Well I think that Di Stefano was on the slide then whereas Puskas stayed at the top for longer. That shows in his goalscoring record as much as anything (even though ADS had a more varied role at Madrid than Puskas).
Do other things besides the goals show it too? Ballon d'Or (although that is even today not fully adequate) doesn't show it, though it is known that Madrid did not extend his contract in 1964 (unlike Puskas) and 1963 was truncated (kidnapping; and the debate surrounding 1963 FIFA game)
I don't think Teddy Sheringham should be discounted, he was still a very prolific striker well past the age 0f 35 and on his day could worry some of the best defences in the world. In fact in 2001, the year he turned 35 he was named Footballer of the Year and was Manchester Uniteds top scorer for the 2000/01 season, no mean feat in a team that included Dwight Yorke, Andy Cole and Ole Gunnar Solskjaer who were all in their prime. He was also picked ahead of a lot of Premiership quality strikers for the 2002 World Cup squad making him one of the oldest players at the tournament that year a sign that he was still considered one of the best the country had to offer, despite his advancing years. After leaving United he returned to Tottenham where he is still to this day considered one of the clubs all-time legends and helped them to their highest league position in years, bagging 13 goals in the process proving he was still a lethal marksman even in a distinctly average team which Tottenham were at that stage. He later went onto have successful spells at Portsmouth and West Ham, where he fired the Hammers back into the Premiership, scoring 20 goals in 33 league appearances and becoming the Championships top scorer in the process. His next season at West Ham saw him still in goal scoring form when he helped take the newly promoted team to an impressive 9th place as he scored 7 in 31 appearances in all competitions. His final season in the Premiership would see him become the oldest outfield player in Premiership history as he surpassed his 40th birthday before he ended his career at Colchester for one final season in the Championship. I would be very surprised if we see many more players still considered as useful as Sheringham was well into his mid-late thirties, he was the sort of player that could be relied upon to grab you some important goals even if he didn't have the best team backing him up, which he didn't certainly in his latter years, a truly natural striker.
Fair post and agree with the assessment. Interesting to consider whether the best 'old' player necessarily needs to be one of the all-time greats in general or not.
Nice recent videos for both 36-years old (for Pelé I own and watched all his Cosmos DVDs). As shown in another thread (this includes a few excerpts from the UEFA Cup match against eventual trophy winners Tottenham and Gullit wasn't around for more than 60 minutes; in a bit more detail seen here) Recent one for Pelé Older videos: edit: the first Pelé video is a very good one and indeed among the two/three best I've seen after he passed the age of 33 or so.
I never actually voted myself on this did I!? I probably would be leaning towards Cruyff based on what I've seen of their capabilities after the required age (even though I didn't name him among any estimated potential top 5 player in the world lists on the Big Soccer Members thread....I haven't thought about it but probably his case is better for 81/82 or 83/84 season as opposed to any calendar year anyway although he started late in 81/82). I wouldn't be ruling out Matthews or Liedholm though for sure. And if Milla played something like his Italia 90 level before that and after he reached 35 then maybe he's not out of the equation. Those 3 are I would think cases of being closer to prime versions of themselves, although at times Cruyff surely resembled his earlier self even without being as able as an attacker or as a constant threat at the highest level I suppose - his playmaking abilities were very much to the fore though and he was still in good shape in terms of build and fluid movement.
A looked at the World Soccer reader poll (top 10) - as addition to Ballon d'Or we discussed lately (i.e. the remark of Maldini in the list in 1989, with one point though, and 2007). Zoff (1982), Cruijff (1982, 1984), Morten Olsen (1984), Shilton (1989), Milla (1990), Maldini (2003), Drogba (2012, born early 1978 so an inch away) make the grade in this one. I don't think I overlooked someone. Cannavaro (2006) at age 33 was quite close to winning it all. In 2013 Pirlo was ranked 16th and not too far away. http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/wsoc-awards.html https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwL4ev1QI1K6SW9VR3BpRmVYLU0/edit?pli=1 Personally I'd place none of those in a top five for their years. Top ten, top fifteen to be precise, is in most cases feasible/reasonable or possible. In a Belgian sports magazine I saw that managers Thys, Goethals and captain Ceulemans all named both Olsen and Cruijff so a honorable mention looks good (Thys remembering a 1982 test game of Belgium vs Ajax too). Speaking of Cruijff (again), I know he's mentioned Puskas and as fellow countryman Wilkes and Bergkamp (2004, early 2005) as examples though he added that not every period is equally kind to the "elderly" [sic] and it are the top-elite players anyway. To add something of myself: in both cases (thus Olsen too) their coaching was as important as their feet and legs (later 'proven' by a legacy effect on players). That's also nicely elaborated in the Danish Dynamite book.
Yes, Olsen maybe slips the mind because he almost might be said to have had his prime period when already close to the required age (or maybe not, and maybe the rise of Denmark just coincided with that?) and I suppose because he's a lower tier all-time great in terms of fame and also a defender. But very fair call I think. As was Gunnar Gren too. Puskas and Wilkes plus Bergkamp are good mentions by Johan I'd say indeed. Hard to know exactly how Wilkes career panned out but I think I've seen some footage of him playing and scoring and seeming in good shape/form for the Netherlands, and although he was at Levante by the age we are talking about he is said to have still done well there. I suppose Cruyff saw Wilkes playing in that period too.
Found this short article/ ranking 2 mins ago : http://dailyentertainment.com/top-10-footballers-to-play-into-their-40s/ It includes Strachan, Sheringham (see post #29 in here), Costacurta and J.Zanetti.
How about Francescoli? Awesome -always, but even- during his mid 30s and even made the South American Team of the Year in 1997 (born in late 1961). Deserves a shout at least.
Bochini was Argentine champion with Independiente in 1989 (born January 1954) and still one of the highest rated players in Argentina by 1990.
Jesus, Cruyff was something else. I've never seen such accurate long distance passing with the opposite foot. Got to say, Pele really isn't impressive at all at Cosmos.
It are flashes. Such as the goal at 5:00 which I find an example of great technique and connection (of course, ppl start to overextend when they say other players couldn't do that), and the England match of 1976 in particular although that was an unofficial friendly/exhibition match. In the first video nice taking down of Rodney Marsh ("Pelé is known as the black Rodney Marsh" he said). On youtube and so on there are more videos around but I've understood previously that you've seen most of the footage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_U.S.A._Bicentennial_Cup_Tournament Yes, much of Cruijff his wiki page is about him influencing players and managers (e.g. Laudrup, Stoichkov, Van Basten, Guardiola, Wenger), establishing La Masia and him opposing dictator Franco but also purely as a player he was very good (and even in Holland there are many who ignore his stay in Barcelona with three semi finals which is from a consistency point of view not too bad etc.). I tend to agree with his reasoning though that over 100+ years inherent differences between athletes cease to be discernible (in a straightaway fashion). It's nice someone has expanded on this one. Maybe this is interesting: http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/daily-mail-top-50-players-ever.1066278/page-78 http://www.goalimpact.com/2015/11/top-100-all-time.html Please read first link where I place it into context and do not take it on face value. Though some outcomes seem logical to me knowing how their teams did/scored without players playing (Ronaldo and MvB in particular, and then knowing team results/goal differences without them; examples being 2004 La Liga, 1991 European Cup, 1992 Coppa Italia etc.).
How was Cruyff ranked in the Eredivisie for his final season? Was he seen as the best player in it? Edit: NVM. came across this on Wikipedia At the end of the 1982–83 season, Ajax decided not to offer Cruyff a new contract. This angered Cruyff, who responded by signing for Ajax's archrivals Feyenoord.[38] Cruyff's season at Feyenoord was a successful one in which the club won the Eredivisie for the first time in a decade, part of a league and KNVB Cup double. The team's success was due to the performances of Cruyff along with Ruud Gullit and Peter Houtman.[39] Despite his relatively advanced age, Cruyff played all league matches that season except for one. Because of his performance on the field, he was voted as Dutch footballer of the year for the 5th time. So what are seen as Cruyffs very best years? How does this final season rank in comparison to those?
Bochini was fantastic in the Libertadores 87, dominating River Plate in their semifinal matchup. I thought that was his swan song, how highly rated was he in 1990?
@Jaweirdo Just my view but I don't think anyone was really in their prime at age 35 or older (nor unquestionably best player in league). Yes, it added to legacy because of not joining the favorites. I'll PM you the ratings thread.
To say a little bit more. Wikipedia is both right and wrong: the recognition they cite was won for the third time, not the fifth. They are mixing two together. Best player in the league? Maybe not, but one of the best and in the discussion surely. His team mate (Gullit) won the colleagues vote for 1984 although that was for the full calendar year and not the season. But the context (context of the club) is part of the story. http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1984/06/03/pagina-14/1424549/pdf.html That is difficult to say. There are some who discard it (aided by emotions), there are others who see it among his best because he also showed his skill and ability to move the ball forward to dangerous places against the good opponents (and did so consecutively in all of these 'hard' matches, domestic and abroad, imho an argument that makes sense as far as I could assess). Even without Gullit and sweeper Van de Korput playing. Those like to highlight the view that he has worked on his passing by that age but personally I'm not so sure (i.e. it is very well possible that he was just more consistently asked to perform a specific role instead of shifting around in roles and jobs). He also played a friendly match for Barcelona that year, after the end of the season, where he stood out (as an individual) and the Spanish (Madrid) press said he could continue as top class libero until the age of 45, as a compliment. Sadly, the chance to play with Maradona was missed because by that time both players had a poisoned relationship with chairman Nunez.. But like I said, personally I don't believe players can be at their prime when they are 36-37. Even if you are Morten Olsen, Ryan Giggs or Maldini.
yes i voted for him also.. respect for matthews but english competition isn't the same as shining at european cup level like puskas did..
Its in the thread with the rates of the Argentine league made by Vegan and msioux. The Apertura 1990 rates are available and Bochini is one of the top guys, perhaps the top offensive player. You can check it out.
Copy paste. Hmmm yes, after seeing some more and reading I think Matthews was individually probably a little bit better. Puskas was very immobile by that age and relied on service (scoring uncontested/unchallenged goals) and big scorelines, the opponents, that Real Madrid would win/lose anyway. Although Matthews played for a smaller team (can be both an argument pro/against) he was more important and crucial. As an individual player and impetus for a team he looks more impressive - less of a 'luxury player' if one likes. In terms of passing the same. Using an old post of SirWellingtonSilva and then insert 'Puskas', that is exactly the impression I got. Maybe Puskas was acting on a higher level but Matthews looks more impressive on the eye and decisive. So my vote went to Matthews.