Yes, I'm thinking that in English terminology maybe the closest reference would be playing 'in the hole' (and Italian terminology - trequartista), but it could be that he'd be referred to as a supporting forward according to the viewpoint of the observer I guess. In the old days of course teams had 5 'forwards' and so in later years the idea of the inside forwards perhaps became confused with the idea of the attacking midfielder in some instances. Taking Flamengo, it seems Zico played in support of a striker and two wingers. I guess at times early in Cruyff's career he actually played a not too dissimilar role even in function (but in a different way with different attributes) but the formation would have been described as 4-2-4 (with him as 'inside forward) I guess. Sometimes he did seem to be playing like a true forward/striker though maybe - perhaps away at Liverpool in 66/67 by the looks of it, but in other games he'd have more of a supporting/involved role given what we can see on highlights, and the fact he played with a centre-forward alongside/ahead, as well as wingers. Cruyff's role changed more and varied more through his career overall I'd say, and there would be more positions in which he could excel based on his attributes I think. Maybe their normal roles in the prime of career are comparable because both would be active supporting attacking players, who also scored goals. I can understand that nominally (looking at team formation) Cruyff would be seen as forward, but by function he almost became a midfielder or at least a hybrid (because of his movements on the pitch). Maybe Zico is a little bit the opposite - an AM (or 'in the hole') starting position arguably, but as much a scorer as provider by function. Maybe we should leave this one here now too though - I guess we all pretty much know the players and how they played, and we can all envisage for the purposes of this thread which roles they may suit (in a theoretical team, or looking at it another way regarding poetgooner's comments about best players vs best functioning team, perhaps in an all-star representative XI that at least resembles a team of players playing in roles suitable for them: I guess we are doing a mixture of those things or trying to find the best balance in our eyes).
We might yet get many more than 11 votes of course, but thus far this would be the progression/variation for first XI from the Placar (1981), Voetbal International (late 90s), World Soccer (a bit over 5 years ago) and Big Soccer (2019) results. I have given out shirt numbers according to those defined at the start of this thread, with conversion from the Placar results (probably 4-2-4 as per the chosen XI, with Cruyff placed as left winger), VI results (4-3-3 - I moved the CAM to be #8 and left mid to be #10 but in the wider sense it could be it was intended the opposite way round - it's depicted as a flat 4-3-3 but more of the anchor midfielders and box to box players were available to vote for as right midfielders) and World Soccer results (4-4-2 without a defined system). #1 Yashin-Yashin-Yashin-Buffon #2 D.Santos-C.Alberto-Cafu-Alves #3 N.Santos-Maldini-Maldini-Maldini #4 Di Stefano-Di Stefano-Di Stefano-Beckenbauer #5 Beckenbauer-Beckenbauer-Beckenbauer-Baresi #6 Moore-Rijkaard-Moore-Figueroa #7 Garrincha-Garrincha-Cruyff-Messi #8 Charlton-Cruyff-Zidane-Di Stefano #9 Pele-Pele-Pele-Cruyff #10 Puskas-Maradona-Messi-Pele #11 Cruyff-Gento-Maradona-Maradona
And as an extra, this is how the results from the Venezuelan source in 1974, as shown by Titanlux, would look in that format (based this time on a clear 4-2-4 seemingly whether or not voters had to stick to that, whereas with Placar voters used 4-3-3, 4-2-4, WM and more choices and perhaps the final team could be shown in 4-3-3 too for example, maybe meaning Cruyff at #10 and Puskas #11). #1 Zamora #2 D.Santos #3 N.Santos #4 N.Rossi #5 Beckenbauer #6 Moore #7 Garrincha #8 Gerson #9 Di Stefano #10 Pele #11 Gento I've showed Di Stefano at 9 and Pele 10, but it might be arguable and their normal numbers worn and/or perhaps Pele lining up to the left of Di Stefano might have decided it! I think in the reserve team according to my descriptions at the start of the thread it'd be more clear that Muller was #9 and Cruyff #10. On the other hand it was probably also touch and go between #9 and #10 for Pele in the Placar team and the World Soccer one (Puskas didn't seem to be being picked mainly as outright striker in votes though I thought, and Messi had been playing as a kind of false 9 mixed with striker I suppose but maybe Pele seems a bit more like a centre-forward in some respects even if he was an inside forward - support striker or trequartista). I didn't check closely whether #7 or #11 should go to Cruyff (as opposed to Maradona) in the World Soccer team, but I think although some voters went with quite clearly defined formations and 'balanced' teams, for lots of them it wasn't necessarily clear whether or not they'd picked a formation as such or just 4 midfielders and 2 attackers, so it might not be easy to decide based on the order names were written down.
I think this team from that World Sports magazine poll even has Pele as number 8 (but it's using WM as a format): Yashin (69), Djalma Santos (57), Facchetti (38), Bozsik (45), Wright (38), Beckenbauer (44), Matthews (40), Pele (76), Di Stefano (68), Puskas (44), Charlton (37) Number of votes (out of 80) in brackets. Maybe Beckenbauer would be #5 and Wright #6 (if number 5 is 'covering defender') even though it's shown vice versa.
Leaving Beckenbauer at #6 for the World Sports one (like I said it was picked in WM seemingly and he might be viewed as midfielder even by a majority of voters, so giving the deep-lying wing-half slot to him seems right probably), and adding those 1970s polls onto the front of the timeline: #1 Yashin-Zamora-Yashin-Yashin-Yashin-Buffon #2 D.Santos-D.Santos-D.Santos-C.Alberto-Cafu-Alves #3 Facchetti-N.Santos-N.Santos-Maldini-Maldini-Maldini #4 Bozsik-Rossi-Di Stefano-Di Stefano-Di Stefano-Beckenbauer #5 Wright-Beckenbauer-Beckenbauer-Beckenbauer-Beckenbauer-Baresi #6 Beckenbauer- Moore-Moore-Rijkaard-Moore-Figueroa #7 Matthews-Garrincha-Garrincha-Garrincha-Cruyff-Messi #8 Pele-Gerson-Charlton-Cruyff-Zidane-Di Stefano #9 Di Stefano-Di Stefano-Pele-Pele-Pele-Cruyff #10 Puskas-Pele-Puskas-Maradona-Messi-Pele #11 Charlton-Gento-Cruyff-Gento-Maradona-Maradona Pele is the one clearly making all 6 selections, but Di Stefano and Beckenbauer got enough votes in every edition too. Various players in recent selections, including the current one on this thread (the one of those above that might still change), made their debuts or were born after 1970 though, and some such as Cruyff were mid-career in those early 70s years. The formations specified/allowed make a difference too in a few cases probably.
I've seen Maradona playing on the left in Argentinos Junior and Boca Juniors, when he was the best in the world. There is no better player, running by the wing and crossing than Maradona, but he can also make the diagonal play without problem. Of course, his natural position is the No. 10.
Thierry Henry, who never scored a goal in any final, a greater striker than the likes of Romario and Van Basten (Cruijff in a B team also typical for you; similar to your generational lists with bad ass Ibra so inflated). Really? Surely, like Peru FC, you don't rate dutch footballers... What did Bobby Moore do that Krol didn't? What did Figueroa (typical call for latins) in his career that Baresi did not. These lists feel like a copy paste of Peru FC his work. And no, Maradona was not categorically the world's best player in 1979 or 1980. Take a look at his goals and assists against the world's best teams. Tells the story.
My mistake … van Basten deserves the striker position in team C. I don't have your shit sentimentality. I am not interested in the nationality of the players, only in their performance. Now, show me your impressive list. Figueroa was more regular in his entire career from the middle of the 60's to late of 70's. He managed to be the best in the world, possibly in two years 1975 and 1976 and Baresi didn't. Figueroa reached a higher peak and I consider with slightly better defensive and offensive skills. Your comments are also a copy of the comments made by a friend of mine who knows nothing about football and is a complete jerk. You should watch more of Maradona in those years.
Show me a source that really saw Figueroa as the best player in the world in 1975 and 1976. They don't exist as far as I know. @Titanlux @schwuppe
Really? If it is well known that Elías Figueroa was the best defender and player in South America in 1975 and 1976. In those years, being the best in South America or Europe meant being a serious candidate to be the best player in the world. There was a huge parity in this regard ... who do you consider the best European and South American players in those years? In my opinión, from Europe, Franz Beckenbauer and Oleg Blokhin were the best, and the best in South America Roberto Rivelino and Norberto Alonso, this for the year of 1975 ... with respect to the year of 1976, from Europe again Franz Beckenbauer and Rob Resenbrink, from America Roberto Rivelino and possibly Daniel Passarella. None of them seem better than Elías Figueroa in both years. Curious to ask that, if precisely Elias has many individual awards when he was in his prime.
They are 4 great teams. Maybe you could make a hole for Cruyff in the first team. On the other hand, historically Yashin and Djalma Santos have been considered, among others, as indisputable numbers 1 in their positions. They really have not left lateral in the modern soccer that, presumably, improved the qualities of their predecessors? I think it's time we can "renew" the lists ... even a little ...
Sigh.... 1) Winning the yearly awards doesn't mean you are seen as the best in the world. See cases as Kaka or Modric recently. 2) Not even Placar said that. In 1976 they still said Cruijff is the best and most influential in the world, after he had played matches in Brazil (in which Figuaroa and Rivelino also played). Not even Placar themselves believed either Zico or Figueroa (playing for a Brazilian club) was the world's best player. There are no credible sources claiming that about Figueroa, let alone consistently. Most importantly, not even Placar in Brazil itself.
It is true. The young version of Diego Maradona (that of Argentinos Juniors, Boca Juniors, the Olympic Argentina, the 1979 Copa America and other matches between 1980 and 1981...) it seems to me that he had exceptional mobility to appear by either band not only as an improvised wing-forward to cut inside (as a trequartista), but as a kind of winger who was able to transit that sector and launch wonderful crossings. I also remember him in similar episodes in Barcelona. I think those 3 could form the most formidable line of attack behind a centre-forward, each occupying a different sector and coordinating the movements in each form of offensive raids, but perhaps with the rest of their team built around and for them.
The reality is that - for all the class and talent - by that point he had only 1 goal and a negligible amount of assists (0 or 1) against the real top teams for the national side. The team that was world champion. For the club it is the same story, except a couple of great games against domestic top team River Plate - in an unfree league where generals habitually interfered. It's also a team that prided itself for the open nature of their play instead of grit and defense. Once again the mythology - "best in the world" - is stronger than the tangible facts. Meanwhile, for sure Elias Figueroa, handicapped by his playing position, was never really seen as the best player in the world, not even by Placar itself in games the adopted son played against other world stars. Obviously decades of bombardments have altered and shifted the views.
In my opinion, it is very interesting to see how Figueroa has a resistance almost by inertia (which has nothing to do with the usual issue of South Americans vs. Europeans because I also had it a few years ago, especially because of disbelief). Of course, there is nothing similar to conclusive evidence that determines that he was the best player in the world among 1975 and 1976 (there is no need to explain why, I suppose), but there is certainly enough evidence that it could have been and/or is a very feasible candidate for it (exceptional skills, memorable moments, individual awards...) which can be checked without any alteration, as if he were even an older footballer with much of his career plunged into darkness. About his career, yes, it shows somewhat impressive and long-lasting in high level not only in Brazil, but also before with Peñarol and then with a humble, but highly impacted Palestino and a final with a gold clasp with Colo-Colo. What I think also gives him some advantage in how the thread is raised is that he could be adapted as a covering defender or stopper or supporting defender or marker with a possible same degree of efficiency (even as libero or anchor midfielder).
About Djalma Santos, I think is difficult to object or affirm because it seems very difficult to make a detailed follow up to his entire career. In general terms, he seems to have been an impressively consistent figure for almost 2 decades, have had enormous international prominence and was basically a defensive portent despite being able to project (which polishes him as a balanced defensive/offensive option). In theory (with some assumptions included), I think he seems to have less "buts" than other modern options (Cafu or Dani Alves) (I'm surprised about Dani Alves's acceptance in this thread).
It's hard for me to understand what you're based on an/or what is your point, but according to BDFA Maradona, between 1979 and 1981, scored 97 goals in 111 matches (0.87 goals per match) and made 50 assist only in the Argentina League.
Maradona still had to prove at international level and was disappointing at the World Cup '82 apart from the game against Hungary (with that red card too). Perhaps the team was not renewed enough post-78 apart from him+Diaz and that the cohabitation with Kempes and Passarella was not easy (technically and in their relationships, especially as to know who's the leader with the captain). He was for sure extremely talented like never seen since much time and was for sure the most expensive. He was supposedly the best in the World but it remained to be proven. For example, the journalists knew that when typing "the most expensive player in the world" and not necessarily "the best", what could happen too ofc. You can't be the best in the World until you won something significant, it's true for all the players. Then Pelé was part of this World Cup winning team at 17 years old, a chance that Maradona did not have in '78 (we know why) but the facts are what they are. That's his story. Winning it in '86 after all these difficulties (included at Barça of course), this is what is fantastic. If he was sometimes considered the best in he World from '79 to '81, in '82, everybody calmed down a bit about him. Or well, started to talk more about the character btw, since at Barcelona. Another maneer to sell papers.
I think this last paragraph (I included the first one too so it's clear who is being discussed) can be relevant in some selections perhaps (but only the voters could confirm), although I guess it's also splitting his vote between #5 and #6. It can also be a bit unclear which partner is more the covering defender, or 'last man' type of defender, especially when understandably some votes come in with two centre-backs very much in a partnership or just with a RCB and LCB without clearly defined individual roles. I am of course still keeping track of votes so am just about to add Odiseo's A-Team to my spreadsheet. Unless he says otherwise I'll go with Figueroa as #5 and Beckenbauer as #6 (I could easily envisage otherwise with Beckenbauer as sweeper, but he's not shown behind Figueroa in the diagram so I'd be thinking he'd be more of the one who leaves the defence occasionally to bring the ball forwards but not from a position behind Figueroa...so more like the converted wing-half as per my descriptions and Bobby Moore 1966 example, hence a 'supporting defender' which is a term referred to by English sources of the 70s for example in the post wing-half era).
Part of the problem here is that the mid 70s seems a fairly obvious time when South American football was in the doldrums, after Pele and before Zico/Maradona. At the 1974 World Cup Uruguay finished bottom of their group, Chile just ahead of Australia. Argentina won one match in the tournament against Haiti and Brazil only edged out Scotland on goal difference. When you look at who Figueroa beat in those years it's hardly a roll-call of superstars.
Not sure about this. Ronaldo Luis was seen as such before he won something significant, before he won even a national league title. Of course he's also someone with a strong marketing machinery and the clout of the FIFA behind him, playing for the world champion (too). But then again, although he was a 'striker', Ronaldo had already his goals against top teams in international games for club and country alike, and although he was still erratic, there was visible influence. That makes it a lot more defensible and tangible to me.
You miss the point (and relevance) of doing it against the big boys but nevertheless thanks for that info. The 'midfielder' who had twice as many goals as assists, despite taking virtually all the corners and indirect free kicks.
Just looking through the overall votes, there are some things that stand out. 1. It doesn't make sense to me at all that Di Stefano get so many votes for the #4 role. I feel like that's just abusing his reputation as an all-rounder to fit in as many all-timers as possible, with little regard for how he'd actually operate in such a role. 2. Staying with the #4 role, I know that Beckenbauer played this role, but I do wonder what did he achieve in this role that would put him over someone like Busquets. It's one thing if you prefer a Rijkaard in this role as he's a completely different type of player altogether. However, if you're looking for that deep cover midfield who drops deep to pick up the ball, carry it up, and pass it forward, why would Beckenbauer has a case over Busquets? 3. It is very interesting to me that not a single out-and-out no.9 was picked. Not Muller, not Romario, not Basten, not Ronaldo.