What is the difference between all those categories? Between forward, deep-lying forward and attacking midfielder?
hauah This would be a surprise. In the last friendly game, he came back and showed to us more of his typical performances in the National team.. I´m really tired of him in the NT, the guy had +90 caps, it´s unbelievable. Now, let´s hope he, at least, give some good passes in the next games.
I am sure you know ... but to challenge Peru for his classification! While I agree with Peru that Leonidas was absolutely a great center forward (like Romario, Ronaldo) but he was no Pele, Tostao as deep-lying forward or attacking midfielder (playmaker to be specific) Bebeto was a "pure forward" , and he was not a deep-lying type, and far off from Pele/Tostao type 1- AM *operate mainly from midfield but got license to go forward in attack to score goals: (Bobby Charlton, Dirceu, Paul scholes, Gerrard, Hasler, Rivaldo, Dorjkaef, Ballack, Iniesta, ...) 2- AM/Playmaker: Operate from midfield to organize , control MF and playmake in attack: Didi Zizinho, Kopa, Zico, Platini, Socrates, Rivelino, Zidane, Laudrup, (Pele Di stefano later stage) 3- Deep-lying forward/playmaker : operate as a forward but often withdrawn to MF to control and do playmaking : Pele, Tostao Puskas Di stefano Cruijff, Mazola Bergkamp Gullit Totti ... NOTE: there is a slight grey area between deeplying FW and AM in playmaker roles : starting line up. During games pretty much similar depends on player style!
Those concepts remain difficult to standardize to many players. For example, despite I'm agree with each short explanation there are some mentioned names I'd place mainly in another role: 1. Attacking-Midfielders: Diego Maradona, Michel Platini, Zico, Zinedine Zidane, Bobby Charlton, Rivelino, Gianni Rivera, Michael Laudrup, Sócrates... 2. Mediapuntas (former Deep-Lying Forwards, I changed its name because probably wasn't the most suitable in English to show my point of view): Johan Cruyff, Alfredo Di Stéfano, José Manuel Moreno, Zizinho, Adolfo Pedernera, Valentino Mazzola, Fritz Walter, Ronaldinho, Rivaldo... 3. Forwards: Pelé, Ferenc Puskás, Roberto Baggio, Giuseppe Meazza, Lionel Messi, Matthias Sindelar, Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, Ladislao Kubala, Tostao...
While I do not disagree total, it's a common MISTAKE to label Pele, Puskas and Tostao as "pure FW": In playing style on REAL PITCH they played exactly like those Cruijff, Di Stefano Moreno Zizino .... Just because most "european fans" watched more of Cruijff and (probably) Di Stefano (than Pele, Tostao ) to have concluded so. In fact , 1- Cruijff and Tostao were more of a FORWARD/playmaker than a Pele ever was. 2- Pele and Di Stefano shared very much the same playing style and career path: 40% early career as forward, and 60% later career as deeplying forward/AM/playmaker
I'm not considering them as pure forwards, they could be considered in more than just only one category but I think it would be their main role. Puskás and Zizinho were different type of players, Puskás played primarily like an attacker while Zizinho was an all-round midfielder who could play as an attacker, they're far to play so similar. An important characteristic in my own categories is almost all the "mediapuntas" could be the classic playmakers of their teams (classic number 10) but not too many forwards (as Puskás, Meazza or Rummenigge). On the other hand, almost all the forwards could be easily considered the centre-forwards of their teams (again as Puskás, Meazza or Rummenigge) but not too many "mediapuntas" (as Zizinho, Ronaldinho or Rivaldo).
did you really watch many of Pele games? both Pele and Puskas played much deeper than you THINK! They both played at least behind 1 to 2 and even 3 FWs and only 1 or 2CM (max) behind them Cruijf was indeed a center forward in starting line up (with 3 CM behind him), he withdrawn in midfield (like Messi now) or sometimes drift to the left (like Henry at Arsenal). In average heatmap he was in MORE ADVANCE than Pele Only at Real (in his older days) yes Puskas played more like a forward. But his previous 14yrs as inside forward in 2 3 5 = AM/playmaker
Yes, I could watch many games of Pelé despite many of them are from his last stage in Santos and in the United States when he was already playing as a "mediapunta", maybe that's the reason because you think he was a deeper player. At his prime he was an attacker, obviously with a great displacement on the pitch but more important in the definition than in the distribution and creation and there is the great difference between the roles of him and a primarily "mediapunta" as Johan Cruyff. On the other hand, Ferenc Puskás was never a playmaker. In the old pyramidal system he was the type of inside-forward who is more like a second striker nowadays, a player who took turns at the position of the centre-forward with Sándor Kocsis with Budapest Honvéd and Hungary. In his older days at Real Madrid he became a striker.
If we would have to classify them by mainly general positions I'll agree, Cruyff as midfielder and Pelé as attacker. Being more specific I'd would classify them thereby: Johan Cruyff: MP*, FW Pelé: FW*, MP Ferenc Puskás: FW*, CF
I don't know exactly what you mean with the term mediapunta but why do you not consider Maradona as a mediapunta? Didn't you classify him as such at your all-time Argentina thread? In this video (also mentioned in other thread) he himself explains in his own words the difference between him and a 'clear' midfielder like Platini His coach also refers to him as a 'forward'. While Maradona was certainly no forward in the mold of Rummenigge and Messi (your type of 'forward'), the coach Bianchi says that he plays in front of his midfield, liberated of duties. It is the part starting at 18:00.
Because Diego Maradona played also as the mastermind at the midfield of his teams. I think he could be classified either as attacking-midfielder or "mediapunta". Exactly the same for Michel Platini and Zico.
Zico played more advanced isn't it? He certainly did not play deeper as Cruijff (average position on field).
First of all, there is a BIG difference in ROLE , POSITION and STYLE 1- Position: Cruijff was a center forward the MOST ADVANCED player in his teams (be Ajax or Holland) Pele and Puskas were 2nd or 3rd advanced player in their teams (except when Puskas played for Real) 2- ROLE: Despite of the difference in POSITION of them, their role for the teams are VERY SIMILAR. They were all the spearhead attacker of the team (in goals and assists) and also the participated in midfield control and ball distributions. 3- Style: Out of the three, Cruijff style pressed more "authority" in midfield and the whole team then Pele and then Puskas. IN early 50's time, the term "playmaker" NEVER existed so that Puskas was not considered as one. However in Hungary team and at Honved, he was the KEY player to create chances and scoring goals for the team. ============================================ For Zico, he was an AM period, He played deeper than all Cruijff Pele Puksas and even Di Stefano in term of "percentage" of the time, and space (>15yrs for Flamengo). ONLY at Udinese (home games <20games) and for Brazil NT <70games, that he played more advanced (since he got Falcao, Cerezo and Socrates covering his back)
Probably you're clarifying a very English textual terminology but I can't see much sense about the difference you're trying to establish about the position and the role. It seems me clear that in the context of the discussion the word "position" is referring to the role of the player and not about the specific space where the player is on the pitch. The style seems me a complementary characteristic. At this point, I mean Ferenc Puskás wasn't never a playmaker not only because the term didn't exist at his time but by a modern analysis. For example, in old terms the centre-forward of that Hungarian team was Nándor Hidegkuti but in a modern analysis he was a type of "mediapunta", the closest player to being the playmaker of "The Mighty Magyars".
This shows it for the game against Argentina in 1974, according to OPTA (blue dots) Unfortunately it doesn't show the amount of times he touched the ball in his own half. [He wasn't entirely fit in that game btw] To state it clearly: I disagree with PeruFC (when compared with other players like Zico)
First of all, This is for pure discussion purpose as we learn from each other due to lacking clear footgae and tangible proof about the older generation players (before 80s). I by no means to criticize to make a big deal. Hidegkuti was playing as a FALSE NINE in that full attacking teams, yes, but because Puskas was a much more threat in scoring goals than Hidegkuti was. (they were like Zico and Falcao) Hidegkuti (or Falcao) was NOT a better #10 than Puskas (or Zico) if not saying the other way around. In old days, the confusion is due to the FORMATION and (starting line ups) of 2 3 5 , or 2 3 3 2 (of Hungary). NOTE: INSIDE FW in those formation = AM (since there is NO term of attacking midfielder at time). * Puskas was a inside forward and playmaker in ATTACK for Honved and Hungary (like Ronaldinho at Barca 04-07) while Hidegkuti was more like a CM link up or midfield organizer (like Deco for Barca in mid 04-07) - Hidegkuti was exactly like Cruijff, position as CF (#9) but in real pitch they both operate like an AM. The only DIFFERENCE was the Cruijff was the Captain and leader of the team, NOT Hidegkuti, but Puskas. (like Zico playing more advanced for Brazil and puskas for Hungary, it did NOT mean they were NO #10 ) - Puskas (or Pele or Di Stefano) they position as a FW but on real pitch they played more like AM as well. Unfortunately there is NO HEAT MAP for those veterans
I agree mate, it will always my spirit in this type of discussions. I think it's a wrong comparison, Falcao was primarily a deep-lying playmaker and his similar in that Hungarian team was by sure József Bozsik, not Nándor Hidegkuti. That's wrong mate, not all the inside-forwards were attacking-midfielders, there were different types of them. For example, Peñarol at late 40's had Schiaffino and Hohberg as its inside-forwards but they were different type of players, Schiaffino was the playmaker and Hohberg the forward by sure. Players like Alberto Ohaco, Anton Schall, Manuel Seoane and many other were also inside-forwards without main playmaking characteristics but forwards or strikers.