Interesting to see from Argentina, perhaps even more than the Messi comparisons (I suppose the 'opposite view' to that of the guy who had done those great pieces and XI's but seemed to err on the side of rating Cruyff below the upper echelon and wasn't regarding him as a great decision maker), the parallels drawn with Moreno (I'm guessing but maybe more for the dynamism and field coverage in his case?) and Sastre (maybe more for the construction of the game from the middle of the pitch and vision etc? - but it could be he doesn't distinguish between Moreno and Sastre at all and he doesn't indicate it anyway). Maybe he is only a historian and not someone who lived through their time anyway (?) but interesting to see in any case. Ultimately (if he puts Pele and Maradona at 1st and 2nd, and anyway surely it'd be mentioned if Sastre or Moreno were above Cruyff in his estimations) he must see Cruyff as an upgrade and evolution (and perhaps he doesn't go along with ideas Moreno>Maradona, or Moreno could be compared to Pele etc? - perhaps those are not insignificant but still minority ideas like I guess Garrincha>Pele would be too). But it also reflects well on the abilities and roles of those two surely, in his eyes (and memories?).
So here is part 2 then. As said above, I leave out the basic biographical stuff and those three earlier pieces that have been posted are also a good reference (imho) -------------------------------- Ronaldo performs at Barcelona better as his first season at PSV. 34 goals in 36 games: he is the topscorer of the Primera Division, elected as best player of Spain on top. Although there are deviating views, the consensus is that in his own style he might go up there among the very best in history. By the FIFA he is already elected as the best of the world at this moment. And a year later again. He plays by then at Internazionale and has just turned 21 years old. Ronaldo himself maybe prefers to stay at Barcelona, but surrounded by an entourage who ascribe him a future at Internazionale, he makes after only one year the jump to Italy. It is at this point that he is perceived besides as a footballer also turned into a 'best ever' marketing object. Ronaldo, the street footballer that is dying out and wants to have fun, becomes in this manner part of a greater power game called 'football'. […] This year [2002] he is again elected World Player of the Year. Real Madrid wants to have the striker whatever it takes. And they succeed. After five years at Inter, years that are after his flashing start predominantly overshadowed by injuries, Ronaldo departs again to Spain. He will play for Real Madrid, the rivals of his former club Barcelona. Also there his statistics are notable. Also for intergalactic Real Madrid his statistics are among the best. In his first four years he scores 82 goals in the league, the same as the undamaged Samuel Eto'o, and twenty more than everyone else. Nevertheless he will never be the teddy bear or the beloved goals thief he previously was. Ronaldo let the goals roll off from the assembly line, still yet shows matchless things, matchless for the other Madrid stars, but his movements are a lot less subtle, his rushes much shorter and his feints and tricks not as appealing to the eye. His knees cannot cope any more with the load his former playing style demands and his body looks a bit too heavy. The critical and classless public in Madrid gives him a new nickname. Il Fenomeno becomes from now on El Gordo, the fat one. Yet after the name change he plays for four more years at Los Merengues. Injuries kept on chasing him, unfortunately. At the World Cup in 2006 he does crown himself as the player who has scored the most at the world championships: fifteen times in total. The tournament progresses otherwise in a dissapointing fashion and he doesn't play well. Ronaldo switches the following winter from Madrid to AC Milan. With this he makes a second sensitive switch in his career. “Eventually he didn't become better than Romario in my eyes – but I respect your view”, says Valckx, who knows him well. “And that bears a relationship to his injuries, but I think also the people who guided him and made him switch from destination way too often. Ronaldo is a feeling person, a sentimentalist in many ways. When you switch so often from environment you ever need to adapt to different people, different environment, different practices. That has had most probably an impact on his mind and body, that becomes worn out, and his career progression. A body can only take a finite amount of hits.” […] Ronaldo Luis Nazario de Lima becomes two times world champion with Brazil, scores fifteen goals at the world championships for country teams, is three times elected as world player of the year, carved himself out with distinction at a couple of the biggest clubs in the world. Despite this he is remembered as one of the men who knows the pain of suffering. The joy that forced his inner self to the pitch, that drived him in furious pace to the goal and let his feet do the most beautiful things with the ball (without knowing it), was no longer the sole defining thing after the horror evening in Rome. Was it the heavy load he performed from a young and immature age onwards? Was it his too heavy weight? Or was it just bad luck, bad coincidence? The opinions are divided at the editorial office on why Ronaldo never became 'the best player in the world ever all-time'. What if...? ------------------- Any thoughts @PDG1978 ? Without wanting to be biased, I truly think they thought a bit more about this than Four Four Two did. Also for the slightly lower regions (i.e. Carlos Alberto and what to think of him playing in only one World Cup).
Probably nothing jumps out at me the way the Moreno/Sastre comments did, but in general I think it is a good and pretty thorough summary for him, and I agree that the VI piece/s contain more in depth and quality analysis/comments etc and of course if there was copying it was by FFT (the most generous idea if so might be just that they were so impressed with the VI list they then used it as a template?). The FFT web pages are still interesting enough to see, especially for anyone just getting into football history I suppose, but the VI list does strike me as more original and with more detail and research (via getting comments from abroad etc).
I suppose he was aware of the distinction between Sastre and Moreno but thought the style of play and/or role is more like this than Maradona's style/role. His top ten was (with only one European): 1. Pelé 2. Maradona 3. Cruijff 4. Messi 5. Moreno 6. Sastre 7. Erico 8. Scarone 9. Di Stefano 10. Leonidas Of course there are also other notable choices such as that Italian dude mentioned above who placed Buffon at #10 (on par with Van Basten), and the Polish guy who place both Van Basten and Eusebio in his top 10. Campomar places compatriot Luis Suarez at #5; Hay from Australia Johnstone at #9 (George Best at #10); and the Chilean guy rounds off his top 10 with Rummenigge and Ibrahimovic. They asked quite a few people for current/previous top players as perceived by them - preferably with already an exercise done in the past. Not all of them are mentioned in this specific article (as you had maybe thought - of course the danger from giving them all space is that there are a lot of double thoughts, double examples, double moments, double observations mentioned).
Thanks - it adds context to see them both in his top 10 too I guess (topping a list of 6 bygone South American legends - how much he factored in Di Stefano at Real Madrid might be unknown, as opposed to what he saw/knew of him in Argentina and Colombia?). A few more top 10's that are interesting could add something to the thread maybe? Apologies if it's clear or you even stated it before, but I guess these top 10s were used to compile the ranking by allocating points, and not just as comments and guides for the VI editors and journalists to consider when making their list?
No, their top 100 was completely their own choice. But it makes sense that they asked around. Also with the George Best piece - on that he was in some African countries behind Pelé the best known footballer; and who are the best known players in countries where football isn't the national sport. About George Best they say somewhere in the middle - piece is about half as long as Ronaldo's piece but still pretty big: "Best could show off in an affecting and charming way, and they all relished it. George Best was as James Bond for the public, but then without the worries about all sorts of evil guys who wanted to kidnap him and cut his head off."
Looking back through old threads, it seems as though the information required for a reasonably representative BigSoccer Top 100 is already here. Starting with Argentina, where the proposed allocation was 10 players, @Pipiolo and @Vegan10 have the same Top 6: Sastre, Moreno, Pedernera, Di Stefano, Maradona and Messi. @Peru FC and @Dearman have the same Top 9 as Pipiolo, with Monti, Sivori and Passarella added. @argentine soccer fan and @annoyedbyneedoflogin both had these three in their all-time team. The tenth slot is less certain. Pipiolo goes for Seoane, Peru for Orsi and Dearman for Redondo. The annual Top 23 lists produced by @Tom Stevens show Seoane appearing four times and Orsi seven. Another leading Argentine poster @Once rates Orsi highly and he was fourteenth in Pipiolo's list. So Orsi it is. For Uruguay the proposed allocation was five. Scarone, JL Andrade and Schiaffino look like certainties. The others with five or more appearances in Tom Stevens' lists are Nasazzi, Obdulio Varela and Walter Gomez. There is also Atilio Garcia but strictly speaking he was Argentine. Gomez doesn't seem to be rated as highly on this forum as the other two, possibly due to limited international appearances. Francescoli enjoys good support among French and Latin American posters, though less from Italians. @PDG1978 ranks him between 101 and 200. Luis Suarez as always divides opinion. The Wisden Footballers of the Year thread produced a composite list of 15 leading players pre-1920. The only South American included was Piendibene. On balance the last two Uruguayan places might go to the original maestro and Obdulio Varela, but it is not certain. Other Latin American countries (excluding Brazil) were allocated five places between them. Erico, Cubillas and Figueroa appear to attract most support among posters from the region. Hugo Sanchez is very highly rated by Real Madrid supporters. From Tom's lists, the remaining position would appear to be between Spencer (five appearances), Chumpitaz, Joya and Romero (three each). @msioux75 produced some good evidence in support of Chumpitaz, and @comme ranks him as the sixth best centre-back, so he seems a reasonable choice. I am having a bit of difficulty finding a consensus on Brazil, but will try that one next.
From the second group, I pick Spencer and Chumpitaz. But I like to know about the chances by Valderrama, Vidal and Chilavert.
I feel people should be consistent in this. Thus also seasonal things as ESM, kicker etcetera. You yourself has remarked that some of the voters for ESM often don't watch the games, or are easily swayed by one game. Sports/football is a job for them, one that encompasses other activities than watching it, and spare time is something else. Graders of games are often ticking texts at the same time, and tend to lean towards goalkeepers or players like Iniesta who look nice. Certainly we've seen instances where Placar and kicker just fill in eleven countrymen when asked for a best XI for the year. This are in turn foundations for the opinions of others. To say it plain and simple: something I wouldn't agree with is to easily brush aside whatever older lists or older comments by France Football (when a winner was announced), but then put a kicker or whoever else (Placar) on a different level. I feel that is often tried. I do look at Placar as a guide (i.e. Falcao three times in team of the season before Roma move, Socrates once) but for me it is intrinsically just as strong or flawed in the end.
That's fair. Ultimately we need to be good historians in looking at all this and recognise the varying quality of our evidence. Just as we would if we were analysing any other historical evidence, we'd recognise that some is more reliable than others. So yes, ESM is flawed. We can notice a significant bias towards goalscoring midfielders for instance in their votes. We can also note that big games, particularly late in the season, get a lot more credit than others. Kicker also has it's flaws in their half-yearly ratings I'm sure. The match gradings are definitely flawed for instance. They definitely have a big preference for goalkeepers as do the Italian papers. In England match ratings are a nonsense and not taken remotely seriously by the people doing them. The comments by France Football at the time are useful, but we should recognise the difficulties they faced in collating them. So again, we assess the evidence and its value. No evidence is perfect, some is better than others. In certain instances where we lack much other evidence we have to rely more on what is available.
Spencer has to be in the running. His Libertadores scoring record is second to none. In the annual Top 23 lists, now continued by @Perú FC (meant to tag you last time but missed accent), Chilavert and Valderrama appear only once each. There are no objections to their exclusion and Peru says he is not a fan of Chilavert. I once produced a list with Chilavert as the leading (only) Latin American goalkeeper and was informed by a more knowledgeable South American poster that others were better. 8 places in total have been proposed for the 2010-17 period (two more than FourFourTwo), and from what I have read on the forum I am not convinced Vidal would occupy one of them.
A candidate certainly. He ranks second in your list of centre-backs and usually lines up alongside Nasazzi in all-time Uruguayan teams. He makes three appearances in Tom's Top 23 lists. Perhaps rated higher in Spain than in South America?
That's OK comme. With for example Modric now I feel he is facing a 'double handicap' as I'd call it whereas I'm now personally leaning to include him in my 2010 - 2020 team if I have to make one. There is a danger people will overlook him in the future (also forget he was good at euro 2016), as the midfielder in post-Xavi time. And if VI in 2050 includes him it is easy to pop at it if you know what I mean (I know you see and understand what I mean with that I liked VIs texts and boxes more than the actual list itself). Although I occasionally disagree with PDG1978 (and there are some notable differences between VIs top 30 and PDG's too - for ex. in his case Ronaldo is around 15 while erring on 'best form' and 25% regard for longevity), I like that he watches a lot and occasionally shows things I had forgotten or wasn't aware of. For example some rare skills by Liedholm, or a few very good and positive outside the boot passes by MvB in a couple of difficult matches (which I as compatriot wasn't aware of that much, or had forgotten, which can happen when so much emphasis is on the goals) or showing when he thought Matthaus was at/near his technical best before skills declined a bit. Zidane's standing will maybe remain a contested one (as Garrincha's too?) but it is notable he scores well in a few 'big game scorers' lists and Delanay concludes in his research "the most efficient [big game] scorer is Zidane" from a statistical point of view. In the context of this specific thread he showed this at the time with Totti rounding off the top 50 (re: recent discussion on how to watch his euro 2000 performance). "Now I think about it, although it wasn't what was specified in this thread, I would rather only go so far as 75/25 (ratio of peak period best/general form (with consideration of peak seasons and/or form perhaps added as an extra consideration) to longevity (with major tournament performances perhaps added in for that))" https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/best-football-players-of-all-time.2011432/page-16#post-33613429 Also think it is an excellent suggestion by @poetgooner to think/discuss about the key attributes and/or how it would look in a football manager type of thing. Maybe when the 100/200 names are set. But it is a good idea to talk about how Santamaria his set and strengths would look then.
Still struggling with Brazil so moving on to Germany. Ten places allocated. In an exercise last year eight posters submitted their all-time German XI. They were @Gregoriak , @Raute , @el cabezon , @wm442433 , @poetgooner , @Milan05 , PDG and me. At the end of the exercise Gregoriak made the interesting comment that within Germany only Beckenbauer and Muller would now be automatic choices. Not surprisingly all eight posters chose these two. They also all picked Matthaus and Rummenigge. Six votes went to Breitner and Kohler; Netzer got five; Kahn, Lahm and Overath four. The eleventh man added to complete a viable formation was Brehme with three votes. Karl-Heinz Forster also received three votes and could have replaced Brehme in a 3-5-2 with Breitner moving from midfield to left wing-back. In a separate thread, Gregoriak ranks the following as leaders in their positions: Kahn goalkeeper, Vogts right-back, Breitner left-back, Beckenbauer sweeper, Forster stopper, Matthaus DM, Netzer AM followed by Overath, Rummenigge right-wing, Heynckes left-wing and Muller centre-forward. He places Seeler behind Klaus Fischer. Comme also ranks Forster above Kohler, naming him the fifth best centre-back from all countries. He also rates Vogts highly: third among right-backs. Comme has Beckenbauer as best sweeper, Matthaus as second best DM, and Muller as third in his striker list. His top German keeper is Maier in seventh place. In Tom's and Peru's Top 23s (1920-99), Beckenbauer appears ten times, Matthaus eight, Muller and Rummenigge six, Klinsmann, Vogts and Fritz Walter five. It is worth bearing in mind that these lists take into account a lot of comments from other posters before they are finalised. So where does that leave us? Beckenbauer, Muller, Rummenigge and Matthaus are obvious choices. There has to be a German goalkeeper in the Top 100 and that looks like Kahn, with Maier also in contention. Falling outside the scope of the Top 23 lists is another possible keeper in Neuer. He and Lahm are strong candidates for the 2010-17 overall allocation. Seeler does not feature as prominently on the forum as one might expect, and will probably miss out. An excellent study by @Puskas 1988 demonstrated that Fritz Walter scored more goals than has generally been believed, to go with his playmaking. There does not seem to be much between Walter, Netzer and Overath. Or between Vogts, Breitner, Forster and Lahm. Or between Maier and Neuer. Five of these are due to be selected.
Thanks Puck. Hopefully many of us can benefit from the posts of each other, and different interests and angles on things. You certainly bring as much as pretty much anyone with your attention to detail and enthusiasm for research and analysis, and are good at combining that with what you watched at the time and take the time to watch in retrospect and can make good informed calls like picking out Nedved's 00/01 season (less famous than his 02/03 one of course). I'm not sure I like to do it so much now lol (because maybe it can always seem like I repeatedly/still under-value CR7 for example; also Messi arguably although maybe it's at the stage where I place him in an 'acceptable' slot even if now pretty much a 'minimum' one in most peoples eyes and brains too) but since you quoted it I'll directly quote that top 50 and add in bold the places up or down I'd have in mind now (based actually even on more like a 88/12 split probably lol, but nevertheless with CR7 at least rising a bit more still and other little things which might seem to go against that based on the previous effort, like rounding out a top 10 with Puskas instead of Eusebio although probably if 100% on peak version I'd still lean/guess the other way). It's difficult though, and not necessarily much less so when taking full career into account, and allowing for greatness in own era even when in big doubt about some legends being as good as various more recent stars (I can increasingly understand how and why that's the preferred method actually now, but yeah I originally came from more the angle Poetgooner proposes actually, due to playing that game and editing all-time players myself probably, and maybe with video trumping the written word on balance). I still find it difficult to incorporate the really old players satisfactorily. For example looking back at David Brooks's top 100 from 2002 from his All-Time World Cup book, I wondered what my own list (perhaps with 88/12 split still) would look like retrospectively and I really struggled to work out how I'd round out a top 100, with 12 choices for the remaining 8 place I had (legends Sindelar, Zizinho, Moreno and V.Mazzola I'd have the least idea about in real terms even if in historical terms they should be in; slightly more modern players who seemed to have careers of note to compliment a high peak level like Cubillas, Masopust, Shilton and S.Mazzola; and players from relatively modern times I had the best idea about, including how they compare to even more recent stars, like John Barnes, Scifo, Stoichkov and Stojkovic).
I actually don't remember doing a German XI lol. IMHO, I don't consider Lahm in German top 10, or in the XI, because he's blocked by some of the finest fullbacks of all time in the likes of Vogts, Brehme, and Breitner. The problem is, there has been no better left-back than him in the 2010-17 period and he's probably deserving of a place from that period. Both Bayern Munich and Germany have done well in this period, and he was the leader of both.
I have the same fear with regards to Modric. I don't think he'll be well remembered in history, unfortunately Doesn't help that this era is pretty stacked in that department. Even if we remove Xavi, there's still the likes of Iniesta to compete with.
Yeah, so just to update the record as such (hopefully doesn't draw too much attention for same reasons it did before lol, but sorry if I got annoyed at anyone else getting annoyed at me if that makes sense - also similar for the C.Ronaldo/Messi thread and general 'modern players are best' debates!) But yeah to be honest, it's hard to even incorporate Meazza, and Schiaffno too really, talking of old legends, while trying to keep some sort of focus on literally how I feel the players compare attribute wise (which was why the number of old legends I had in general was out-done by 80's and 90's players for example and still would be unless I do a specific attempt more based on fame in own eras which would fit with Peterhrt's aims right now...but conversely I personally, touching on that old eras vs modern players debate again, haven't necessarily felt the old legends would necessarily be incomparable in quality of course and maybe that's why it was always tempting to include them, with some exceptions, even if I would err to giving the benefit of the doubt in terms of how they'd translate to a modern game I guess).
Just to note too for example, I certainly didn't downgrade Bergkamp in terms of how I see him, so movements up and down can just be a revision of how I did things before (and in his case leaning a bit more to overall career probably did help I feel, just as with Romario, even though neither had a really consistent career without peaks and dips/struggles).
The first step, I think, would be to establish the actual attributes we're going to rate. It would have to be pretty detailed if we're committed to actually describing how a player played. An example would be to differentiate between those players that are very good at controlling the ball while dribbling at high speed (Ronaldo) and those that are masters of close ball-control in tight spaces. The attributes would have to be very clearly defined. Then a form would need to be created so that we don't have a long-arse forum post for every player we rate.
Edited to add an example, and confirm indeed I didn't lose any love/respect for Bergkamp haha! That's a good idea though I think yes. Going beyond what the computer games (either FM style, or FIFA, or even PES possibly in effect despite the attempts with their stats and atttributes) tend to be able to achieve, and incorporating all the nuances which make each player an individual (at least in general terms).
Thanks. I'll bear this in mind. This was your team: ============================================================================ I have my own personal bias towards athletic box-to-box players so that's probably what I'd favour in my Germany XI. Rumenigge----------Muller Netzer Sammer-------------Matthaeus Brehme-----Boateng-----Kohler-------Lahm Beckenbauer Neuer Brehme and Lahm were picked because they're better going forward, than their competitors, which is important in this lineup. Netzer and Beckenbauer provide the class in central midfield, while Sammer and Matthaues provide the running power, both capable of pushing forward to score goals, and dominate the midfield. Boateng and Kohler are physical specimens who can play stopper to Beckenbauer's sweeper in defense. ============================================================================
Thanks for that man. It's absolutely criminal that I have my bias towards athletic B2B players (I still do) and didn't include Breitner I wonder if it's tactically possible to play Sammer, Kohler, and Beckenbauer in defense, so I can accommodate Breitner in midfield
No, good list and I'm not annoyed. He's also one of those where my 'range' so to speak is pretty big. Possibly from best of his 1990 - 2000 generation (in line with the Ballon d'Or votes) to somewhere between 5 to 10. Guerin Sportivo was also rather blaming Inter than blaming him for his ill-fated spell (with injuries in second season) and thought winning the UEFA Cup as topscorer was still a significant achievement. He was doing well in Europe with three different clubs (three finals, as star player) and also at a few tournaments either as topscorer or top assister. But he's for example only once selected in the PFA team of the year, although the same is true for Cantona (in a rare year where three forwards made it) and Sheringham once, and Zola never. Rooney only made it in the years he was playing as a striker. This is because those teams were leaning to two out-and-out goalscorers, but if a player is so good he'd break through this. On the other hand I get the idea by Wright, Henry, Pires and FFT themselves that his lifestyle and somewhat boring off-pitch presence did not help: in the 1999 FFT list he was on number 14 in their top 50 (first 'number 10' or playmaker in the list though), which was the biggest deviation from the OPTA Index I figured out (while also nominated for league player of the year). It is also possible to see the positive impact he had on the Arsenal results; before, during his time, and after (when he in 2005-06 wasn't a starter any more, and then after he left). Some of those Champions League matches look really good in hindsight, as leadleader suggested a while ago, and Wenger was only half-joking when he said Bergkamp was subbed out so often because "the game was already won" (i.e. being careful with him, and the skillset he had in the squad, possibly also fatigue in a high octane league with many matches in a season). Speaking of Nedved; in 2001-02 there's an interesting game between Arsenal and Juventus where Bergkamp came on as a substitute and made quite an impact yes. Thierry Henry isn't alone in his high praise and occasionally I thought his peaks were really impressive (Zico/Platini territory impressive, while requiring more physical strength and dueling), at his best technically magnificent. So to make it short, my own range is also a relatively varying one and I wasn't too harsh on FFT in how they swapped him and Henry around (VI rated Henry quite a bit higher while FFT changed the order, but then edged Henry ahead for 'greatest Premier league player' in this year). But I'd included Henry for 2000 - 2010, Nedved for 1995 - 2005 and Bergkamp probably for 1990 - 2000 (although there was strong competition in his position, also beyond Baggio).