Certainly there is no player with a peak as high as Pelé or Garrincha of the 60's. But that does not mean that the level was not first level, for example ... in the period of 1974-1976 which is when Elías Figueroa reaches his prime, which central defenders would you consider the best in Europe? the best was Franz Beckenbauer without a doubt but who would the others be? Wladislaw Zmuda and Horst Blankenburg? At that time the best central defenders were in South America: Elías Figueroa, Héctor Chumpitaz, Luis Pereira, Alberto Quintano, Daniel Passarella, Júlio Meléndez, Atilio Ancheta, all of them superior at that time to Zmuda and Blankenburg. In all other positions it really seems to me that the level between South America and Europe was at the same level ... of course, in Europe some players were outstanding in their respective (historically) positions such as Johan Cruyff, Gerd Múller, Berti Vogts and Ruud Krol but even so, in 1975 and 1976, I don't see any of them with a higher peak than Elías Figueroa (another peak historically in the central defenders position). Obviously, if in those years there had been a player with a peak like that of Pelé and Garrincha of 60's or Zico of the early 80's, Figueroa would not have been the best, but that does not mean that his peaks were not higher to those of Baresi. Not even Cruyff or Beckenbauer could have been the best in the world with Pelé, Garrincha or Zico in their prime.
Puck, please don't reply to this! The last thing I want is for this thread to descend into a SA vs Europe bitter debate, and while Odiseo is entitled to his opinion, let's say it's not my perception, or I assume the majority perception that what I bolded above is true (from the perspective of their all-round games, but even for technique and skills I'd feel Cruyff > Garrincha for sure; not to add to any SA vs Europe animosity and not to do a disservice to Garrincha who was surely a very notable player in football history in his own right and one of the most outstanding wingers/wing forwards). If you like @msioux75 perhaps you can add a view on it (I'm kind of assuming you'd agree with my perception not Odiseo's here, but no problem if not of course!), but there's no need for Puck to feel compelled to answer (perhaps feeling emotional about the cliam) when like I say I assume it's not a majority view anyway (but again I'm not saying Odiseo can't have the perception, as long as he doesn't try to present it as fact and stoke up any antagonism). I know that Puck has seen reference to even Placar saying that Cruyff was still in essence the best player in the world in the late 70s (part of Zico's prime period in general) for example, so again I'll mention it here and then Puck doesn't feel the need to do it I guess!
Just to give a quick reply here too (I was preferring to leave it without adding my comments, but why not....) 1. Yeah, I was in two minds about allowing the selection (wm himself also had Tigana as back-up choice if deemed more suitable) but I think we have to allow for formations which don't contain an out-and-out holding player or anyone who screens deep in midfield primarily, and such formations have been used successfully in the past - such as 4-4-2 with two two-way players (and Platini is not completely alien to that kind of role as a proper midfielder, so him as #8 with Di Stefano as #4 seems ok to me as a theoretical deployment based on their attributes and how they played - I lean towards it being a proper selection with a view to how they'd play together rather than an all-star team selection without consideration for that...although as we discussed earlier there is scope to see this with an element of all-star selection in terms of wanting to pick the best players as opposed to the most functional system). 2. Yeah, this one applies to my own selection, and I was conflicted in some ways because although he played very well in WC66 for example as a box to box player (without an anchor player behind/alongside him...so in effect he was the anchor player if anybody and of course the one to be told to mark Charlton, even if that might have been the wrong call potentially if it restricted his own team more than England's although hard to know really), I was envisioning picking his libero version (of the 70s probably) but placing him as the anchor/central midfielder. So I'd be thinking his designated role would be to be the most frequent player sitting in between defence and midfield, and using his dribbling and intuition to periodically make incisions into the opposition half with the ball to try to open things up (with potentially Cruyff and even Platini covering him in certain situations...not to rule out joining in with him in the build up of the play too of course). 3. A couple of us did pick Van Basten. Perhaps I'll make the situation with the votes clearer by showing a full breakdown for each position, as things stand, fairly soon. I'll have to check but I wonder whether Ronaldo was picked too. The Van Basten picks were early in the thread anyway - maybe the first two selections including mine IIRC.
My point was, for that particular #4 role, hasn't Busquets both been the greater and better player in that role? I can see PDG's argument for playing the Libero version of Beckenbauer in that role. The skillset would certainly translate well. It just seems weird to me since Beckenbauer the libero already played in a back-4, so it would seems natural to play him in the defense, rather than in midfield, even though it is a role that probably would suit Beckenbauer perfectly. It is also not clear to me that if Beckenbauer is the one untouchable in defense, so he should be accommodated in there somewhere, it is Busquets who should lose out? Why not Baresi? Why is a Baresi-Figueroa-Beckenbauer defensive trident superior to Beckenbauer-Figueroa-Busquets trio? I just don't think it is obvious that Baresi has been the greater player than Busquets.
Yeah, so here are the votes for each number/role so far - the roles varying a bit according to formations selected of course: #1 Gianluigi Buffon 6, Lev Yashin 4, Iker Casillas 1, Manuel Neuer 1 #2 Dani Alves 5, Ruud Krol 2, Djalma Santos 2, Cafu 1, Jose Leandro Andrade 1, Carlos Alberto 1 #3 Paolo Maldini 10, Giacinto Facchetti 1, Nilton Santos 1 #4 Franz Beckenbauer 6, Frank Rijkaard 4, Alfredo Di Stefano 1, Jose Leandro Andrade 1 #5 Franco Baresi 5, Elias Figueroa 3, Gaetano Scirea 2, Daniel Passarella 1, Franz Beckenbauer 1 #6 Franz Beckenbauer 3, Elias Figueroa 3, Bobby Moore 2, Franco Baresi 2, Frank Rijkaard 2 #7 Lionel Messi 8, Pele 2, Diego Maradona 1, Garrincha 1 #8 Michel Platini 3, Alfredo Di Stefano 3, Lothar Matthaus 2, Xavi 2, Bobby Charlton 1, Paulo Roberto Falcao 1 #9 Johan Cruyff 4, Marco van Basten 2, Pele 2, Lionel Messi 2, Alfredo Di Stefano 1, Ronaldo 1 #10 Pele 6, Johan Cruyff 3, Diego Maradona 2, Lionel Messi 1 #11 Diego Maradona 6, Johan Cruyff 4, Cristiano Ronaldo 1, Pele 1 And overall inclusions: Johan Cruyff, Lionel Messi, Pele 11 Franz Beckenbauer, Paolo Maldini 10 Diego Maradona 9 Franco Baresi 7 Gianluigi Buffon, Elias Figueroa, Frank Rijkaard 6 Dani Alves, Alfredo Di Stefano 5 Lev Yashin 4 Michel Platini 3 Jose Leandro Andrade, Ruud Krol, Lothar Matthaus, Bobby Moore, Djalma Santos, Gaetano Scirea, Marco van Basten, Xavi 2 Cafu, Carlos Alberto, Iker Casillas, Bobby Charlton, Giacinto Facchetti, Paulo Roberto Falcao, Garrincha, Manuel Neuer, Daniel Passarella, Ronaldo, Cristiano Ronaldo, Nilton Santos 1 Some posts I made before of course referred to Di Stefano being effectively the number 4 by consensus (or the voted teams lacking a number 4 we could say in other words) in the previous votes from last century and a few years ago. And yeah, there is just the one vote for Ronaldo (R9) as number 9 indeed too, which was the most recent vote by Odiseo of course.
I definitely respect you Ed, but just to show where I'm coming from.... If 'that position' means sitting in front of the back 4, and intercepting, smoothly recycling possession etc etc then yes probably. But then is Van Basten also several levels ahead of a Messi or Cruyff as 'centre forward'? If we say the 'centre forward' has to play the role where he holds the ball up, gets on the ends of crosses etc as well as obviously being a skilled player and potential soloist? This is not so much a defence of my own selection (I could see the argument it's a stretch to pick the version of the player who played in a different position/role even if his style might translate better to being a midfielder in modern terms arguably...and I was allowing for him to be sweeper behind the other 2 CBs potentially I suppose if lining up with wing-backs as a secondary formation). It's more a reminder that the 'roles' and formations don't have to be strictly defined. But probably yes, just like Yaya Toure (although doing a good job and being part of a treble winning team himself) wasn't as good as Busquets in Barcelona's midfield in terms of doing the anchor job, I guess if Beckenbauer was restricted to an identical role to that, purely supporting Xaviesta for example, then likely he's a less good choice than Busquets at performing those kind of tasks. I'm definitely not saying people can't say that's the best solution for an all-time side to maximise the theoretical effectiveness of the team or most representative selection to reflect football history in their view, but just saying remember what Beckenbauer (for example) can bring that Busquets couldn't (and remember which of them is ultimately the better/greater/more talented/more physically gifted etc etc player). Then maybe it's not so clear cut?
In other words I suppose I'd see Beckenbauer as fitting a bit more in a 'total football' (remember the full meaning of that is about players filling in for each other etc, not only about 'pure football' in terms of getting the ball down and playing through the opposition team with combinations, dribbling etc) team and midfield. While Busquets would surely be better for a very defined role, in support of a tiki taka team/midfield, just as he has played in reality. I could see the argument that Busquets could have the role he plays named after him though, just like Makelele did (because it's quite a different role to that, even though with some parallels in terms of not making forward runs much at all with or without the ball, and in terms of efficiency when in possession). There were holding midfielders of a sort in the old days too though I'd say, like some of the half-backs in WM formations, and then some of the players that played in subsequent formations. I think Voronin could play as such, even though he didn't always I don't think. Zito was largely more of a holding player, or at least anchor midfielder I think.
I can see arguments for Beckenbauer, and on reflection "several levels ahead" is excessive. I just feel Busquets brings more to the table as a defensive midfielder. He breaks the play better and in his prime he made several #10s look so ordinary. I also have him as the superior playmaker. Not so much in technique but almost always making the right decision with his passing, moving the ball on quicker, press resistance and playing those line breaking passes. Also has an underrated versatility, I expected him to struggle during the Enrique (more direct/vertical) years but he adapted well and remained one of Barca's most important players. When trying to imagine how it would play out in real life, I agree with @poetgooner that a defense of Beckenbauer plus a stopper with Busquets ahead of them is better than Beckenbauer playing in front of two ATG centrebacks. PS: yes, I'd agree that MvB is a better #9 than Messi and Cruyff. More complete, more versatile. As you move away from a Cruyffian style, Messi & Cruyff I feel will be less effective in that position. MvB, I can see being in contention for best/greatest #9 whether he was leading the line for Simeone or Guardiola. I think for my selection I sort of had Pep in mind as the manager and therefore could see Cruyff offering as much and possibly more in that very particular set up.
I guess it goes without saying the rep doesn't have to mean complete agreement (I'm not really sure about the 'playmaking' comparison for example, given what Beckenbauer could create in the final third of the pitch) but I definitely wanted to add one for Ed there anyway! I also hope my comments to Odiseo weren't too harsh or blunt, and that I wasn't too definitive myself in the Cruyff>Garrincha for skill/technique comments! Also hope I'm not censoring Puck's possible response, but my idea was really to try to make the contra pro Cruyff comments myself and then like I said Puck perhaps doesn't want to respond or get angry etc. I just want to keep everything friendly, but at the same time did think the comments about Garrincha, Zico vis a vis Cruyff (Beckenbauer is perhaps a harder comparison given the roles) might be a bit leftfield and against the consensus (unless I am mistaken, and Cruyff's 'greatness' was always considered largely a matter of longevity, or rather Garrincha in particular lacking the longevity at a top level relegates him in all-time lists quite a bit).
I can understand the idea Cruijff wouldn't beat Pelé at his absolute peak (and his standing is not only based on him kicking a football) but Garrincha or Zico doesn't make much sense from an 'objective' perspective and trying to weigh those 'objective' facts. If you take the 1980 L'Equipe 'champion of the century' poll (which Pelé won, as noted on his wikipedia as well) then Pele, Cruijff, Di Stefano and Matthews were the only footballers to receive votes. I also found benficafan3 his comment in the other thread a bit strange. "There's players who have been able to do the above with one team and have been rightfully venerated in the sport's history. The likes of Cruyff, the only real competitor Ronaldo has for the European GOAT claim, had been able to do it with Ajax and the Netherlands, although only to a certain degree as a title was lacking with the latter. To do it with three teams, both national team and club sides, to such levels, has not been done before and will not be done again." I don't think that is really true and holds up.
This reply is fine by me of course. I suppose I was just a bit concerned originally that the claim could make you feel furious Puck lol, but your reply here is very measured. Likewise, I think my very brief instinct to reply to that C.Ronaldo post when first reading it (because I disagree with it largely in general of course) is a good example indeed of where it was very very much better not to do so (and I'm glad I didn't). It would just be pointless and going round and round and making myself frustrated and on the other hand 'guilty' I was criticising/disagreeing with others etc.
I think you would find with limited research his statement (at least partially)rings 100% true CR is the first and only player in European club football history to win the following for 2 different clubs Wpoty Ballon dor European golden shoe Champions league League Domestic cup Club world cup known as 'the grand slam' https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....united-hero-cristiano-ronaldo-makes-h/?espv=1 Cruyff, Eusebio, van basten,Messi did it only for one club At least that part is factual and indisputable The part about doing it for the NT I tend to lean towards the opinion that Cruyff was perhaps so great in 74 that he was a winner without actually winning anything.
If it is about winning Champions Leagues with two teams then yes, but that wasn't the substance of the quote...
Yeah just for clarity, CR7 is also all-time material but when it is said JC14 was only great for two teams then I strongly disagree. He was player of the year for five different club teams with enough stuff as backing (+ national team, thus six).
I maybe speaking to a wall when it comes to this polarising individual but I'll try: Zlatan ibrahimovic was legitimately great for at least 3 different clubs Both milans and Paris Saint germain. Winning multiple leagues, top scorer titles and league MVPs for all Ronaldo de lima was great for 3 different clubs in 3 different leagues before his 23rd birthday Clarence seedorf was a starter in multiple European cup finals for 4 different teams which is no means feat You puck however are being purposefully disingenuous There is a list a mile long of players who were world class for multiple clubs, winning league titles and MVPs Names I've mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg Benficas point should hardly be controversial Cristiano Ronaldo is the only player in European club football history to reach the pinnacle of the game for 2 different clubs This is a fact To win: The champions league Champions league MVP Champions league top scorer The world player of the year Ballon dor European golden shoe League title League MVP For two separate teams in two separate major leagues The greatest leagues of his era isn't something Johan Cruyff has done twice let alone 6 times That is what is being referred to by 'Doing it' for multiple teams PDG1978 ranked CR behind Micheal Laudrup in 2014 so there is no surprise here at all He is entitled to his views but it must be said I still struggle to understand how a otherwise objective(and fairly knowledgeable)poster completely loses his objectivity when it comes to Cristiano Ronaldo More surprising is his impartiality returns when he is evaluating Maradona (A wife beater on camera, friend of despots/ dictators, coke addict,drugs cheat etc) Call a spade a spade He doesn't rate Cristiano Ronaldo because he doesn't like him That's fine and again he and everyone is entitled to their own opinion
I might even take a long break from the forum now. I've been thinking about it, and being called a liar twice in a matter of minutes (when I'd stated I don't want to get into it, and when I'm doing everything to avoid anymosity in general) makes it much more likely. When it stops being respectful then it stops being fun and interesting for me. And now my thread is kind of ruined by this rubbish too! Sorry, I normally try to keep calm. But we've been over and over the same arguments about C.Ronaldo. There are lots of great players, but it seems like I must rate him right at the top, otherwise I am dishonest and I know I am not!!
This is drama Please just stop dude 1.)i never called you a liar Everything I said is easily verifiable You don't like the guy personally His histrionics His weird celebrations His rape allegations I can quote you verbatim if you like 2.)You did rank him outside the top 30 greatest players in 2014 Behind Micheal Laudrup Again I can quote you on this So why are you getting angry? This isn't a personal attack I said once and then again you're entitled to your own opinion And on a free forum as this I'm entitled to critic you I just don't think someone as you can be even remotely objective when CR is being discussed I noticed this (at least)3 years ago That's all so calm down mate
Busquets role at Barcelona is not limited at all, which is why I'm pretty confident in saying that he'd be able to perform in a different system to a very high standards, because he's shown a very well-rounded set of technical and tactical abilities. Yes, I agree that Beckenbauer could perform the #4 role very well, it might even perhaps be his best role! Even then, regardless of system, whether you think it is the tiki-taka or the free flowing total-football, I don't see what exactly Beckenbauer offers that Busquets doesn't. Admittedly, I haven't thought too deeply about what skills Beckenbauer might have over Busquets. That could help shed some light. Right now, from the top of my head, I think Busquets skillset are superior to Beckenbauer's for this particular #4 role, regardless of system. We haven't even touched career achievements, in which Busquets is much greater than Beckenbauer as a #4.
Hey @PDG1978, I was reading your post again, and I'm still super confused by the #5 and #6 role. 5 - Covering defender or stopper 6 - Supporting defender or marker We both have our backgrounds in English football, so it feels strange that we don't seem to have the same terminology hahaha. Isn't the marker and stopper seen as sort of the same type of defender? What the hell is a supporting defender anyway? Is that similar to what the fans understand as "ball-playing" defender? Cover defender is easy enough to understand. Are you thinking of Ricardo Carvalho like I am, when you use that term? So why is covering defender and stopper in the same category? You'll have to help me out here a bit man, as I'm a little confused now. Personally, I think to keep it simple, we just use one of two systems. 1. A specialized defensive system where one CB is the marker/stopper and the other one is the cover/sweeper/libero, regardless of their ball-playing responsibilities. 2. A "flat" system where both CBs perform the same role, with focus on versatility and fluidity, similar to what we saw with the Graham back-5 or the modern CB pairings. Here it doesn't matter if you think you've picked 2 "liberos" like a Scirea/Beckenbauer. Their roles are identical anyway. Let me know what you think. P.S. I've been thinking A LOT about how Maradona fits into an all-time XI. If I find the time, I'll post it here. It'll probably be pretty long (I tend to get carried away, honestly).
Sorry, it's really not my intention to over-react or create a 'drama'. Carlito, I wish you well in your life, I hope you'll do the same, and I think we'd better just leave it at that. Thanks. It was just frustrating to have two similar posts (but I'm sure Tony on the other thread didn't have bad intentions or want to upset/annoy me either) appear, when I'd thought I'd made it clear (when giving the example to Puck of when I'd refrained from posting) that I really didn't want to get dragged into that (or to drag myself back into it again by mistake!). Not Puck's fault either of course, but I wish I'd not given that example now I suppose. I think a forum break is generally a good idea though, but I'll just give poet a reply about #5 and #6 since he asked. I'll probably keep updating my spreadsheet (I can see additions to the thread even without logging in of course) but anyone is welcome to continue updating the results of this thread, adding to post number 131. I called it 'my thread' before but that wasn't the intention, and like I say feel free to keep things updated. I would ask in general that everyone keeps things friendly though too. Anyway, enjoy picking your all-time XIs. Hopefully this thread can get back on track and be a decent addition to the forum, since like I said originally there wasn't really a thread on this specific topic where everyone could add a vote. Thanks.
Yeah, so I suppose I had two different combinations in mind. One being the sort of setup Scirea would have played in (covering defender with marker) and one being the sort of setup Bobby Moore played in ('stopper' eg Jack Charlton, with 'supporting defender'). The latter does have roots in English football generally (after the switch from WM to a 4 player defence), as illustrated here in this post by Puck: But I'm allowing for a 'stopper' to be paired with a 'marker' or a covering defender to be paired with a supporting defender, and yes I know that especially in modern football often both centre-backs will have the same role pretty much (in that case then it doesn't matter, but the one who hangs back more could be given #5 and the one who does more marking the #6 etc). I'm not excluding that kind of partnership by any means anyway, but wanted to allow for specific sweeper types to be tallied up etc. I feel like often there will be some distinction in modern systems (eg Ferdinand/Vidic, or Henchoz/Hyypia perhaps). I guess Nesta would be deemed more a covering defender, and Cannavaro more a stopper, when they played together. Likewise Carvalho and Terry, if we are making the call. I can see why stylistically you would feel covering defenders and supporting defenders would be more similar, but I was doing it more in terms of deepest lying defender (the covering defender) and deeming stoppers to be the last man in that respect too. It's possible I could have done it better maybe, but it's tricky to make the most appropriate distinction maybe. I haven't been trying to be too harsh or exclude any viable combinations anyway. I suppose 'right centre back' and 'left centre back' could have been simple options, but maybe that wouldn't be the perfect solution either and also we'd still get various players being picked for both of those roles I think. I hope this helps explain a bit behind my thinking anyway!
I do see that the label supporting defender might on the face of it seem just as appropriate for a Carvalho, as covering defender though yes! Potentially he could be placed in either role depending on who he is partnered with (and even stopper or marker potentially as a nominal label if paired with let's say Ferdinand himself, or Blanc), although (trying to be more light hearted again, and calm down!) probably that's one Portuguese player it's not likely others rate more than I do, and so he's not really likely to be getting picked in actual all-time XIs I guess (so the Ferdinand/Blanc examples would be more relevant to other discussions about specific eras, if at all).