Ballon d'Or results according to France Football had South American players been eligible

By the way, I dont want to have this 'you attack and I defend' debate either. It seems to be very important for you to reach a "conclusive" resolution in this matter. You want Maradona chanceless. So much so that you are not happy with it being your point of view or opinion, you want it to be matter of factly proven conclusive veredict. C'mon..

 

What has Mundo Deportivo to do with this? That paper had (at the time) their own intricacies and relationship to the new FCB presidency and new star policies (Nunez, Samaranch, Havelange...) - and henceforth their own indirect connection to the global sponsors-AFA-FIFA triumvirate that mounted an hitherto unprecedented programme and campaign. Previous players with such campaign coalition before they started were few and far between. It's also something that passes by in Wilson and Burns their works... but many are blind for.

The partisan Mundo Deportivo is at any rate not related to the 'unpartisan' (but always close to establishment) France Football.

All that talk of transferring to Europe only serves to create the impression that the pinnacle of the club game was already in Europe. In a non-tournament year.

But crucially France Football themselves actually does this with Keegan, placing him in that company, in 1979. Needless to say that this placement only proves (further) the case ("the very great professionals"). In the August 1984 issue (the 2000th issue) he's however overlooked.

What Mundo Deportivo writes is - by comparison - merely diversion and distortion.

Platini was placed behind freakin' Schiaffino by France Football (in August 1984), thus so much for the 'unsung home boy' narrative.

In fact, it is not the easy choice for France Football and their voters to "all reject Maradona" (at that point). It would be more convenient to place a few equivalence and sorry calls ('live and let live'), compensate for sake of social convenience.

It's for the establishment paper far easier to disregard players and countries who don't buy and sell papers in quantities; who don't bring in advertising revenues; don't buy or sell television rights; don't buy or sell shoes; you don't have that much journalistic ties with; aren't represented in authorities you're dependent on and have to be on good terms with. Much of this is even tacit, implicit and unwritten. They've acquaintances in the administrative bodies, agents and journalists from other countries and that's how the world turns round; cues, socializing, groupthink and repetition.


Yes I think Maradona is overrated a lot for 1979 (not 1980), but I'm only interested in what would plausibly happen at France Football (or by extension Onze, Mirroir). Keegan has certainly the advantage in numbers for 1979 (and not in a league with 'nobodies', who didn't do anything at other leagues and levels). All that citing of Mundo Deportivo is to me only distortion and frankly irrelevant next to the mounting evidence of FF.

 

What do you mean 'what does MD have to do with this?'? Via the MD archive one can see what sensation Maradona was causing in Europe at the time. People in London were in awe with him, Guerin Sportivo from Italy seem to have been apreciative of his level at the time, a Brazilian journalist called him the best in the world in mid 1979... That is just what I could find. Now, if MD and everything I can find you will deem irrelevant as part of a massive propaganda campaign or tainted the existing links between nations (Italy with Argentina) and pretend only what the French think is what counts... That is ridiculous. Wasnt the Ballon d'Or a poll between journalists from different nations anyways?
As far as I can see, the French are dissing Maradona in 1984, not in 1979. And again, that is just the French. Are they the sole judges of footballing greatness?
You think Maradona was overrated in 1979? That doesnt pretend to be conclusive. That opinion is fine by me, I can live with it. Of course, I am not surprised that you advocate for that idea in 1979, a somewhat accessible Ballon d'Or year... Your give him due credit for 1980, but we both know that is because you know there is the EURO and a strong Rummenigge to argue for then...

 

There are two separate topics being debated here.

A) Who should be the World Player of the Year in these particular years

B) Who would France Football have chosen if everyone was eligible

For me I am only arguing A. B is not a topic I am interested in at all. It would require trying to guess specific FF voters and that is not an exercise that interests me. Nor do I find it useful in any way as there are lot of people in the world whose opinions matter not just the France Footy voters.

Debating A however is fun. Debating who we all think should have been World Player of the Year is the debate I am interested in. We can bring up stats, honors, and video evidence. There is no reason the wide selection of journalists from Guerin Sportivo, etc are any less valid as opinion to marshall when arguing for one player over another than the journalists of France Footy.

When talking about Simonsen, it does not make sense for me when you say Zico did not have any outstanding international career in 1977 (club or country) but then you reference Simonsen who didn't stand out internationally in 1977 either. The fact BMG did not release him does not automatically grant Simonsen counter-factual international glory. I am not convinced by your argument that Simonsen was better in 1977 than Zico based on international matches that year. I think Zico's much better club year outshines Simonsen's "international glory" in 1977.

@wm442433

That last post was too hard for me to decipher so I will just reduce this to one issue. You call Zico a choker. .

The first year I mentioned was 1977. So none of anything from 1978 or 1980 or whatever counts because it has not happened in 1977. So what evidence from 1977 is there to call Zico a choker? You can't reference 1980 or 1982.

In 1976 Brasileiro, Zico had 56 goals for Flamengo. This included 4 goals in a 4-1 win over Fluminese, biggest rival and always one of the biggest matches. Zico also scored against the eventual winner of the Brasileiro, Internacional, which had the overall best squad led by Falcao. Doesn't look the season of a "choker" to me.

In 1977 Zico won South American player of the year, Flamengo was not yet the best team in Brazil but Zico was performing well against just about every big team. Placar praised him in several articles, never called him "choker" to my knowledge.

So where is your evidence from 1977 for your label?

 

This is merely distracting. I don't deny he was good against Scotland (markedly less so in the 0-0 vs Ireland), and he scored one of his two national team goals that year (2 in 7 games), but so was Keegan in the very same month. Also he scored a goal against Scotland and dribbled past Scottish players left and right. It hardly pulls a distance, it will not sway voters. It is merely noise, diversion and distraction.

Secondly, there are ample pieces in the Shoot! and World Soccer that were by wide consensus less convinced. I don't bring that up however because also that is merely distracting. If we go that route - which is only sideways related - I'm sure it shows a rather mixed picture. At the end of 1979 World Soccer had an article, with many comments, talking about Maradona as a possible best player in the future. In May 1980, after the (scintillating) England match, Shoot! had comments by e.g. Keegan and the editors themselves that Maradona "has still a lot to learn" before "he's among the best" (well... personally I leave that option open for 1980, as a possibility). This is not cherry-picking but a recurring theme.

However, none of that was/is actually relevant for me (I didn't refer to these sources before - it leads to clogging back-and-forth replies). I'm merely interested in what's there in case of France Football (or Onze, Mirroir as triangulation) to make a guess.

There was in way a massive, concerted and well-organized propaganda campaign, never seen before (for a quick handed reference: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/724872.Hand_of_God ). Those three FIFA events of 1979 were quickly arranged because of that, nothing more and nothing less (and that of threatening/harming journalists who didn't went along with the game is also undeniably true).

Sometimes the entourage outstretched their hand too much, and the story creation got exposed:


Dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flyer

(above text has a few implications; I'll leave it open a bit)

(Coca Cola also started to get closely involved in FIFA at the time, in fact made the YWC possible - the trophy was called 'The Coca Cola cup'. How this went is well documented; Havelange contacted his Argentine vice-president+Nally+Dassler and the rest is history)

(no less than 3 players in the top 10 of the 1979 SApotY stood out in the Youth World Cup more than anything else, or somewhere else)

(now connect the dots with the Jacques Ferran comment, the standing of European club game etc.)

The reality is that (also) France Football saw euro 1980 as a weak tournament, ruined as well by surrounding scenery. Remember here that Rummenigge had merely 1 goal and 1 assist. He was all-around better in 1981. Other possible European contenders as Keegan, Platini etc. were not at their best in 1980, compared to earlier years.

Meanwhile, Maradona was in 1980 stronger as in 1979 (that is: the 2nd half of 1979 in particular). He started to bag a couple of goals in international club games (in 1979 he had zero), increased national team form and production (with exception of end of 1980 when Menotti dropped him because of form/fatigue) and increased domestic production. So I think there's a better base for 1980. The competition for the 1979 topscorer title is very underwhelming (even for a so called '2nd tier' league). I know you disagree, but I think I have a sensible idea in this respect.

In the 1979 results France Football was actually directly comparing Keegan with Cruijff etc. (anyway, I'm repeating myself now). There's perhaps more a chance in 1980.

 

Yeah, I have read all this stuff from you in the past indeed. Again, I did not claim Maradona "made the difference" with Keegan as you insist in talking about. I told you I brought those games up as examples of Maradona causing a great impresion in Europeans. No point going on and on about again. Agree to disagree about it. Your eagerness to discredit Maradona is greater than mine to promote him. Cheers.

 

First of all: you must have missed that Guerin Sportivo was (in 1979) only one journalist deciding it.

As for Zico and Simonsen;

Simonsen obviously performed internationally for his club in the calendar year. 7 goals in 9 European Cup games, without penalties. Goals against Brugge (1976 UEFA Cup finalist, 1978 EC finalist), Red Star Belgrade (UEFA Cup finalist of a season later), and of course against Liverpool.

Zico did internationally for his club nothing. Not even in friendlies. You can argue that their job are not only about goals, and that is true, but about the same time we both know that they were 'lazy' players (with and without ball in team). And Zico was always more of a scorer than assister anyway (Simonsen less so).

For national team: as I said Simonsen scored in both matches. "A qualifier against Poland where he scored (1-2 loss) and the Nordic championship against Sweden (2-1 win, scored a goal too). Poland had an ELO rank of 8 and Sweden a rank of 25. He played two games and scored against both." In the two games he got released he passed the test.

Zico played 7 games and scored 6 goals (incl. 1 penalty). However, four of those goals came against Bolivia. It had an ELO rank of 62. Then there's a fifth goal against Colombia with a rank of 54 (the 6th was against Scotland in a friendly, where he excelled). So he scored the goals against considerably weaker teams, while playing for a much stronger side.
Zico didn't impress that much (and did not win) against England and West Germany that year. He didn't score or create (assist, pre-assist), nor did he play particularly well.

If you weigh this then Simonsen did statistically the better job (goals against better opponents and for a worse and by non-availability weakened team). Although it's only two games.

France Football (their voters) also mentions Keegan, Platini and Cruijff. Those have all in common that they excelled internationally for club and country that year (minus Platini 'for club' because he was still in Nancy, but he shined for the national team though). That's a common denominator for those.

(on a note related to above posts: Zico hadn't an as aggressive international promotion too, for the most part)

 

Do you know for a fact it was literally only one person giving the award in 1979? The Guerin Sportivo thread makes it sound like it was decided by the writers and editorial staff not just one person.

I feel your post is a bit misleading and examples are a bit unfair without true context.

First, Flamengo had not qualified for Copa Libertadores for 1977 so there is simply no comparison to be made there for "international club goals" with Simonsen. If you want to give Simonsen extra points for that go ahead but your language of "Zico did nothing" is really misleading and unfair considering Flamengo was not playing in the equivalent tournament.

Second, you are the only person I have ever heard trying to use international friendlies to support your opinion on a worthy World Player of the Year. I can only imagine if a CR7 or Messi supporter tried to bring up international friendlies. That line of attack you use is just absurd and invalid.

Third, you dismiss the World Cup Qualifier opponents of Brasil but the reality is a player can only beat the teams in front of him. Brazil had three international World Cup qualifiers that year. Zico scored 5 goals in 3 matches. You can disparage the quality of the opponents all you want but the facts do not support your accusation that "Zico did nothing". To call 5 goals in 3 matches "doing nothing" is just absurd and disingenuous.

If you rate Simonsen's 2 goals in 2 WC qualifiers greater than Zico's 5 goals in 3 WC qualifiers then that is a fair opinion but lets not get into ridiculous hyperbole. Both Zico and Simonsen did very well in their respective WC qualifiers but neither had some legendary or even memorable 1977 for their country. I rate their WC qualifying matches fairly even myself. Zico was better but against weaker opposition.

And then there is the elephant in the room. League performances for club.

Zico: 39 goals in 45 matches
Simonsen: 15 goals in 45 matches

To me that is enough to elevate Zico over Simonsen for 1977 despite the fact that Simonsen played well in the EC in 77-78 season while Zico's Flamengo was not in Libertadores that year.

I'll also agree to disagree about assists. To me Zico was a tier above Simonsen in technique and passing and if we were able to count assists and pre-assists I'd put my money on Zico being superior although we can really only guess there so both of us are left in subjective territory of opinion.

 

I did not say "did nothing" about his national team games, and you know that. It is rather you who is disingenuous.

There's no point in continuing this conversation when obvious false quotes are plucked out of thin air.

 

When I read "apparent intention" here I immediately thought 'conjecture', meant to purposely mislead or at least create controversy, but not actually inform. And I was right. Since I know you are more than willing to grab a spoon and eat up anything that will feed your hatred and cast any shadow possible on Maradona for his discredit, no matter how twisted, let me show you how it really went and that the misinformation in only in this little piece you posted.

As I told you before, by that date (mid 1980) a heck of a lot had been said about Maradona transfer/no transfer to Barcelona, his price tag of up to 400 million pesetas, Menotti's list of non-transferable players, AFA not allowing it, etc. All of it was well known by all. This had all started a long time back already in 1979.

Argentinos Juniors was looking to strike a deal with Coca Cola so they could keep Maradona and have everybody happy:

April 23, 1980
"Maradona will be the best paid player in Argentina if AJ closes a deal with blah blah (Cola Cola). The concretion of this agreement will probably undo all the efforts of Barcelona in the last days to sign the player currently considered as the number one in the world. This way the player would be able to continue his career in AJ until after the 1982 WC."
http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD01/HEM/1980/04/23/MD19800423-009.pdf

May 2, 1980
"Maradona to Barcelona for 420 million pesetas. A Barcelona executive, seemingly Joan Gaspart, will soon arrive to close the deal since the operation is very advanced. Lets remember a few days ago a multinational (Colca Cola) had ensured that Maradona, via the corresponding deal, would stay in his current club until the end of the WC."
http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD01/HEM/1980/05/02/MD19800502-039.pdf

May 3, 1980
"420 million for Maradona. Executives Gaspart and Brugueras arrived to Bs As in what they thought was a super secret trip. But news ran like a river: Maradona was the target. And Argentina trembled for their little marvel. The Barce delegation presents a 420 million offer that has turned AJ president Prospero Consoli's eyes white. Negotiations, began yesterday, are complicated starting with the fact that AFA considers Maradona non-transferable."
http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD01/HEM/1980/05/03/MD19800503-001.pdf

May 3, 1980
"Gaspart and Brugueras in a last attempt to sign Maradona for the incredible sum of 420 million pesetas (6 million dollars) Barcelona is willing to pay AJ provided the operation could be carried out. Why Maradona? Wasnt he absolutely non-transferable and wasnt a multinational ensuring his stay in Argentina until after the 1982 WC? Something has changed in the last few weeks and now there seem to be more favorable signs that with such amount of cash the transfer could actually happen and become an absolute world record. The agreement with the multinational (Colca Cola) that was to finance Maradona's stay in Argentina is being debated in uncertainty and skillful Gaspart has taken advantage of the confution to launch a last, desperate, and at the same time tempting option for the South American 'crack' to become a barcelonist next season."
http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD01/HEM/1980/05/03/MD19800503-002.pdf

May 4, 1980
"24 hours and 420 million pesetas have been 'enough' for Gaspart and Brugueras' 'mission impossible' to become true: Maradona will play for Barcelona the next 6 seasons since after a meeting yesterday morning of the AJ executive board approved his transfer to FC Barcelona 12 votes to 2. Naturally, the whole operation still requires AFA's authorization."
http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD01/HEM/1980/05/04/MD19800504-004.pdf

May 4, 1980
The contract is signed by Maradona's father as Diego is not legally old enough.
http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD01/HEM/1980/05/04/MD19800504-005.pdf

May 4, 1980
"AFA: 15 days to concede the international pass. Consoli and Maradona certain of getting it. Julio Grondona: there is no way I will authorize the transfer. I am obliged to abide to the current dispositions and regulations say Maradona is not transferrable. Therefore, I will not authorize his transfer."
http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD01/HEM/1980/05/04/MD19800504-042.pdf

May 5, 1980
"In central pages we continue to inform about Maradona's transfer, although the final point of the operation is still pending on AFA's authorization."
http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD01/HEM/1980/05/05/MD19800505-001.pdf

May 7, 1980
"After a long meeting AFA has decided against AJ's transfer petition for Maradona to join Barcelona.
http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD01/HEM/1980/05/07/MD19800507-001.pdf

May 7, 1980
Now that AFA said no, there is much talk about how to get Maradona the money he deserves and just lost. Different groups, companies and such talked about as potential financers. MD writes:
"It would not be far fetched to add to this group the input/contribution of a famous multinational (Coca Cola) that some days ago was close to sign with Maradona an exclusivity deal for 140 million pesetas in three years, which fell apart due to problems with the club."
http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD01/HEM/1980/05/07/MD19800507-003.pdf


So, all that piece says is wrong/purposely false.
An agreement was indeed reached between AJ, Barcelona and Maradona, a contract had been signed and everyone knew it needed to and was not yet approved by AFA, which in the end was not. The story reproduced in Spain just as it was, every step of it very clear and all conditions spoken about, nobody getting deceived as the text you posted claims. And on top of things Maradona Productions did not get such contract.

Talking about distractions and misinformation... Where do you get the courage, man..

 

Yes, to my mind the (post-1979 election) shills of Mundo Deportivo have little to do with the main subject. Those shills had clearly their own intricacies and I bet they didn't want to be caught red handed, didn't want to admit errors. Mundo Deportivo shills of that time period is merely... distraction (for me).

From now on I don't react any more to these things (because my reply provokes a counter-reply etc. - it goes way too astray of what France Football would've done). It's been brought up forever and not very fruitful. Even Onze, Shoot! and World Soccer would've been more relevant and insightful for the 'what if' scenario.

Now you come to it; what I've clearly always "hated" is the false notion of the women beater as a champion(ner) of the underdogs. Something that was also carefully conveyed and planted to the Third World. It was a nicely created narrative by the power brokers high up (who got after all in charge with Third World help), but nothing could be further from the truth.

I can sympathize with people who like his footballing style, his choreography on the field (minus the senseless fist pumping) but I have always hated this manufactured consent. Sadly, disjointed and/or marginalized Europe couldn't do anything to stop this (except - just perhaps - for the always present and always delivering vice-presidents Germany, but with three finals they counted their chips and dough). Him as the underdog footballer par excellence is the single biggest myth and thing I "hate". An image he cherishes although he's not far from the truth (and only in this sense) that give and take is involved at that level.
http://insidesportworld.sportsblog....-they-told-us-to-lose-the-finals-in-1990.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In 1994: "FIFA boss admits he shielded Diego

FIFA president Joao Havelange told a Spanish paper yesterday that he made personally sure that Argentinian Diego Maradona was [...] in order to avoid taking more extreme measures. He added: "Maradona will not be punished in such a way that it would force him to retire.''

The esteemed writer Simon Barnes in 1991:

We turn to sport for romance, for magic, for joy: but the men who run sport remind us that the real world is run by people who pursue not truth and beauty, but prestige, influence, money: in a word, power.
Who are these guys? One can sense their shadowy, grey-suited presence every time one turns to the sports pages: their names lurk half-remembered in the columns of type every time the frivolities of sport turn to business: to money: to power: names like Havelange [Brazil], Nebiolo [Italy], Chatrier [France], Balestre [France].
They have so much power, as much power as a head of state, say some. Certainly, they command finances that make the gross national product of a third-world nation look like loose change. They are courted by all nations, developed and undeveloped, in a fashion that would make many a global politician turn in envy and wonder.
Yet they seem almost unaccountable: elected by bodies almost as shadowy as themselves, and year after year triumphantly re-elected by an overwhelming majority. They command an army of billions, all television viewers; they command a treasury of billions, for sport is some of the most marketable stuff in the world.
But they avoid the headlines. These go to Diego Maradona, Ben Johnson, John McEnroe, Ayrton Senna. These men of shadows live by power alone, and I ask the eternal question of Butch Cassidy: who are these guys? [..piece continues..]

Excerpt from The Times 1992:

Now, as Marseilles negotiate for his services and Naples scream that they have a right to their boy, or failing that, a right to pounce on Pounds 3.5 million, Havelange intervenes in an extraordinary and unprecedented fashion. "I consider Maradona the greatest player of the last ten years," he said. "He made a decisive contribution to the
last two World Cups. He must play where he likes without conditions." Maradona, who has always held such a view himself, said: "I can be useful to Fifa. Havelange will not tolerate another season of inactivity for me." Useful to Fifa? You bet. The 1994 World Cup, in the United States, is the most colossal gamble ever made by a leading sporting body. Fifa needs every advantage to make the thing work, and the biggest name in football is the strongest card it possesses. Maradona is nothing less than Fifa's golden goose.

Plus these acts by the FIFA vice-president (in a FIFA qualifier), with clearly expressed motives. That's not a level playing field.
http://www.goal.com/en/news/585/arg...i-removed-doping-tests-in-argentina-australia
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-24/we-played-socceroos-while-on-drugs-maradona/2728108
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/5045580/We-took-drugs-in-the-dressing-room-Maradona

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Either way, that as an aside (Argentina is in reality one of three countries ever present in FIFA since 1960). It reminisces some of the black sport stars; who in reality turn their back on their own community but then become somehow underdog championners and Chavez, Castro fans (especially when they get in trouble and need that appeal).

7 - Diego Maradona has been penalised for more handballs than any other player in World Cup finals since 1966. Irony.

— OptaJoe (@OptaJoe) February 21, 2014

(Ironic indeed; + uncalled scoreline affecting handballs vs England 1986, USSR 1990, 1987 scudetto, 1989 UEFA Cup final etc.)


To re-iterate my previous idea/position: for 1980 it is a lot more sensible. To be truly best in the world you need to shine against the best or better teams (club and/or country). Not once or 'one in five' but more regularly...

I also had him as best of 1980 - 1990 decade, something that's not remarkable but I am willing to repeat. At the same time, the underdog narrative is as far as I'm concerned one of the biggest nonsense in sports. And I'll leave it at that.

 

Here is your firsr reply to me in this thread where you say exactly what i responded to.

 

Talk about distraction and "little to do with the main subject". @PuckVanHeel ...

 

.... and I did not say that in my more elaborate reply, where I compare him with Simonsen. That is actually the reply you quoted and responded too.

In this "first reply" I did not mention Simonsen. In this reply he's compared only with himself in other years, where he indeed performed up to standard against top 50 ranked opponents. Compared with himself in other years and for Brazil NT standards he "did nothing". 4 goals against Bolivia and then disappearing against England and West Germany is close to nothing. That is the only true context.

I didn't say that at all in the comparison with Simonsen, the one you actually argued against.

Anyway, I don't have the appetite for this.

As I said:
"From now on I don't react any more to these things (because my reply provokes a counter-reply etc. - it goes way too astray of what France Football would've done). It's been brought up forever and not very fruitful. Even Onze, Shoot! and World Soccer would've been more relevant and insightful for the 'what if' scenario."

 

"What France Football would've done"?! They would have conducted the usual poll between jouranlists from a bunch of different nations, what the hell else?

 

Sounds like you did in fact stated that "Zico did internationally, nothing for his club or country..." This was in a calendar year (or season?) in which Zico did not play the Copa Libertadores - therefore making it impossible for him to do deliver international success for his club. Also in a year in which Zico was statistically great against the national teams that he did played against at a competitive level i.e. World Cup qualifiers (which are more important than friendlies ever could be).

I don't want to get into another confrontation about what repeatedly very much appears to be a long-standing campaign against South American players, but if you don't like to be perceived as such, or if you don't like to be corrected on your demonstrable mistakes - then you really need to do a better job of measuring your words before voicing your concerns e.g. when you stated that "Zico did nothing internationally for his club (in a year in which he did not played any international tournaments for his club)" - that gives a bad impression to begin with, because you are first and foremost already discrediting a player on the basis of something that was impossible for him at the time. In fact, not only was it impossible for Zico at the time, but it was impossible for an overwhelming majority of the great players from South America at the time - because South America (to the best of my knowledge) has never had a UEFA Cup equivalent, nor a UEFA Cup Winners' Cup equivalent, therefore you only have an incredible minority of players who do play the Copa Libertadores e.g. Real Madrid enjoyed 'international success' in 1985, after defeating the vastly inferior 'Videoton' (an obscure club from Hungary). Zico didn't have nor enjoyed the South American equivalent to that type of "international success."

Furthermore, in the 1977 Copa Libertadores only 2 Brazilian clubs participated. There was no UEFA Cup, and also no UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, for Zico to display his talents. Is it therefore still rational to heavily discredit Zico on the basis of a tournament format that only included 2 Brazilian clubs (and no alternatives for the Brazilian clubs that finished below 2nd best in their league)?

 

On the sentiment above, the following clubs played the Champions League Final: Leeds United (1975), Saint Etienne (1976), Club Brugge (1978), Nottingham Forest (1979), Malmo (1979), Nottingham Forest (1980), Hamburg (1980), Aston Villa (1982), Hamburg (1983), Steaua Bucarest (1986), Porto (1987), PSV Eindhoven (1988), Benfica (1988), Steaua Bucarest (1989), Benfica (1990), Red Star Belgrade (1991), Olympique Marseille (1991), Sampdoria (1992), Olympique Marseille (1993), Ajax (1995), Ajax (1996) - and after the 1996 Final the context began to change, definitely change, in favor of the increasingly wealthier clubs. (Albeit the cheap Valencia did played 2 consecutive Finals in 2000 and 2001, which was somewhat followed by Porto and Monaco playing the 2004 Final.) But between 1975 and 1996, the Champions League Final saw a substantial portion of Finals in which one of the two finalists was vastly inferior to the other, or perhaps worse (in that regard), is that some of the Finals included 2 finalists that were rather unimpressive teams.

Far too often I see questionable analogies where the European Cup of the 1970s and 1980s gets favorably compared to the modern Champions League, that is, the European Cup of the 1970s and 1980s gets praised as a vastly superior tournament over the Copa Libertadores - but really, how good was the European Cup when...

1. Nottingham Forest was good enough to play 2 consecutive Finals (1979 & 1980)?

2. Red Star Belgrade, a club from unstable & backwards Yugoslavia, won it as late as in 1991 - when the European Cup ended in 1992.

3. PSV Eindhoven and Ajax enjoyed success in the Champions League and the UEFA Cup, and as good as the Dutch league was at the time - was it better than the Brazilian league of that same era?

4. Hamburg played 2 Finals between 1980 and 1983.

5. Steaua Bucarest played 2 Finals between 1986 and 1989.

6. Olympique Marseille played 2 Finals between 1991 and 1993.

7. Benfica played 2 Finals between 1988 and 1990.

8. AC Milan played 2 consecutive Finals between 1989 and 1990. Added to another 3 consecutive Finals between 1993 and 1995.

In conclusion (to put it in simplistic terms): Did AC Milan needed to be utterly dominant in order to 'dominate' demonstrably inferior finalists such as Steaua Bucarest, Benfica, Olympique Marseille? And what does it say about the overall quality of the cup, that clubs like Steaua Bucarest, Benfica, and Olympique Marseille, all played 2 Finals in the space of just 3-or-4 seasons?

I'm of course not saying that the Copa Libertadores was not inferior to the European Cup, but I am however saying that the European Cup is clearly overrated in how it is typically compared, historically compared, against the South American clubs i.e. South American players who didn't played the European Cup nor the UEFA Cup.

NOTE:

Moreover, the UEFA Cup Finals saw clubs such as: Twente (1975), Club Brugge (1976), Athletic Bilbao (1977), SEC Bastia (1977), PSV Eindhoven (1977), Red Star Belgrade (1979), Eintracht Frankfurt (1980), Ipswich Town (1981), AZ Alkmaar (1981), IFK Goteborg (1982), Hamburg (1982), Benfica (1983), Anderlecht (1983), Anderlecht (1984), Tottenham Hotspur (1984), Videoton (1985), FC Koln (1986), IFK Goteborg (1987), Dundee United (1987), Espanyol (1988), Napoli (1989), Stuttgart (1989), Fiorentina (1990), Ajax (1992), Torino (1992), Austria Salzburg (1994), Parma (1995), Bordeaux (1995), Schalke (1996), Parma (1999), Marseille (1999), Galatasaray (2000), Alaves (2001), Liverpool (2001), Feyenoord (2002), Celtic (2003), Porto (2003), Valencia (2004), Marseille (2004), etc. The UEFA Cup Winners' Cup is more of the same, but arguably if not certainly worse in quality to the UEFA Cup.

 

First of all, I mentioned four components: 1) international club games, 2) international club friendlies (as further context), 3) national team friendlies, 4) national team official games.

Precisely the fact that he had zero goals in the club friendlies supports the absence of 'point 1' - it takes that excuse away. For national team he showed up against teams outside the top 50, but disappeared against top 20 teams (except against Scotland). Hardly the stuff of a Ballon d'Or winner.

Secondly, countless excellent players have been overlooked in years where they didn't compete at the World Cup or didn't play (for a competitive team) at the European Cup. But now it is mighty Zico and mighty Brazil we give a free pass for domestic exploits only. The only thing I do is balancing that shameless media campaign and sponsor propaganda. It is really shameless. Other superb players, including (multiple) Ballon d'Or winners don't get that luxury and now Zico is supposed to be placed in pole position for 1977? The objective reality is that in 1977 Zico wasn't seen as among the best players in the world (by the most reputable sources).

Typically a player was between 1955 and 1995 ruled out for the award while not shining in big national team games or the continental competitions (Pelé at least impressed in international club friendlies). I can't express this properly but we are creating an imbalance when this one is suddenly retro-actively applied to Zico (an imbalance people buy into because it is Brazil). As such, that it was impossible for him to play there falls by the wayside. It was also impossible for Weah to play in the 1994 World Cup, yet it ruled him out by definition (it was also impossible for Romario to play at euro 2000, yet it ruled him out by definition). I hope you understand this, how necessary it was to play there (the retrospective propaganda is powerful).

If a player didn't play (for whatever reason) in a World Cup or another premier tournament (euro since 1972) then he was typically ruled out. But now because it is Brazil we make an exception.

Players have been 'ignored' - in the ranking, not main award - for less (it's pathetic how Cruijff was ignored pre-1970 while consistently scoring against the big teams he faced; whenever he faced a highly ranked team he performed 9 out of 10 times and scored).

There is perhaps Denis Law in 1964 but other than that? That it was allegedly accessible to win an continental club trophy between 1955 and 1995 doesn't necessarily mean an argument in favor of Zico. On the contrary, indeed.

See this point:
http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/does-retirement-overhypes.2037278/page-4#post-34964875

 

You were the one that came in with ridiculous over the top hyperbole for your first post by boldly claiming, "I don't think Zico would stand a chance. He did nothing on the international stage for club and country (official or friendlies), in contrast to other years."

You never really retracted or amended that statement. You can either stand by it or admit it was misspoken. Its also really misleading the way you phrased your initial posts which don't take into account the reality that Flamengo had no Copa Libertadores that year.

Next, in 30 years I have never heard someone focus so much on two international FRIENDLIES as some sort of definitive evidence for player of the year discussion. Everyone I have talked in real life or even read on the internet especially in debates about World Player of Year completely ignore friendlies. And for good reason- they mean absolutely nothing. Especially in the context of the mess of pre-Tele Brazilian national team with the influence of the dictatorship. Its just ridiculously misleading to keep bringing up friendlies that no one ever took seriously.

I really wonder how consistent you even are with this over-emphasis on friendlies for 1977. Do you closely examine Messi and Ronaldo's international friendlies? Do you frequently use out of context international friendlies to try to support your point? When you make your lists of Best players of the decade are you critically examining all their friendlies the way you are here with Zico?

When we look at the full year
Zico had a very impressive 39 goals in 45 matches
Simonsen had a very pedestrian 15 goals in 45 matches.

Add Zico's 5 goals in 3 World Cup qualifying matches compared to Simonsen's 2 goals in 2 WC qualifiers and for me Zico comes out well ahead of Simonsen even after you take into account his EC early round matches for 77-78.

And now there is more hyperbole from you.

The problem is Simonsen doesn't really fit your criteria much more than Zico. 2 goals in 2 WC qualifiers is not any more impressive than Zico's 5 goals in 3 matches. BMG did not win the European Cup in 76-77. If you want to disparage Zico's goals for being for lower quality opponents than Simonsen's EC matches from Sept-Nov 1977 also qualify where he gets goals against a weak Hungarian side and goals in 8-1 aggregate route of Red Star where his star studded BMG side all played their Red Star counterparts off the pitch.

2 goals in a 2 WC qualifiers and a handful of goals against overmatched opposition in the first rounds of the EC is not exactly the type of legendary performances that usually win the World Player of the Year.

 

Zico "did nothing" by his own standards, Brazilian standards and - above all - Ballon d'Or standards. I don't retract that.

I did not say he "did nothing" in the comparison with Simonsen (the part you actually replied to).

I only refer to the friendlies in the absence of other games. I think it is sensible to do and I also think more often than not Flamengo/Brazil wanted to show their worth against European teams. It provided them status and esteem.

I don't think friendlies are "completely ignored" and deemed to "mean absolutely nothing" when players as Pelé, Puskas, Di Stefano are discussed (by the media). Just in this thread the same is done with the young version of Diego Maradona - even a club vs NT match became mentioned (not by me). Let those friendlies out and not as much is left of him (more or less a domestic topscorer title against a bunch of duds; who tried it in Europe, in 2nd divisions even). His main rival for the 1979 Nacional topscorer title was Humberto Bravo, who had just returned from France where he scored 5 goals in 24 career games. It appears that in his case friendlies are widely used as foundation behind the perceived level (e.g. the 6/10 rated games by El Grafico against Italy and World XI). Ignore the friendlies and we've almost no objective reference.

In terms of "influence of the dictatorship" [sic]; does that also invalidate Zico his domestic games? Or is only invalidating the national team? We both know for which club Zico played for.

These numbers are for Simonsen some way off (calendar year 1977):

Zico

Club: 39 goals in 45 games (includes 7 penalties).
National team: 6 goals in 7 games (includes 1 penalty)

Scoring ratio without penalties: 37 / 52 = 0.71

Simonsen

League: 7 goals in 17 games + 11 goals in 19 games = 18 goals in 36 games
Cup: 3 goals in 5 games
Europe: 2 goals in 5 + 5 goals in 4 games = 7 goals in 9 games
National team: 2 goals in 2 games.

Scoring ratio without penalties: 30 / 52 = 0.58


Neither stood out particularly with assisting, but Simonsen was almost certainly more of an assister than Zico was (despite that Zico looked more of a through baller).

To my mind national team games have to be compared with national team games. Some comments about the opposition standard have already been made (8-0 rout against Bolivia etc.).

Simonsen got two goals against Vasas Budapest indeed. But he got all his other goals against decent to very good teams. Brugge, Liverpool and 3 goals against Red Star. 'Club Elo' supports the idea that it were all top 70 teams or better. Liverpool was the solid #1, Brugge top 15 or top 20 and Red Star around place 68 (and only ~230 points away from the top). Monchengladbach themselves were between rank 3 and 10 approximately.

 

Apart from whether that is true or not, I don't think it matters much for the general idea. Players in the Dutch league were out of the running for the Ballon d'Or too (between 1955 and 1995) when they didn't impress internationally (e.g. final places). For club and/or country. They could finish top ten, yes, but for top three something more was required (and even then the Dutch were often snubbed because not marketable etcetera). Although Cruijff in 1971 also received it for his career up until that point, similar to Rivera in 1969 and Albert in 1967 (who received it - in part - for their career too; voters knew Rivera had a mixed season and year in 1969).

At the moments the league really performed well, and performed way above its size, the money spinners at UEFA were quick to put it down and downgrade (I've mentioned the 1973 'reset' previously). That's the simple fact. The success costed the others too much viewer interest and money. Little has changed actually.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...-sports-dismal-champions-league-viewing-figu/

This is also true for the (so called) 'Big Five' leagues. For winning the Ballon d'Or something more was required than shining domestically (arguably there are a couple of exceptions like Law in 1964 but otherwise there weren't). And I don't think impressing against teams outside the top 50 would've been enough base to sway.

 

Like Kevin Keegan in both 1978 and 1979...

 

To me that looks as if clubs on average were far more competitive internationally than they are today.

A far greater variety of clubs were able to compete internationally with realistic chances to win a trophy than we have today. To me this does not mean that the level was so low but that the talent was more evenly spread than today.

 

Regarding the issue of friendlies played by Zico in 1977.

I think they were quite important friendlies for the teams involved. It was not often that top European national teams would travel all the way to South America to play friendlies, thus there was a lot of expectation involved. There was a lot prestige at stake in these games. When Brazil hosted Germany at the Maracana in 1977 there was an attendance of 150,000. I think it's wrong to write these games off as "merely friendlies". I am sure all of the players on the pitch of both teams wanted to show their absolute best, certainly a Zico was not going into the game like it was an unimportant encounter. These friendlies were top priority games for all involved and incomparable to a regular friendly game played today.

 

There is a case to be made for 1978, and some wondered whether he was a deserving winner, including Shoot! magazine. He didn't play internationally for his club and for the national team he had maybe two standout games (good to very good). But that journalists wondered whether he was the most deserving European is already telling to me.

For 1979 his case was absolutely bolstered by scintillating form for the national team (OK, they lost to Austria but individually he was great in at least five national team games). In the 1979-80 European Cup he also scored 2 goals (one goal in each game) against Dynamo Tbilisi, which was back then a half decent side. They eliminated teams as Internazionale, Liverpool, Napoli and West Ham in those days. A season later Tblisi won the Cup Winners Cup (1980-81). In the second half of the 1979-80 season Keegan lost some steam, but for the 1979 calendar year I don't think it is remotely possible to say that he only got it (EPotY) for domestic form or domestic personal achievements.