How do we know Julinho was better than a Rahn or Czibor? Who has said that? Julinho played against Mexico (which was a rout), Yugoslavia (a match that often gets assigned to Didi) and then lost with his team against Hungary. He scored a goal against Hungary, that is true, but it was also a game infamously ruined by muddy rain and violence. Hard for any player to really show your true worth.
It's interesting that he scored Charlton with 10 points and Cruyff with 8 being 1979 (with the career of the Dutchman fresh in the analysis).
It is not what I have seen, it wasn't the general consensus, for some Garrincha was preferred in the place of Julinho, although they considered that Julinho had more international trajectory than Garrincha. Also, the solution that could be used - according the CBD - in the case if Julinho had been released by the Italians, would put Garrincha on the left, a position he had already played before ... and that it would be beneficial for Brazil to have the both playing together: Of all forms, Julinho had problems with the Italian federation, but pointed out that Garrincha could replace him with no problem:
Yeah, the three were in the conversation for best winger. Point is, Julinho has showed his class far beyond a regional view. Which was said about Erico, Moreno, etc.
Is Julinhos solo run goal against Hungary in the 54 World Cup recorded anywhere? @PuckVanHeel Julinho was more of a creator than scorer unlike czibor(it would be like comparing Di Maria to arjen robben) Julinho was a true midfield winger(like Garrincha,lato,figo or recently Di Maria etc) Czibor played wide but was a wing forward and could play CF (like CR7 07/08 or arjen robben In Bayern) In any case czibor looks to of had the more successful career and was probably the joint 4th most important player in that legendary 1950s side after puskas,Hidegkuti,kocsis and then czibor/Bozsik tied
Elías Figueroa is a very interesting case for me. The more I see him more I think he was a higher level player than the average estimate and a lot of his career that I can't review visually it's usually documented as exceptional, especially in Uruguay. It's difficult to notice the low points in a retrospective review, but even his late career in Chile with a humble Palestino still seems incredible. As well as I consider Scirea or the other South American reference, Passarella, I'm at a point where I don't see how don't rate him over them and to debate about his position compared to Baresi.
... The only 1970s player with the same or more points is compatriot Mario Kempes, which has no value. Nor do his points fully match with the commentary he makes. Anyway, this are already three sentences too many. Three years later (1982) ADS his ideal XI had JC14 in but not Charlton (also no Erico): https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/th...of-all-time-1993.2086594/page-2#post-37094304 (for democratic Don Balon, not dictatorship El Grafico - to say this harsh) One final thing: There was no discussion. There was only your listdump. Not to mention how you clearly ignore the various evidence and lists I've posted (example) while happily accepting and repping the things by others, if it is preaching to your choir (including your integral taking over of kicker terminology, very revealing). You clearly had no interest in my recent thread for instance, and when pressed upon you just ignore the observations raised. This are my final words on this. If you want to have the last word, go ahead.
Yes, that also makes it curious, that the comments of the interview don't exactly fit that list by points. Ok, I won't answer extensively this because I think you're too emotional now (and this is not the corresponding thread). I usually like very much your contributions when you're not and we can discuss only about football.
I don't really see what is the problem for Figueroa. You only have to look at his English and Spanish wikipedia to see plenty of 'mainstream' lists have honored him (not as high as the IFFHS vote, but okay). His limitation is simply that he was a (true) defender, and in almost all lists there is a limited amount of spots for defenders in a top 100. L'Equipe in 1999 for instance explicitly thought about this, and explicitly spelled out there is only place for ten defenders. This can be Figueroa, but his generation and overlapping generations already has a number of other (stylish) defenders with a big name. With his latin resonance it is not him who gets shafted most often by those so called 'better researched lists'...
I think this might be the case. The cultured defenders have distinct advantages when it comes to all-time rankings, for obvious reasons. I've read many sources that Figueroa was a very cultured defender. Some called him the Beckenbauer of S. America (or Beckenbauer the Figueroa for Europe!). However, from the video footage that I've seen of him, his ball-playing abilities were really nothing special. I rarely see him dribble 20-30 yards or make those beautiful long passes that a Bonucci would. Compared to his contemporaries, I think both Beckenbauer and Krol showed much more accomplished ball-playing abilities. Admittedly, I've seen more footage of these two than I have of Figueroa, including a few full matches. Having said that, I am a recent convert of the church of Elias Figueroa. Of the 'true' defenders, as you put it, I've now come to believe he is the GOAT.
Can you explain that call with some tangibles? I do find Figueroa his ball skills a lot better as the one of Sammer for instance (and Cannavaro obviously). I watched past week the Portugal vs Germany match of 1996. Very interesting and intruiging view. I mean tangibles of this kind.
Without spamming the whole 100, I demoted Laudrup by discounting EC92. I would like to plug in Erico but I am lacking resources of any international exploits of his. In other words, I am trying to detach Arsenio from Sastre as to determine if Erico was a common 8 for effective skill or if he might actually be worthy of the scarse 9. It seems that without Sastre the outlying goals per season dropped. Ideas and other feedback is much appreciated!
In Brazil, the right-back Leandro is considered by most journalists and specialists only inferior to Djalma Santos and Carlos A Torres, above Cafu, but Leandro did not play in Europe, he had injuries and even a car accident, an example Junior played alongside Leandro at Flamengo, Junior who won the best player award in Italy by Corrielo dello Sport, was three times the Top 3 best in Italy by Guerin Sportivo, and even so most Flamengo fans consider Leandro more complete and better, unfortunately he had a career short and did not go to Europe My Top 10: Djalma Santos Carlos Alberto Torres Thurram Lahm Leandro Vogts Cafu javier Zanetti Kaltz Gerets
Pra mostrar pra vocês que não é a toa que estou falando veja um artigo publicado citando Leandro , e também um video de alguns lances dele pra quem gosta de futebol bem jogado Os craques ofuscados na seleção de 1982 | GGN (jornalggn.com.br) excerpt from the article How many teams / teams in the world were able to gather in their teams, stars like Júnior, Leandro, Falcão, Cerezo, Sócrates and the great Zico…? Remembering that any one of them would be able, alone, to change the outcome of a game. Together, they were almost unbeatable! In football, as we have seen, the “almost” is an ever-present hypothesis, always there, causing scares, surprises that nobody believes, only later, stunned, when the unlikely becomes reality… It was the case of the team against Italy! I remember Cerezo talking about years later, about that team, although I totally agree with him, I was happy and surprised by his comment, when asked about the stars of that team. He talked about everyone, but stopped at Leandro. He said with all clarity, that the whole team drooled, in training, with the refined technique of the side, that he was so magnificent, that he had the unanimous admiration of his teammates. It is no small feat ... In fact, Leandro was for me, who saw him on the field dozens and dozens of times, the supreme of the refined technique of playing football. His precarious physical condition, like Reinaldo, stopped him early, and betrayed him, in the sense of not allowing him to develop his full potential. With the health of a Cafu, probably Leandro would have been the best right back in the world. But… but… Reinaldo, it was Reinaldo! What a tremor it gave me, on TV, or at Maracanã, when I started with the dominated ball, the technique, the mastery of the ball, creativity, diabolical, sorcerers, destroying the defenses, how many times, the defense of my Flamengo, shutting all the stadium, which so often applauded him on his feet, unable to hate the ace! Well, for me, and there is no one who can get it out of my head, REINALDO'S ABSENCE WAS THE ONLY REASON FOR THE LOSS OF THAT CUP! Ah!… How I believe it!… The gods of football, have their whims… Certainly, they loved Zico, the genius, Socrates, the outstanding, Leandro, the most technical, Falcão, the extra-class, Cerezo , the golden peladeiro, Júnior, the successor to the Encyclopedia…. But they were enraged by the tyrannical and arrogant Telê Santana, who, much more for personal reasons, personal tantrum, than for the bruise he was healing from, stopped taking our Garrincha from the 70s / 80s
Leandro's videos to get an idea of your ability Leandro Lateral Direito do Flamengo - YouTube Leandro - O maior lateral direito da história do Flamengo (PARTE UM) - YouTube Leandro - O maior lateral direito da história do Flamengo (PARTE DOIS) - YouTube
Dennis Bergkamp for me is absurdly underrated, 37th among forwards? For me he is one of the best ever, in general not only among forwards, control out of time, incredible assist man, skilled with dribbling (not on trick but with dribbling) but never unnecessary or superfluous and great finisher, what more can you ask from a forward? In my opinion, to make certain lists we should consider much less the palmares than the real abilities of a player, or else players who have played in great teams or players who have suffered refereeing favours over time will be favoured, I love old football but it is not possible to judge a 19th century footballer as better than the ice man, a bit like Vladimir Beara who if he had won (and could have) the Ballon D'or instead of Lev would be remembered exactly like him, statistics and palmares are just numbers, numbers should be left to Ramanujan or John Nash, football is something that goes beyond numbers, I don't think you have reviewed documentaries or matches of every single footballer in the list, and I know this because the first match was filmed only in 1901, I myself have never seen a whole match pre-1928, also Preud'homme is underrated, but I don't want to criticize every choice you make, because football is full of variables and everyone thinks more or less in their own way, but that's also the beauty, for example for me Johan Cruijff is not at all below Pele, but that's another story, I think that when you try to create such big lists you will end up creating lists that actually do not make much, to criticize without even having tried is hypocritical I know, and I also know that if I went to create similar lists would be the same incomplete, uneven and not appreciated by all, This would also be dictated by the fact that as a European and a lover of 70s football I would tend to include many players from that era and that region, I know how much work there is behind these lists (or at least I imagine it) so I will not make a drama of it, but ultimately I can say that Dennis Berkgamp is undoubtedly the most underrated footballer in history.
Dennis Bergkamp is underrated; he is on the level of some of the all-time greats and ranks at the level of Zinedine Zidane and Michael Laudrup for me. You mention Cruijff being better (or at least equal) to Pele; it would be interesting to hear your case for him, as, in my eyes, he's the 3rd greatest in history, only behind Pele and Messi.
Well, @comme himself already explained that his list consists on peak performance + longevity + achievements so this is self explained why Bergkamp isn't so high on his list (although there are some inconsistencies in his list following these 3 criteria)
Yes Comme did a good job with making multiple top 100 lists even if i disagree with the criteria and some rankings as i value individual brilliance (Big Games, Important Moments, Carryjobs etc) and Longevity + Consistency over Peak and Achievements also things like ability as maradona is one of the greatest in dribbling and passing and Carrying Napoli thats why i have him high on my all time list and someone else might have him low
I think a player's greatness is measured by the relevance he had in the titles he won. Ability per se means nothing if you don't achieve nothing with them. This "Maradona carried Napoli" is a myth. Napoli spent a lot of money on the summer, they had the best defense on the championship, other players scored the most important goals and they won games without Maradona. The seasons in which Napoli won the titles weren't even the best Maradona's seasons at Napoli
If I remember correctly comme did indicate somewhere that Bergkamp was one player that would rise up somewhat if/when he did the exercise again (maybe even verging on making the top 100, unless I mis-remember which would actually put him around where he'd had Michael Laudrup, though not Zidane). I don't think he was just placating Puck or something like that (I'm not 100% sure it was Puck who had asked about it), but probably the comment was based on reviewing the ideas about some of Bergkamp's seasons and/or tournaments (maybe peak level too, but I'm not sure). The comment about very old players compared to Bergkamp is interesting, and it's surely tempting to think we 'know' that no 19th century player can have been as good (I don't think that itself would determine by comme's criteria that none can go above him though as he was judging them moreso in their own eras I think, though absolute level may be considered a bit too possibly, albeit I think comme feels that it's not really possible to compare players that way from such different times anyway) - GO Smith or whoever - from the little I saw and read about Adolfo Pedernera I guess it's feasible to think he could have been in essence better than Bergkamp (he's not a 19th century player of course), even if my original assumption on that one would probably have defaulted to doubting he would have been - they had probably similar talents and roles anyway I guess.
Very interesting insight into this conversation. It is hard to compare older generations of players, especially pre-footage players, who we all rank highly, such as Alec James, Matthias Sindelar, Giuseppe Meazza, Hector Scarone, and many other talented dribblers, goal scorers, and playmakers. But in the case of Dennis Bergkamp, he possessed a level of talent that was rare even in the days of Ronaldo Nazario and Michael Laudrup. In my eyes, Bergkamp was one of the best playmakers in an era of stacked playmakers and was at the level of Zinedine Zidane at certain points of his career. I dont like comparing players from any era to another and the silly argument for "___ Couldnt do it in the modern era" or "____ Played with Dinosuars," so I cannot have a debate for someone like Nevile Cobbold, a fantastic dribbler, being worse or better than Dennis Bergkamp, but to shorten it down, I believe hes worthy of the ranks of Zinedine Zidane and Zizinho (both of whom I see around the Top 30 or Top 35 in my all-time ranking).
Yeah, I think I'm in the same kind of ballpark in terms of agreement on both the difficulty of comparing older players in literal terms, and the assessment of Bergkamp in his era. Possibly I'd see Laudrup as having a little more 'all-round' talent/aptitude, but I could see the argument against it (and purely technically maybe Bergkamp was slightly better or more complete even). Zidane maybe even had even more ridiculously good ball control, but again it'd be a close call surely on that one - what he perhaps had/did a bit more is take over/have a big influence on certain big games (which I think would be relevant for comme's rankings)?