Big Soccer members World Best Player of the Year 1950-2009

@PDG1978 @comme @peterhrt @wm442433

OK, made a few changes;

Stanley Matthews (somewhere between 1945 - 1952)
Ferenc Puskas (1953 - 1956, 1960)
Alfredo di Stefano (1957 - 1960)
Didi (1958 - 1959)
Pelé (1961 - 1971)
Eusebio (1965 - 1968)
George Best (1968 - 1969)
Johan Cruijff (1970 - 1978)
Franz Beckenbauer (1975?, 1976)
Diego Maradona (1980, 1981, 1986 - 1990)
Karl-Heinz Rummenigge (1980, 1981)
Zico (1981, 1982)
Michel Platini (1983 - 1986)
Ruud Gullit (1987 - 1989)
Marco van Basten (1988 - 1992)
Lothar Matthaus (1990 - 1991)
Roberto Baggio (1993 - 1995)
Romario (1994 - 1995)
Ronaldo (1996 - 1999)
Zinedine Zidane (2000 - 2003)
Ronaldinho (2004 - 2006)
Cristiano Ronaldo (2007 - 2008)
Kaká (2007)
Lionel Messi (2009 - current)


Anyone input on George Weah in 1995? Someone else?

 

I agree although I think in some cases venue and opponents helped. For example Didi 1958-1959 was 'helped' by winning it in Europe (didn't happen before or since). After that he was dubbed in many circles 'the world's best player'. When he went to Real Madrid, he was also welcomed on the airport with such banner by the organization/municipality - this is a fact. Cruijff was helped by winning all games against the 'big three' of South America. This impressed El Grafico and they in fact said he was the 'Rey' (remember that Brazil was #1 in Elo and had won against West Germany in Berlin the year before). Tim Vickery has also mentioned this important context. International friendlies in those times could still mean something a bit; see the recent discussion on the 1977 friendly between Brazil and West Germany in the 'retrospective Ballon d'Or' thread (re: Zico).

As helpful and important as the World Cup was between 1958 and 1998, I also think it was not 'everything'. See for example the Placar all-time list of 1981 (or Planete Foot of 1996). That arrangement doesn't fall out of the sky however and therefore I like to investigate the media ideas. Of course the WC was important for the dominant perception, as is also reflected in the list I tried to make.

 

From what I recall I would say Weah yes, probably until Ronaldo starts really impressing early in his Barcelona career (mid to late 1996 - around the same time Weah actually scores his length of the pitch dribble goal of course). Baggio was probably seen as a declined player, and the verdict would have been in Weah's favour when they played together I think (whether initial expectations might have been that Baggio would be more the number 1 star or not). I think Baggio, had he been as in his Juventus prime, might still have been given the verdict potentially, but I think it's a bit different to the Cruyff case and he'd less likely retain the nominal notion of being the best around by that mid 90's period.

 

After Cruyff and Beckenbauer announce their international retirements in 1977 the mainstream media focuses its attention elsewhere. Rivelino is as consistent an NT performer as any but is viewed as another of yesterday's men. Keegan's move to Germany provides a good story, but he is never considered a world-beater. Nor is Simonsen. In Brazil a rare talent emerges in Zico, who is a candidate for best player until he flops at the 1978 World Cup.

This is a mediocre tournament with no real stars. Kempes scores important goals for the winners and for a short while afterwards may have been viewed as world number one. In 1979 a young Maradona makes a similarly strong impression to Zico two years earlier. There is no viable European candidate. Another good year for Maradona in 1980 coincides with Rummenigge establishing himself as undisputed top European. These two are challenged the following year by Zico, whose performance in the Intercontinental Cup against Liverpool finally convinces sceptical European audiences. The 1982 World Cup, won by Italy, is effectively all about Brazil, and Zico consolidates his number one position.

English clubs continue to dominate the European Cup, but their best footballer, Dalglish, has two poor World Cups. Meanwhile Serie A has begun importing the top players again, making comparisons easier. Platini and Falcao are the stars of 1983, then the former shines at the Euros to take top spot in 1984 and hold on the following year after lifting the European Cup.

Maradona's 1986 World Cup and his Serie A title with Napoli the following year are the stuff of legend. How long does the afterglow last? Right up to the second Napoli title and 1990 World Cup? Possibly. Though the Euro 88 and successive European Cup wins of Gullit and van Basten render them strong candidates. After Matthaus gets the better of all three in Serie A in 1989 then at the 1990 World Cup, is he now the world's leading player?

 

This informed a bit my 'question mark' surrounding Weah (without really being definitive).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwL4ev1QI1K6VllfdV9jc1dqUUE/edit

As unfair as it probably is, I think it's probable Baggio and Romario carried the momentum until 1995 at least. Maybe that link is interesting for you.

Keegan was perceived by Guerin Sportivo, the British press, the Dutch press and apparently also El Grafico as a challenger in the lead up to the February 1977 Wembley match. Ofc he had probably an inferior team to both Beckenbauer and Cruijff generally, which did not suit him.
Keegan in turn tended to perform better than Zico in their head-to-head encounters (packed Wembley and Maracana stadiums; over 100000 people), as did Platini on the two/three prominent occasions he played against him in the 1970s... Rivelino though did impress against England in 1978 and also West Germany in 1977.
Media can be 'poor' but at the same time they're not insensitive to the matters of 'context', and weighing it. In a way the 'quality media' of the time was more sensitive to important questions of context than they're today.

edit: those Weah articles contain a few explicit/implicit hints.

 

Thanks - this is the game described in the top piece I think (also in full on Youtube actually):

Although I know that is early for the period we are thinking about - which hints did you find (maybe some in French?)?

From long-ish highlights maybe I felt Zico had more or better 'moments' than Rivelino vs England in the 1978 World Cup warm-up type match. I think he did have some such moments in the World Cup itself though, and maybe it was just that more was expected from him and also Platini overall in that tournament (interesting to see the comment about Platini in early 1978 being about where Beckenbauer had been in 1966).

 

This looks pretty close to popular perception from the 1990s onwards. Baresi and Maldini might also be candidates, establishing themselves as perhaps the best-ever players in their positions. I think Maldini would be ahead of Weah.

 

Well in the articles you find his background for example (from Africa, small country). Also that he was perennially compared to his predecessor in the #9 shirt at Milan, who scored in his worst season (1990-91) the same as Weah in his vintage season (1995-96). Also this was for a few reasons not entirely fair and it's sour that in a way a strength of Weah worked against him (Weah was as #9 not merely a goalscorer although in his vintage season he did score and assist well against Milan's primary rivals).

Roberto Baggio was at the time managed and promoted by IMG (also with the USA World Cup in mind), who were the masters and best in the business back then. Arguably this in turn fed back to the European/South American perception and media. Despite some creative players being very close to his level in 1992-93 and then more or less outperforming him between 1993 - 1995 (in particular the 1994-95 scudetto season, when he also lost his place in the Italy NT).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwL4ev1QI1K6RUU3SnhocTk1SzQ/edit
(this also includes an interview where he accuses Havelange of a few things, post-1995, and that probably doesn't help 'a return' though)

George Weah had not what we would call today a 'super agent' (neither had his predecessor though). In fact, as Marcotti literally wrote in his Capello piece, AC Milan signed Baggio for 1995-96 because other than local poster boy Maldini they hadn't a marketable figure, and not a marketable figure in attack. The AC Milan leadership thought they needed a credible figurehead for the attack, and as unfair as it was I'm note sure whether Weah was ever really that. The influence or 'power' of that leadership reached a grip around 1993-1994 (as did Juve's).

Anyway, maybe I'm wrong with this and Weah was actually put up there. I can't see what I don't see.

 

I'm thinking, despite some spectacular Champions League goals, it would not be at PSG that Weah held the status as contender for best in the world, but after he had moved to MIlan. Possibly mid 1996 is a better bet than the end of 1995 too even. I can see peter's take on it - Maldini more of a candidate - makes sense, although I think he'd be more taken for granted as an all-time left-back (already number 1 I'd have thought and even before mid 90's probably) wheras Weah did get hyped up and revered quite a lot at least I remember, while a Milan player.

I remember we discussed Baggio's high regard among Onze readers for 1995 (Uefa Cup of 94/95 possibly the biggest factor actually?) and no doubt among fans and media alike at that stage he was still thought of as a, if not absolutely the, top player.

Like you say, Weah did get a lot of assists early in his Milan career (certainly on a per game basis) - they wouldn't be counted up and listed in the media probably at that stage but he probably got credit for his part in setting up a lot of goals. And his media average ratings for 95/96 Serie A were at the top of course (although that is something different to being generally considered the best player).

I don't know exactly how the sentence is intended, but in this list of potential Arsenal signings from 1996 Weah's name is listed last, as if to say it's the most outlandish or potentially remarkable (more than Klinsmann) - I see a link between Cruyff and Arsenal there too although I don't think I ever read about that myself at the time!:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rioch-at-odds-with-the-system-1309564.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/a-graduate-of-the-global-game-1364848.html
(More insight on those rumous here - can search for Weah in search box - to be fair no specific mention of 'best player in the world' as opposed to 'player of the year' although the comparatively low fee mentioned as compared to Shearer's say would factor in his age and anyway it's said Milan would not want to sell and/or would want £10m+)
http://www.arseweb.com/96-97/rumours.html

Here it's said "10 years ago he was hailed as the finest player in the world" but only the author would know for sure if he's mainly referring to the Ballon d'Or itself (not every winner is really seen as the finest player in the world, and certainly not inherently the best for a period, however short, as you are looking for Puck):
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2005/sep/25/sport.comment2
That is retrospective though too of course.

 

Here are some on the internet available and relevant things dealing with the 1987 - 1990 period. Not necessarily 'mass market' publications but I try to take that into account in my estimation.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwL4ev1QI1K6M3Y0T3Z0ZmM0NlE/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwL4ev1QI1K6d1l3RUo3UlRvRDQ/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwL4ev1QI1K6emN2UC1DbTRYb2s/view

And a somewhat neutral perspective:
https://www.si.com/vault/1990/05/14...is-which-maradona-will-show-for-the-world-cup
(as far as 'neutral' exists; this video mentioned that the Los Angeles public would be leaning to South America)

France Football was in 1990 considering a global Ballon d'Or, involving 67 jurors representing the members of the FIFA around the world

https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/ol...-esp-1950s-1970s.2038892/page-3#post-35394827


I might try to summarize the pivotal moments that ensured his extension until 1990.. If I feel OK about it, in terms of decent completeness, I'll post.

 

Interesting; I've been looking through some of the things I mentioned on the previous page (Guerin Sportivo mainly, also helps for polishing the Italian language) and two particular records are interesting:

• 67 league games unbeaten at home between 18/03/1973 (rnd 25) and 20/02/1977 (rnd 23) in which Cruijff was suspended after one of the most controversial incidents during his stay, a suspension that cost them the 1976-77 league. The 'value' of this league record is increased by that the two foreigners weren't allowed to play in the domestic cup until the 1977-78 season - this is where losses occurred. During this run they were also unbeaten at home in Europe. There is one team that has done (way!) better and that is Real Madrid between 17/02/1957 and 07/03/1965. 121 unbeaten games at home in the league, which started and ended with a defeat to city rivals Atletico Madrid.
• 27 consecutive games (in official/competitive matches) without defeat was also a club record, until the Guardiola era extended it to 28. In 2015-16 season extended to 39. Also this 27 games run was ended by Atletico Madrid (in Madrid) when in rnd 32 the final standings were already secured.

Anyway, my idea doesn't really change tbh. Still not sure about 1975 (media perception).

I know that you personally were a bit surprised when viewing video yourself.

 

Yes, notable records. I guess refereeing could be more likely a problem for Cruyff/Barcelona in away games too (I know he wasn't happy with some fouls etc he was receiving).

My initial idea would be that although Cruyff wasn't having such a good season/year in 75 overall, that his status would remain given the previous season and World Cup, and not being 'past it'.

I can't remember which videos I might have been surprised by to be honest - sorry! Maybe you can just clarify which team/year etc (I think you refer to Barcelona 75, rather than Juventus 95, if I read correctly though).

 

I was definitely thinking about him (as Garrincha in 1962). For about half a year that might have been true. Also the comparison with Didi in 1958-1959.

But I quickly decided against it. I'm not dealing with the question whether 'the media' is correct, but here below for example some Shoot! articles.









More articles:
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/la-liga-rankings-1975-93.1813986/page-10#post-34788725
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/la-liga-rankings-1975-93.1813986/page-10#post-34827865

The perception that his 1978-79 season wasn't quite good enough for preserving or attaining "world's best" status is at least also backed up by the MD and Don Balon match ratings (not only in 'absolute' sense but also next to his former self, his team mates, other center forwards).

Maybe if he had extended his World Cup form with a 1976-77 or 1977-78 like club season then yes (in the way that it took a 'delay' before Eusebio and Platini were put up there with 'the world's best' too, despite delivering big time against top opponents in the years before).

 

I think that the Intercontinental Cup itself was on its own not the reason that skeptical audiences (mainstream journalists) were won over, since it was well-known around Europe that Liverpool didn't take it very serious and used it as a holiday... The IC was after the 1960s and early 1970s not that valued any more in Europe.

The reason was - I think - that Zico started to perform in tours against (big) European clubs from 1979 onward. But 1979 was also the year where Zico was infamously sent off against Argentina with a surrounding 'narrative' that didn't help him.

Most of all from 1980 onward the Brazil NT and Zico started to build their legacy and fame. Instead of perceived to be outperformed by Keegan, Rummenigge and Platini they became top favorites at the bookmakers for the World Cup, with Zico donning the 'magical' number 10 shirt. In 1980 (and the January 1981 Mundialito) Zico missed a few games however and with him they didn't win against Poland (1-1 in Sao Paolo) and Soviet Union (1-2 loss in Rio de Janeiro). In the other games he played they won twice against Paraguay and against Chile.

The first half of 1983 is also an option but after that I don't think so (despite him winning the World Soccer player of the year vote). Not helped by Platini's surge in the second half of the 1982-83 season and beyond, for a better and bigger club. Even Placar got convinced. Zico also played only one national team game between july 1982 and june 1985.

1981, 1982, first half 1983.

 

This looks fair. You also see this reflected in the 1984 FF list and the 1990 France Football above (or the 'Super Ballon d'Or' of 1989). Neither Keegan or Rummenigge score well. Can't think of a single 1980s list where they did score well (the 1983 IFB list, Placar list). At the time itself the latter name was however still talked in those terms, in South America especially by Placar but also El Grafico I saw. He tended to perform well against South American teams which was a plus (in the January 1981 mundialito France Football rated Maradona and Rummenigge at a similar level at that moment, with Zico not present - in their h2h DM10 received a 4/6 and KHR11 a 5/6; Mundo Deportivo had as headline that Rummenigge was better).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwL4ev1QI1K6ZWZ5TUp5dGpMNWM/view

 

Another way to look at it - given the changed nature of the Ballon d'Or - is the dominance in any given year. The absolute points achieved and more tellingly the 'points/potential points'.

1957: Di Stefano 90% of possible points.

The following year Kopa reached 89% (just one point less), but after this no one got close, and this stayed the record for a while.

1971: Cruijff 89% of possible points.

The first since Kopa to get anywhere close again. With 116 points the first to get over 100 points (previous 'record' Charlton in 1966 with 81 points; Rivera 1969 with 83). In the full magazine comparisons with Pelé and Di Stefano flew around for abilities and individual career thus far (here excerpt). Between Kopa and him the best result was 80% and 74% of possible points.

1975: Blokhin 94% of possible points.

Oddly it was Blokhin to be the first over 90%. 122 points was a new absolute record. Helped by bloc voting (Comecon countries), weaker individual years by others, and the desire for someone new.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwL4ev1QI1K6YzFzejA3UV92alU/view?usp=sharing

1979: Keegan 91% of possible points.

A case that has been discussed often.

1980: Rummenigge 94% of possible points.

Exact same number of points and percentage as Blokhin in 1975. A year later he won again, with 81%. Paolo Rossi in 1982 was with 88% also pretty dominant.

1984: Platini 98% of possible points.

128 points was a new points record and he also received 98% of the potential points. This landslide is the sign of a new European King, with a dominant tournament at home and a strong club season at all fronts.

1988: Van Basten 96% of possible points.

A useful end of the 1987-88 club season (when Milan had the toughest fixtures), the euros and the beginning of 1988-89 saw a new absolute points record (129 points) and by far the closest result since Platini.


Points record:
Di Stefano (1957) 72
Di Stefano (1959) 80
Charlton (1966) 81
Rivera (1969) 83
Cruijff (1971) 116 [equaled by Cruijff 1974]
Blokhin (1975) 122 [Rummenigge 1980]
Platini (1984) 128
Van Basten (1988) 129

Points percentage:
Di Stefano (1957) 90%
Kopa (1958) 89%
Cruijff (1971) 89%
Blokhin (1975) 94% [Rummenigge 1980]
Platini (1984) 98%
Van Basten (1988) 96%


Looks decent, although it misses Eusebio, Best, who were certainly quite commonly in the world perceived as "world's best player" at a particular point in time.

 

This was a pretty interesting and prestigious friendly it seems, for which players were really motivated, that had an influence in the (media) perceptions at the time.
http://soccernostalgia.blogspot.com/2011/05/june-10-1987-italy-3-argentina-1.html

Anyway, those three links above are fine (post #1485).

 

Yes I'm the most 'vague' about Matthews his span.

I don't have the slightest idea for South America (nor Spain, by the way) but it is my understanding that Italy made Mazzola-Matthews comparisons. John Foot writes in his book that there was a nationalist revival shortly after the war, so popular perception might be a tad different to what GS or GdS thought. At the time there was also that famous England vs Italy encounter (4-0) which provoked many comments, before and after.

The Benelux countries were always in the 'Matthews camp' ("probably the world's most famous football player") although some were aware about perceptions in England itself (Finney) and that he wasn't every month brilliant. France seems to have had Matthews in similar regard, and in that respect it's no surprise he got the first Ballon d'Or in 1956 (ofc France Football had an exception in Max Urbini, later chief-editor).

There are also years where players got it by default, there was no intercontinental consensus at all, or no one got talked about it in those terms. 1975, 1979, 1995, 2003.

Another thing that is interesting and a help are who later pros mentioned as their 'idol' or example (assuming/knowing they're consistent). It dawned upon me when seeing ChizzyChissnall his 'notable players per year' list. From 1969 and before we see many who idolized Cruijff: Brolin (b. 1969), Ginola (b. 1967), Cantona (b. 1966), Weah (b. 1966), Vialli (b. 1964), Butragueno (b. 1963) for instance. The first to idolize Maradona are from 1971 (maybe 1970) and beyond as far as I can see. Litmanen (b. 1971), Zidane (b. 1972) for example. Rui Costa (b. 1972) and some earlier born players had Platini ("no doubt about it", said Rui Costa). That is also somewhat helpful I'd say for establishing (dominant) media perceptions.

 

Wanted to edit but can't do anymore;

Wanted to add;

Similarly, Thierry Henry (b. 1977) and basketballer Kobe Bryant (b. 1978) had MvB. Players of slightly lesser fame were idolized as well of course. For ex. both Bergkamp and Keane (born 1969 and 1971 respectively) had Glenn Hoddle as their boyhood idol.

 

--> in the 'anatomy of England' book it is however noted that the Soviets who toured England in 1945 were less convinced about Matthews.

"It was precisely that expectation that a winger should wait to be fed that led Mikhail Yakushin, the manager of the Dinamo Moscow side that toured England in 1945, to express reservations about Matthews. 'The principle of collective play is the guiding one in Soviet football,' he said. 'A player must not only be good in general; he must be good for the particular team. His [Matthews's] individual qualities are high, but we put collective football first and individual football second, so we do not favour his style and we think teamwork would suffer.'"

But like the first and second hand accounts I already saw, the book writes "Matthews his contribution was decisive."

Another such match, but pretty late in this span and with him at an advanced age, was the 1953 game against a FIFA XI (FIFA sanctioned but only European players). I mention this because I found now just a new one, that I hadn't seen previously, and needless to say who was singled out - as the biggest name at least.
http://leiden.courant.nu/issue/NLC/1953-10-22/edition/null/page/5
An attendance of almost 100000 and journalists from all around Europe.

 

Maybe @msioux75 knows more about Matthews his standing in South America at the time?

They must have had heard of him because when he was already 35 he was approached with a mighty offer to play in the Colombina rogue league of the early 1950s. It would have made him one of the best paid players, if not the best.

There's an excellently researched quasi-scientific book by Bill Murray - 'The world's game - a history of soccer' (1994). Mentioned as well in the Football Compendium. He, the American, writes: "The most famous name in football at this time [the first half of the 1950s], an age that boasted Di Stefano, Puskas and John Charles, was Stanley Matthews. By rights his career should have been over by the mid-1950s, for he was well into his his thirties by then, but an inspired burst of brilliance [...]"

 

Stanley Matthews had an unusual career which is sometimes misunderstood. Between his international debut in 1934 and the last match for his country in 1957, England played 120 official matches. Matthews appeared in only 54. He missed one game through injury and made himself unavailable for three more in his forties because he was coaching in Africa. On the remaining 62 occasions he was left out by the selectors.

Matthews' fame in England rocketed after the 1953 FA Cup Final. This was because millions had just bought television sets for the Coronation the following month so were able to watch the game live. He was now 38 years of age.

Matthews then capitalised on the publicity by travelling abroad regularly to coach, mainly poor black children in Africa. He took one of his teams on a trip to Brazil. Matthews' international renown was to a significant extent the result of this, and occurred after he turned forty.

Although his official England career spanned 23 years (sixteen excluding war), Matthews was only a regular selection for three and a half years in total: between November 1937 and May 1939, and between May 1947 and April 1949. He went to two World Cups, in 1950 and 1954, and was picked for three games out of six.

Before the 1953 FA Cup Final, Matthews had been chosen by England 33 times and left out on 50 occasions. He had not been picked for two years and nobody was particularly bothered about it. Had George VI lived another year or so, or Blackpool not reached the FA Cup Final that year, Matthews would probably never have represented his country again. It was only after millions had watched the dramatic match on television that there was a public debate every time he was left out.

The criticism by the Soviets (self before team) was no doubt politically-motivated, but it was a view shared by some within the game. Media and fans were generally more supportive. It is doubtful, however, whether anybody thought Matthews was the best player in the world after 1949.

 

When Matthews was still regular capped, he was viewed as the most iconic player of the "football teachers", but that isn't a first hand information.

I mean, after the war, the main european sides touring South America were austrian clubs, in that context, in South America (at least in Peru) the most highly praised player in the first half of the 1950s was Ernst Ocwirk, at least regarded as the world best Half of his time for SA, because of the euro top players he was tested in South American fields more regularly.

 

Thanks. I suppose Matthews his name and fame was still higher than the one of a Mazzola for instance?