE BLUE BOLD QUOTATIONS ABOVE) WE DIDN'T HAVE ADVERSARIES, IF WE SENT THEM TRAVELLING THROUGH THE JUNGLE WHILE WE WENT TRANQUILLY TO RIO'S BEACHES, IF THE REFEREEES FAVOURED US, AND FIFA ACCEPTED ALL OUR 'IMPOSITIONS'?...the games between both german teams 1974 was very important from the german perspective..but from a standpoint of qualification for the next round a meaningless games..both teams the BRD and DDR allready was qualifid....this was in oposition of brasils first round final match against yugoslawia..

netherland wasnt the superer team than germany..netherlend has played the best football in the first 6 games in this worldcup, this was so good that nehterland is called the best team from wc 1974....germany was the better team in the final and the referee decisions iagainst germany in some actions clearly hasnt favorited the german team..right???.netherland olso wasnt forced playing a game under so bad fieldconditions the germans and polands have played in the semifinal,,this is one of the reasons this game between poland and germany never had the chance to be a wc classic game..so this has worked in favor for netheland too...and the game germany-sweden played in 90 minutes nonstop rain easly challlenge the best games played in this wc 1974..so it wasnt only the final game ......

germany with 6 wins and 1 defeat has shared with poland the win statistic in this worldcup..netherland was third with 5 wins 1 defeat and 1 draw..another point is that netherland hasent played against poland..germany has defeated with netherland and poland 2 of the 3 top teams from worldcup 1974...brasils and argentinas name sounds great kingkong , but the performance and the statistics of both teams wasnt..brasil with 3 wins,2 draws and 2 defeats speaks a volumes, and argentinas performance and stats wasnt impressive too....netherlands performance in this worldcup was historical and deserve his place in worldcup history but finally it wasnt good enough beating germany......

in the locker room netherlands players allready have celebrated and did singing few minutes prior to this final game..paul breitner in a interview has confirmed it and he olso has pointed out that this arogance has made him and some other german players angry..this speaks not for your suggestion the dutch players was under heavy pressure..maybe the dutchplayers was good actors??

germany 1972 has played a slighlty variant version of total fooball and won comfortable the eurochampionship 1972...in european medias germanys performance was descripted the best since hungary in the 50s in europe....only a liltle information for you kingkong
YEAH, YOU WON TITLES BUT WHO GOT THE FAME (THE DUTCH CAROUSSEL, THE CLOCKWORK ORANGE, ETC) WAS... HOLLAND! :p

ALL EURO NATIONS OF THOSE TIMES PLAYED 'TOTAL FOOTBALL' (ONES WORSE, OTHER BETTER), BUT WHO CRYSTALIZED - PRECISELY IN THOSE SIX CRUCIAL WC GAMES - WHAT WAS A MERE 'STYLE OF PLAYING' INTO A REVOLUTIONARY FOOTBALL SCHOOL WAS...HOLLAND, MY DEAR 621!

EXACTLY LIKE IN 1954: WHO WON THE WC WAS GERMANY BUT THE WORLD OF FOOTBALL TILL OUR DAYS HAS ONLY EYES TO PUSKAS, CZIBOR AND HIKDEGUTY'S HUNGARY OF THOSE TIMES!...

THEY TOO CRYSTALIZED (ALONG WITH BRAZIL 58/70) A NEW FOOTBALL SCHOOL!...

YOU AS A GERMAN WILL NEVER ACCEPT THAT: BUT THAT'S AN UNDISPUTED FACT FOR THE ABSOLUTE MAJORITY OF FOOTBALL EXPERTS OF ALL TIMES...

A LITTLE MACROANALYSIS AND ALL YOUR CHERRYPICKING MICROANALYSIS EASILY GOES DOWN THE DRAIN, 621! :D ...

[squidward123]

ALL EURO NATIONS OF THOSE TIMES PLAYED 'TOTAL FOOTBALL' (ONES WORSE, OTHER BETTER), BUT WHO CRYSTALIZED - PRECISELY IN THOSE SIX CRUCIAL WC GAMES - WHAT WAS A MERE 'STYLE OF PLAYING' INTO A REVOLUTIONARY FOOTBALL SCHOOL WAS...HOLLAND, MY DEAR 621!

so, can you say the dutch playing it in those games were better than germany in 1972 euro cup?

who cares what becaues famous. holland became famous because the WC is a more widely covered stage than the euros, and because the people mainly responsible for spreading all this around the world (ie. the english) aren't too fond of germany. They still cover up the april 1972 lesson by germany at wembley stadium to this day.

my question is, can you say it looked better when holland played it in 74 than when germany did in 72?

both at their peaks. unfortunately germany had major off field problems stopping it from being even better than 72 (in the end were worse) in 74.


EXACTLY LIKE IN 1954: WHO WON THE WC WAS GERMANY BUT THE WORLD OF FOOTBALL TILL OUR DAYS HAS ONLY EYES TO PUSKAS, CZIBOR AND HIKDEGUTY'S HUNGARY OF THOSE TIMES!...


that's different to the 70s because hungary were awesome for years while germany gradually built up to the world cup.

[621380]

NOBODY WILL EVER SAY BRAZIL WON ANY OF ITS FIVE WC TITLES IN FUNCTION OF THE HOME FACTOR.

UNFORTUNATELY YOU ARE NOT IN POSITION TO SAY THE SAME ABOUT YOUR NT (NOR URUGUAY, NOR ITALY, NOR ENGLAND, NOR ARGENTINA, OR FRANCE) - PERIOD.THANKS, 621! :cool: ...

[B.

its irrelevant for me ..i think iam in a good position , germany felt the pressure (i allready have postet a part of a article with beckenbauers comment) and won the title 1974...you team felt the pressure in the final and your team was defeated 1954..plain and simple..so please no excuse...uruquay had a good tactic and a good defensive and knew very well how to play your team...prior to this worldcup there was some games between brasil and uruquay where was helpful too for uruquay.......i think...

2014 there are 2 possibilitis,your team win or win not the worldcup at home ...so using your current criteria...if brasil win the worldcup at home 2014 your criteria becomes meaningsless...if you dont win 2014 everbody easly can counter you and point out brasil at home cant deal with the pressure winning a worldcup at home...so its backfired to you....lol...

but in my opinion this is gameplaying and not really important....germany 1974 was host and the favorite and every other team knew it prior to this worldcup......finally germany won without protection this worldcup at home with the best record 6 wins :1 defeat , defeating both poland and netherland...i do not deny the great football netherland has played in other games..poland was a team who has played great football to, defeating many top teams in wcq and wc...but germany had the upperhand in both games and this count too..

prior to this worldcup gerd müller was asked against whom he like to play in a hypothetical final....if germany reach the final he said ,he like to play against netherland, the dutch football he knows very well (recorces.. kicker magacine i own....)he got his wish...

[kingkong1]

so, can you say the dutch playing it in those games were better than germany in 1972 euro cup? (...) holland became famous because the WC is a more widely covered stage than the euros, and because the people mainly responsible for spreading all this around the world (ie. the english) aren't too fond of germanyWell, Squid,

Let me state the obvious: football is also made out of historical circumstances.

An extreme example was the fabulous Argentinian NTs of 43/44/45 that couldn't even show their football in a WC because of WW II, and at least one or two WC titles would be in their pockets if they were allowed by the circumstances to play.

If the 1974 WC made Dutch football more visible to the world than Germany in Euro 72, unfortunately that's what the world has to deal with.

However I imagine Euro 72 must have been a very well broadcasted competition internationally, and that serious critics (not all of them English) must have had the opportunity to judge with all impartiality those years' soccer developments.

Who am I though to doubt of the extreme quality of the German squad, very possibly the best in the world at least between 70 and 78?...

Even better than Holland, in terms of results...

What I'm talking though is a totally different thing.

The great football presented by you in the 70's was in its essence already seeded in the futebol-força (I don't know the term in English, but it corresponds more or less to 'power football' or 'football-strength') practiced specially by you, England and Portugal since the 1966 WC, in which a technically better occupation of all sectors of the field favoured by an extraordinary display of physical fitness ended up with the Brazilian hopes of a 3rd WC title in a row, and, in spite of Pelé & Co, could have created (and England and Romenia did create) very serious problems to the future 1970 tri-champs.

Thank God we didn't face you in that final!...

What Holland presented to the world though specially in 1974, was a tactical step forward in relation to that whole conception of power football (or 'futebol-força) that preceded (but also informed) it.

Being victorious or not in the competitions it participated, what really mattered were the essential tactical developments with which Holland contributed to the progress of football in general from then on.

The caroussel concept, the revolutionary rodizium with players with no defined positions, the great physical & individual ability of its players, along with an almost martial although extremely inventive tactical discipline, all that (in just 6 games) brought a big impact and became a big novelty in the early 70's, constituting a tactical conception exceedingly modern which has not been surpassed until our days.

[squidward123]

kingkong

Yes, historical circumstances matter. I agree that WC74 made holland more visible to the world than euro72 did germany to the whole world at the time. That's fine.

But euro72 was widely acclaimed throughout europe at the time. As you can see from the articles I posted. There were more from l'equipe and "the times" for example, but I can't find those. "The rehabilitation of attacking football at brussels" is what l'equipe wrote.

I am not german, but what germany played at that time, before holland, was total football in pretty much the same way.

Players moving everywhere, beckenbauer and netzer mainly conducting, light, technical, controlling the ball in small spaces at fast speeds when needed, lots of 1-2s etc. In the euro72 final they scored a 20 pass goal through the middle of the field.

Holland at this time are more famous. For that i "blame" the english and their obsession with holland. You know - the same people that pass beckenbauer off as a "centre-back". Just because holland is world famous now for total football, it doesn't mean the same status quo was the case in the 1970s.

The development of media views in english (which spreads to the world more than others) since then has made people make comments like "if they played 10 finals in 1974, holland would win 9 and germany 1". They have no idea who was the dominant team in those days.

So pretty much what was done by holland in 1974 was almost exactly done by germany in terms of tactics in 1972. The reasons why holland only are famous now are explained above. But many people who know football with depth acknowledge germany as well.

Germany in 1974 had massive off-field problems and didn't reach 1972 levels, although the 2nd group stage games v/s sweden, poland and yugoslavia are excellent passing games in (and considering the) torrential rain and could be world cup classics. Again, they are much underrated by the mass media these days. Aided by the fact that brazil and argentina are more attractive names nowadays than poland and sweden. But in the 70s poland and sweden were big teams.

I think to refer to it as "force-football" is a bit uncomplimentary.

It (germany) was higher physical fitness but still the same technical skill, movement and dribbling (when needed). There was more pressing defensively than brazil were used to. The defenders (ie. whole team when not in possession) didn't allow you as much time on the ball.

And what germany played did not have tackling like england or portugal in 66. It was also more light and technical when in possession.

you can see a lot of these old games here including the 1972 final
http://youtube.com/profile?user=Gregoriak

[SectionX]

zlatan > platini

[The Sun King]

1. Pele
2. Maradona
3. Ronaldo
4. Di Stefano
5. Cruyff
6. Garrincha
7. Zico
8. Platini
9. Zidane
10. Baggio

[Martininho]

1. Pele
2. Maradona
3. Ronaldo
4. Di Stefano
5. Cruyff
6. Garrincha
7. Zico
8. Platini
9. Zidane
10. Baggio

I would suggest that this list perhaps unfairly omits defenders, but each to their own. And, while I love Baggio, I'm not sure that he should rate over Beckenbauer, Best, Meazza, Puskas, Moore, or Van Basten.

[schwuppe]

On Topic:
I'll rate players by: pure skill (dribbling, goal scoring, takling, passing etc.), versatile, completeness, accomplishments, longlevity, peak performance, performance in clutch situations and importance to the game.

1. Pelé

2. Diego Maradona

Not much to say about those two. Obvious choices.

3. Franz Beckenbauer

1965 International Class 2x [Center Half & Half Back]
1966 World Class ★ [Midfielder] & International Class [Inside Defender]
1967 World Class O [Midfielder] & International Class [Central Defender]
1968 World Class ★ 2x [Central Defender & Midfielder]
1969 World Class ★ 2x [Central Defender & Midfielder]
1970 World Class ★ 2x [Central Defender & Midfielder]
1971 World Class ★ [Libero/Central Defender]
1972 World Class ★ [Libero]
1973 World Class O [Libero]
1974 World Class ★ [Libero]
1975 World Class ★ [Libero]
1976 World Class ★ [Libero]
1977 World Class O [Libero]

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=936925

I was not sure how to rate him a while ago, but that Kicker raiting was the turning point to rate Beckenbauer over Cruyff and di Stéfano. I can't think of any other player besides Pelé and maybe Alfredo di Stéfano (if they would have played in the Bundesliga :D) to be rated World Class 12 years in a row by Kicker. Pure class.

4. Johan Cruyff

Brilliant WC performance in 1974 (Golden Ball), 3 times Ballon d'or, Voted European Player of the Century by the IFFHS

5. Alfredo di Stéfano

Sady no WC appearance.
Cruyff, Beckenbauer and di Stéfano is VERY, VERY close.

6. Ferenc Puskás

I won't list all accomplishments of those two players. Just look it up on wikipedia.

Here are some playing highlights:
YouTube - Real Madrid 7-3 Eintracht Frankfurt.European final

Puskás 4, di Stéfano 3 goals. Both over 30 years old, after their prime.

I'll carry on with my top 10 list soon.

George Best is too low on that list, and I would rate him higher than Platini.
Sadly I only know George Best from highlight videos on youtube.

Those are pretty impressive. He migh be top 10 material in terms of pure skill and talent - but I can't see much longlivity or sucess compared to other all time great. Statswise he had that one great season in 1967/68.

He won a Ballon d'or and a CL. That's not much compared to other alltime players.
I won't blame him for winning no international stuff because of his NT though. :D

Enlighten me. What makes George Best a Top 10 player? What type of player was he?
It's just hard to understand. Players like Pelé, Cruyff or Beckenbauer got their accomplishments and Maradona got tons of video material to back up his greatness.

I would be thrilled if someone who saw him play back in the 60s would answer me that questions.
Not just people who take their knowledge from nostalgic tales and short clips on the internet.

This post isn't meant to be offensive in any way towards Best. I just want to broaden my horizon.

[TKORL]

Meh, in all these lists there's a giant bias towards the mid 60s-mid 80s and a bias against 90s-00s...

Not to mention a big bias against defensive players.

[kingkong1]

Meh, in all these lists there's a giant bias towards the mid 60s-mid 80s and a bias against 90s-00s...See, it's not just me :D ...Not to mention a big bias against defensive players.That I agree.:o

[WhiteStar Warriors]

1. Pele
2. Maradona
3. Ronaldo
4. Di Stefano
5. Cruyff
6. Garrincha
7. Zico
8. Platini
9. Zidane
10. Baggio


for #3 I think Romario is better than Ronaldo

[Roger Allaway]

Coming in very late to this thread and haven't read it all, but in the half-dozen pages I have read, nobody has mentioned Stanley Matthews. I'd certainly rate him top 10. As of the early 1950s (in other words, pre-Pele and pre-diStefano), he was rated number-one all-time.

[kingkong1]

Coming in very late to this thread and haven't read it all, but in the half-dozen pages I have read, nobody has mentioned Stanley Matthews. I'd certainly rate him top 10. As of the early 1950s (in other words, pre-Pele and pre-diStefano), he was rated number-one all-time.Yeah, Roger,

I’d personaly put him among my best 22 of all times.

I mean, considering ’22’ as a normal team (with goalies, defenders, mids, forwards).

He’d certainly be my sub for Garrincha (so the 2nd right-wing ever).

As far as Platini he’d very hardly make my 33.

What’s no demerit to the French.

My system would be a 4-3-3 and arguably being the 7th, 8th, of 9th (or, more probably, the 10th, 11th or 12th) mid ever is still an honour.

Imho, there is no way that he can top Di Stéfano, Didi, Cruyjff, Bobby Charlton, Zizinho, Beckenbauer, Gérson, Pelé, Maradona, Zico.

So - in my opinion at least – Sir Stanley Matthews is in a way more comfortable situation.:)

PS:

BTW, this was my 1st post in this thread (check #39 (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13235313&postcount=39)): Platini among The Ten? Wanting a job at Uefa? (lol, kd)...

I wouldn't put Zico among them either though.

However he was superior to Platini: let's remember that besides Zico having a better goal average than Platini in that 83-84 season, while the latter played for powerhouse Juventus, the former for modest Udinese; besides - although I recognize that Platini was exceptional - Zico playing for Flamengo was simply the best player of his era: 78-84, and a close 3rd best among the players who started playing after 1970 (for me the 1st was Cruyjff, the 2nd best Maradona).

3 Flamengo geniuses instead of Zico though for sure would have to be in the list: Leônidas da Silva, Zizinho and Domingos da Guia.

The thing is that a "The Best Ten...' concept doesn't make justice to the geniuses of football (not that many, but not so few either).

We'd have to have at least 22 players, distributed in 2 complete teams, 1st and 2nd team (with goalies, defenders, defensive midfielders) to include players, for instance, like Best, Eusébio, Matthews, Banks, Gérson, Charlton, Rivelino, Moore, and in my opinion even Maradona (a 2nd best team player for me, under that concept).

As I stated somewhere in this Forum, my 1st and 2nd best teams of all times would be (distributed in a 4-2-4, to make justice to both defense and attack):

First:

Yashin; Carlos Alberto, Beckenbauer, Domingos Da Guia, Nilton Santos; Didi, Di Stéfano; Garrincha, Pelé, Puskas, Cruyjff***.

***That wasn't Cruyjff's 'position' I know, but who told you he cared for 'positions'? :cool:...

Second:

Banks; Djalma Santos, Bobby Moore, Jack Charlton, Marinho Chagas; Zizinho, Bobby Charlton; Stanley Matthews, Leônidas da Silva, Eusébio, Maradona.

How terrible not to have, Best, Rivelino, Passarela, Gérson, Jairzinho, Tostão etc among them though...

Feel tempted to choose a third 'best team'! :rolleyes: ...

And you see, I'm being impartial: Zico, Romário & Ronaldo aren't there (nor runner-ups Platini and Van Basten): they'd still have something to learn with those 22...In attention to Platini I added a 4-3-3 option here...

[schwuppe]

And you see, I'm being impartial: Zico, Romário & Ronaldo aren't there (nor runner-ups Platini and Van Basten): they'd still have something to learn with those 22...
Based on what sources do you back up that Leônidas da Silva was better thank those three?

I don't think you are THAT old that you ever saw him play actually. :D