Yeah, after my post I did think more about Ray Kennedy, Keegan etc, and I wondered when it really started and whether it was injury-related (rather than superstition or whatever)! Good info you've discovered there anyway! I remember going to this game, when Forest had a lot of injured players despite having a big first team squad (I think I went to Forest Reserves vs Liverpool reserves in the midweek afterwards, and virtually the same team played again, or something like that!): https://www.worldfootball.net/report/premier-league-1991-1992-nottingham-forest-aston-villa/ Gary Crosby wore number 5 (not his normal number) and played as support striker (not his normal role). The centre-backs were Nigel Clough (wearing his usual number 9) and Roy Keane (wearing his normal number 6, but at the time Forest had 4 and 5 as the centre-backs normally with 4 being Des Walker - for this game Orlygsson wore 4 and played in midfield - I think historically there was variation on whether English teams played number 4 or 6 in midfield because the original roles were right and left half and one of them became an outright defensive role and one an outright midfield one, but yeah number 5 in England was considered to be the centre-back - the number of the old centre-half from WM (deep-lying - basically CB) and before that (more of a creative DM I suppose) so that was different from Uruguay, Argentina, Hungary for a while etc as we mentioned). The other numbers did still correspond to a typical 4-4-2 though I think (Crossley 1, Laws 2, Williams 3, Black 7, Gemmill 8, Sheringham 10, Woan 11) and this was a temporary situation that didn't result in playing a centre-back wearing 9 and a forward wearing 5 for much longer (if at all)!
I think what is true re: Cruyff is that he can become an option for nearly all forward/midfield roles (depending on selected formation and envisaged system and style of play - if we're all looking at it like that as a theoretical actual team even though one that can never actually play a real game!). That helps to lead to every person so far having selected him I suppose (as well as that he was truly one of the great players for sure...and part of that can be his versatility and adaptability too). I think Puck will be happy to see him at the top of the 'most selected' list anyway definitely (it's easily understandable IMO, but I guess in the past in some polls it didn't go like that...perhaps when a rigid formation was suggested and he wasn't considered so much a choice as left winger for example or wasn't even allowed as such, so co-existing with Pele and Maradona might not be feasible in selections). I can see that Zico would likely be a #10 option (because it can also be support striker, not only attacking midfielder), although the system that I chose for my line-up (that I don't think anyone else has so far) does make #7 or #11 feasible, hence I ended up listing him as such in that guidelist that probably ended a bit short of wingers overall lol (but I don't see it as too likely that people would select him in that formation for the actual first choice all-time XI given other options...although of course they could and might even do yet!).
What I mean is: we often see Zico and sometimes even Pele classified as attacking midfielder while then Cruijff (and even Messi) becomes a forward or center forward. Or that Di Stefano is a midfielder in comme his list and then his 'successor' just a forward. This also in the context of previous discussions with Peru FC (years ago) where he claimed Zico was an attacking midfielder and Cruijff not. He really said this, while I think then Zico is a forward as well, with certainly not a deeper average position in his team or more passes of the ball (relative to the rest of the side). Fine to see those things different and let me remark in that 1974 list he is the only one of a country with less than 40 million people to be among those 25 names (just behind Pele). He is the 'real' underdog footballer in history. More important though is the presence of names like Scarone or Baggio who are realistically not close to an all time XI. Then I rather prefer more team orientated players like an Overath (who can hold his own vs Iniesta - high GI rating as well, among other things in his support like his chance creation) or a Bergkamp instead of another great individualist (Baggio) with a maligned career (for the big clubs). For deeper positions I was thinking of Roy Keane and Modric as in the wider orbit for an all time XI (next to Matthaus et al.). edit: not saying they aren't great players but realistically Baggio, as an individualist first and foremost, cannot compete with the top names here. He loses on all points and every possible criteria when placing him next to a Maradona.
Yeah, I know, or sense, that you might feel if Johan is judged as if he was a forward then maybe people can use goal stats to compare him to pure goalscorers (or Pele etc), and even that the label of midfielder can imply a creative role. I guess/hope that is not always, or often, the intention of people who would classify him as such though. I think in general there can be a bit of a disconnect between the European (or English say, not so much Italian where this idea of #8 and #10 was evident in the 1980s for example in terms of box to box player vis a vis trequartista type - potentially both called midfielders by some although I guess sometimes the number 10 would get bunched with attackers and Maradona sometimes did I think didn't he?) and South American tradition. The equivalent role to Zico's in English football for example when he played was probably support striker, but then a Dalglish would play differently to Zico in the sense of receiving the ball more often up front, to hold up and bring others into the play. Because Zico played in the hole mostly, I suppose he gets labelled attacking midfielder. The most attacking/creative midfielder in a 4-4-2 was basically a central midfielder, and often it would be two box to box players (neither attacking/creative or defensive/holding by nature). I'm guessing Peru FC took a really wide view with that list, and wouldn't seriously be considering the whole list of players for his first choice XI (it's easy to get carried away I guess; I even listed Laudrup more because I wanted to than because I really thought I'd be able to consider him, and Charlton to acknowledge he was a close option for example even knowing I haven't actually thought about putting him in...and that was when I was trying to keep my list concise - as much as there are lots of great options, most of us will feel fairly sure of a few players so will only be choosing for a few slots probably). The other point I guess is we'll all see things a bit differently, which is fine.
That is definitely true. Even more so, for someone like me, who places a premium on balance and synergy, Cruyff becomes what I consider "guaranteed but not priority pick". As in, for me, Cruyff will always lose out to Pele or Messi when it comes resources prioritization. I will always look to maximize those two over Cruyff. However, given the tactical versatility and all-round skill set of Cruyff, there is no good reason to leave him out. For example, I don't see the point of having both Maradona and Messi. There's only one ball to go around anyway. However, that kind of tension doesn't exist, for me, between Messi and Cruyff. Or Cruyff and C. Ronaldo. Or Cruyff and Xavi. Or Cruyff and almost any combination I can think of. I personally don't rate Cruyff as a top 5 all-time player, but when making the all-time XI, he was the 3rd pick I made after Messi and Pele.
So who is your top five then? Maradona with his one continental final, two league titles and otherwise crashing out early? Or is it Cristiano, Puskas and Di Stefano, which would make a lot of sense from a longevity perspective though let me remark again JC14 was consistently productive against elite teams at the age of 19 and still at the age of 37. Plus, Eredivisie was #2/#3 in the coefficients at his return in 1981. What you say though makes sense and is indeed a big reason for the facilitating influence he had on his teams, and he had still his value if it didn't flow all through him.
Oh, maybe that was a late addition (or I completely missed it when I repped the post - still a rep can mean recognition rather than agreement too)! Well, you know already Puck, but in my perception (maybe that's the best way we should put these things) I certainly do rate Cruyff as top 5. But I guess nobody should get too annoyed with others views and marginal calls, even if it can be natural at times - the original Bada Bing would surely feel some annoyance at me leaving out Messi lol for example!
I'm not sure Henry actually scores there does he (hard to see though at first glance, unless you thought you were posting a different video, but it mentions he is playing for sure and that might be confusing in the title/intro)? But nice by Zidane at 0:30 - maybe the kind of play that made me think I could consider him at LM/AM even though basically I have Cruyff pencilled in as clearly as anyone in my XI in that #10 role (the same one you put him in - I guess you did also use Christmas Tree now I think about it but maybe because you copied but adjusted my team to form your own!).
I think Cruyff could play on the left (from what I saw he would usually drop to the left)... but if I wanted to bet for crosses, I might try Cristiano Ronaldo over there.
I have been unable to do a single XI. In the style of FIFPro, I have chosen to build 5 different XI, using the practical proposal of PDG1978. Despite choosing 55 footballers, Bobby Charlton, Netzer, Pedernera, Kocsis, Gerrard, Schmeichel, Nesta, Rummenigge, Michael Laudrup, Gerson, Gento, Scarone have been left off the list.
Thanks mate for your input and enthusiasm too. Can I take it that team number 1 is your vote to be added to this thead, and the other teams are just because you wanted to add them and couldn't resist doing more? I guess so, but am just checking that it is not the case that you see the 5 teams as equal alternatives or something like that!
This looks quite good Yes I see Busquets, Figo as all time XI material as well and although some would be different (Gerrard in the wider orbit? By what parameters? Gullit?) this looks well thought out. With goals, assists factored in and also the fact they played for some low conceding sides too there is also a point for Passarella et al. yes. Compliments
You must understand that I cannot take your criticism seriously because it is evident that it is only due to the annoyance that you drag from other discussions, but I will answer some specific points. I do not pretend to be arrogant, but I have no doubt that is an excellent list of options, beyond a few difference of opinions or few debatable cases. Surely not for you, however, when I participated in that project (in a Spanish community) I noticed what was the effect of Baggio on a large number of people (partly because the majority who grew up in the 1990's). Over the years and according to my own observations, I seem to check the solidity of his case as a leading figure in his own generation and based on both his skills and the consistency of his career (discussed in the Greatest European Players thread). There is a perspective that maybe should be obvious. It is clear that it is not a list of all my own options (competing in the same position of Pelé I would be categorical in saying that Baggio has no option, like several others there), but of all those I believe could have an understandable case in different systems for personal tastes, preferences in styles of play and with a good basis about the relevance of his career. So, his case does make sense, although the possibility is remote for me.
I do not take you serious either, ever since claiming you watched all of Junior's 1984-85 games in the RAI archives. Omitting the topscorer and top assister of a top league from the first 100 names is something you'd never do with your favored nations. It's a very telling example. End of story. The support you draw from others only strengthens my beliefs. There is no real 'discussion' by you in that thread. There is only a season-by-season listdump by you and some flimsy supposition. The only coherent spelling out of his career (his penalties, his statistical influence, his Ballon d'Or rankings) is done by me there. You don't discuss at all his assists, his goals against top teams, his ESM votes, his accolades, his actual good games in Europe or what more. Of course, this is entirely in line with the type of factfree circles you are in. You yourself indirectly admit above it is exclusively based on emotion, the mythology, the lemmings who are susceptible to aggressive IMG marketing campaigns. Yes I named him as the best 1990s player overall (especially based on peak), but no, there is no way he gets ahead of the other individualists. He wasn't a team player with proper positional awareness and discipline.
I don't understand what sense you give to this excerpt, but I remember that you once argued about why Zico was not a midfielder, but a forward (from a somewhat strange position where you separated the categories sharply and ignoring the remarkable functions of Zico as playmaker, apart of being also a great scorer). Cruyff's choice as centre-forward is by position rather than by role there. It is an obvious excuse to be able to place him in that lineup and not leave him out.
You argued back then Zico was a midfielder in function and the other a forward in function but nevermind. I don't want to derail the thread.
Yep, I felt more sure that was your first team when I looked closer. Beckenbauer as anchor/central midfielder I think, unless as libero behind/alongside Baresi and Moore? My own selection wasn't even clear about that I suppose lol (since I gave a wing-back system as alternative formation to the Christmas Tree) but the more info/clarification the better I suppose! I think you have him in one of those roles anyway (and not Bobby Moore), and in teams 2-5 you just coincidentally/accidentally switched the number 4s with the number 6s (I noticed that they probably don't match my opening post descriptions since the midfielders are given 6...but no problem about that - just let me know of course if it was the same with Beckenbauer but I'm thinking it wasn't anyway). The change your vote makes currently is to place Di Stefano into the first XI at number 8, instead of Platini. It solidifies a few other of the currently selected players in the consensus XI though too, as things stand.
Of course, there is a complicated difficulty in how to put together an ideal XI of all-time because the positions and roles do not relate so well in so many different systems in which many players played and things can change according to what you want to do as priority (if you choose first a system and select on it or choose first the greatest stars and then try to mold the most of them into a system). If I chose the Christmas Tree system first and tried to select the best players to make sense to that system, maybe I would do something like that: BUFFON FIGUEROA ----------- BARESI - C. ALBERTO -------------------------------------------------------------- N. SANTOS BECKENBAUER ANDRADE ------------------------------------------ MATTHÄUS MESSI -------------- PELÉ RONALDO
Ohhh, maybe it'd be best to put this in spoiler tags and advise Puck not to look at it lol! But I guess it is your true view rather than an attempt to incite him because you are angry with him or something! If I make a comparison I think my version does have better 'attacking balance' in my view, but yours I can see has a good case for having better 'defensive balance'. In other words I have the creativity edge in midfield (and a player like Cruyff can make use of the left wing better than a Matthaus I'd say certainly), but your team might be more disciplined in that area and have the athletic edge (even with Andrade being such an old player, and with Cruyff certainly being quick and someone who could make slide tackles, use his brain well etc).
I can see you repped the post where I made the run-down of my Christmas Tree options Peru, so yeah I definitely know it was a genuine reply to me about that and you felt the more 'solid' midfield meant omitting Cruyff (while Puck actually didn't include Van Basten either of course, and Ronaldo can fit well in such a team I can see certainly). It is best actually if Puck and Peru take a break from communicating though I think actually for now as falling out further isn't going to make anyone happy I guess! I hope my attempt at humour in the above post didn't make anything worse in that respect.
Apart from this typical selections, that team would be ripped apart in real life. - Christmas tree formations playing it narrow typically use a striker who can hold up the ball and bring others into play. See for example Ibrahimovic under Ancelotti or Venables his England teams. - The hole in front of the defense isn't too well protected. Again, a player like Busquets who just sits deep or the mature Rijkaard (Ajax conceded only 4 goals that CL campaign, including one penalty) is a proper fit. Of course Matthaus could man mark players with the odd foul but was drawn out of position often. You just need a Gattusso here to make it work. - The backline has flaws as well. Two central defenders who like to sit back rather than be pro-active (though Figueroa could do it), three defenders who aren't good in the air and a Nilton Santos who is in many ways not particularly suitable for this. - Both Pele and Messi are 'too attacking' compared to what we saw in the real life versions of the christmas tree formation (e.g. even the dynamic Kaka is already different in this). It will not work.
It is interesting coming from you and not only about Germany (in this case). I have wondered many times what is the dimension of Neuer. I have a certain feeling that he could be the best goalkeeper ever about technical skills and accuracy in his resources, he has been with a high status for a decade (as if nothing) and the dimension of his career has few buts. I suppose it prevents me a little to include him in these all-time discussions as #1 because he is still active and with a relatively young age for a goalkeeper (33), especially considering that Buffon, Yashin or Zoff have lived many of their best episodes about this age or older and makes me expect something more from him. It may be an unfair expectation.