Good thoughtful post mate. I think I was omitting Mexico from what I saw as South America to be honest but again no problem to include them among Latin American countries as far as I'm concerned (I'd not realised at first though when I was making a list). I didn't count up players by club (or most major club, club peaked at etc) although it crossed my mind and I assume I'd have lots of Barcelona representation and quite a lot for AC Milan (more than reasonable factoring in trophies and general collection of quality players they had? I'm not sure without looking into it). I can see your points on Sanchez/Santamaria being primarily club stars (though Seedorf then fits that too I guess as Puck suggested) and also on Hungary's actual achievements even if the 1954 WC was as close as a nation can get to crowing a great era with a WC trophy I suppose. If you saw Neeskens in Leeds vs Barcelona, I think I read it wasn't an especially great game for him (maybe a Leeds player even said something like that....?) but still an experience to watch your team against him, Cruyff and company (if that is the game you mean indeed!).
British Isles/England is another balancing act. Long history, with decent record in EC/UCL, versus indifferent international tournament showing since 1950. If we were starting in 1920 then, as you say, the number of English/British places from that time could be higher. But the three slots allocated pre-1914 have reduced those available since. Most British sources would no doubt allocate more places to their own players anyway. Dalglish is a good example here. Within the UK probably the most highly rated footballer of the past forty years. But so ineffective at two World Cups that he was actually dropped during one of them. Only once made the Ballon d'Or Top 5, when he received fewer than a quarter of the votes of winner Platini. Would he, or other domestic legends such as Finney and Greaves, make the Top 100 of somebody based in Montevideo or Prague? And how far should we take that into account? It would be good to get your opinion.
Yes, I see what you mean, and in some ways maybe my opinion is the one that isn't so useful to help with that (being British and exposed to more British opinion/lists etc myself too). I suppose the counter-factor is your aim to get the ideas of the home nation population itself, but then that's more about who to include rather than how many I suppose otherwise you'd end up with 200 names for the 100 if you know what I mean. Dalglish was picked by less people than Keegan in the Uefa 50/50 vote, but it's possible certain nations populations really got on board with that in terms of voting more than others, and if there was a big German vote then it's understandable Keegan would come out well. The Voetbal International selection did include Dalglish of course, quite high up. Puck also told me before how Greaves was very highly regarded by his countrymen of his Dad's generation I remember. There could be a wider NT (and World Cup especially) vs club football dilemma I suppose. Looking at your provisional list, maybe I lean to Finney being the final British name if just one more was to go in the 1950-1969 period (he could certainly easily fit in there of course even though I slotted him earlier in my attempt; wheras probably I felt personally Rivera should definitely go in that period too even though he was still fairly young going into the 70s and continued to impress and even had a season scoring many goals yet to come). It might be another case where the world view doesn't follow so much, and even within the UK Matthews is the more famous and tended to get more votes in all-time polls (even from youngsters perhaps due to the legend factor but who knows?), but it seems there was genuine uncertainty among fans, professionals etc about who was really better (over the short-term and maybe long-term too, since both had great careers that extended into veteran stage) out of those 2 wingers and that position should get well represented (though with Orsi and suchlike it's not badly represented so far anyway - I found it interesting how I put Gento in and even left Czibor out of the second 100 without big consideration to change that and the consensus attempt seems like it might follow...but that does sort of make sense in a few ways even if there might not be a huge amount between them). Having Finney in would boost the post 1914 English representation I suppose too, but then Welsh representation would depend on Meredith getting a place which seems feasible but not certain for the pre-1914 period (when removing the likes of Alex James from the 'early' category which I can understand when as you say 44 years had passed by 1914 and you are going for a real all-time selection, Meredith seems to stand out but as you've said when other early names are looked into other great cases can exist and it could even be his fame endured after his time more than others who were similarly good I guess). Re: Hungary, I'm now thinking I'm undecided on whether I'd actually place Albert in my main 100, swapping wth Kocsis (having accidentally left Albert out of even the second 100 initially). That would change the era balance slightly. And it could be I'd think about putting Beara in that main 100 I picked instead of Grosics even, as I know Beara was really established in his time as a top goalkeeper, even if representing Yugoslavia with creative attacking players with flair might seem the best call, and I/we just have Dzajic pencilled in in that respect. Anyway, to be compatible with the format I'd need to revise my list to take players from that period and pick more for the previous one, even though Friedenreich would already be one that would slot in there anyway in effect. Perhaps Beara could himself go in that earlier period though, but not sure (I know you are considering Ocwirk for it for example, in terms of another 1940s/1950s player).
Ah, ok, yes, probably a better game to appreciate Neeskens in, but certainly Cruyff. Although more a case of 'your team' ie England in that case getting out-classed and of course beaten (perhaps in a friendly easier to put that aside and enjoy the opponents display though anyway). The old Wembley was a good place to visit, although I only went there once in 1989 for the Littlewoods Cup Final. The big pitch might have suited the Dutch in terms of space to pass the ball around in I guess even, and Neeskens would be good at covering the ground on such a pitch.
I suppose you had already an idea on which names appeared in VI/FFT list too but just to let you know: Weah received a honorable mention, as did Figueroa. Some of those in your 2nd 100 ended up in their honorable mentions category too: Vieira, Pirlo, Coluna, Valderrama etc.
No problem PDG. George Weah Samuel Eto'o Didier Drogba Nwankwo Kanu Larbi Ben Barek Roger Milla Mario Coluna Greame Souness Roy Keane Edgar Davids Patrick Vieira Claude Makelele Andrea Pirlo Sergio Busquets Ngolo Kante Paulino Alcantara Bum Kun Cha Jean Marie Pfaff Rene Higuita Jose Luis Chilavert Carlos Valderrama Elias Figueroa David Ginola Matthew Le Tissier Sometimes also a mention in the text but didn't check this. "The ideal player" "The history knows so many good players with potential, but even our number one in the top 100, Lionel Messi, has weaknesses. How great would it be if you can potter your own ideal player together - in your imagination, not for real? This is our sketchy attempt." Brains - Johan Cruijff Heading - Sergio Ramos Charisma - Zlatan Ibrahimovic Joy - Pelé Biceps - Adebayo Akinfenwa Left and right hand - Diego Maradona Lungs - N'Golo Kante Heart - Edgar Davids Suppleness - George Best Reflexes - Gianluigi Buffon (apparently some of the journalists vouched for Casillas really) Shooting power - Roberto Carlos Deadly right - Cristiano Ronaldo Lethal left - Lionel Messi
Now I'm back I did think for myself who I'd designate as a "definitively" in for a top 100 and I did list Laudrup among those. I get the idea that perhaps he is now overrated while underrated in his own time, but something that is still overlooked is he won 7 league titles in his career as a first team player (arguably in six of those as the premier star, or at least 4 of them or so). These seven league titles put him in good company with many of the usual greats - and in some instances even above. Mind here that also back then for some club teams the league was the number one priority. Maybe I can share my idea on who I had safely in a top 100, although in some cases I still lack a bit of perspective or anchoring (Erico or Pedernera specifically, whereas with Meazza and Sindelar I have a clearer picture somewhat thanks to relative lack of isolation and absence of war or other big crises).
Yes, I think it'd be good to see your idea of 'definites' (also for Peter especially maybe). Yeah, I think Laudrup certainly played a great creative/attacking role, probably crucial, in all those league wins. I guess even he himself wouldn't go along with Iniesta's idea of him for example (even in his own head, with modesty out of the equation) but I think he had the class to be within 100 names of all-time greats, maybe comfortably, even if some players seemed more dominating individually and maybe his best form could become subdued or absent at times (eg Cruyff saying he wanted 100% all the time and suggesting extra drive from originating from a poorer background might have made him even better; although conversely he often seemed to excel when very relaxed and 'free' I think although maybe that's not necessarily at odds with an under-lying determination).
Feel pretty weird doing this but since its tangential to this discussion and specific to thousands of other more, specific CR7/Messi discussions we've all been sucked into against our will, I wanted to leave a post I left in the Portugal forum that I think verbalize what I feel is my 'final level' of understanding in what I think of the two. Hopefully this translates to less frustration and wanting to run into a wall when those topics certainly arise again. Specifically to this discussion also, I believe it's also accompanied by a general manner of looking at players I've recently changed/developed, expressed very simply that a player's performance is a function of nature (their innate talent to play the sport) and nurture (the environments they find themselves playing in, specifically the strength of those environments relative to their competition). Could seem pretty obvious and you may be wondering "Da fuk is this guy talking about?" but resulted in some new insights I think. Anyway, would be interested in hearing any thoughts/arguments accordingly as I feel I've reached the point where I won't change my mind from this general position. Basically, Messi > CR7 but... "Pretty sure we're misunderstanding each other in relation to what we mean on declining. I do not believe Messi, in terms of his overall ability to do what he does, has declined. I'm fully aware that a player who has previously scored 90+ goals in a calendar year, whose true ability lies in how he can see the game relative to everyone else, has a way of thinking that continuously develops as he grows older. Essentially, my belief is, in terms of looking at this from a 'nature' vs. 'nurture' example, I believe if both CR7 & Messi had the best environments to play in, the ones that would let them show their natural gifts to their maximum ability, Messi edges it. Edges being the key word, because CR7 was never afforded such a luxury, of having the best environment, early in his career, as Messi did. So yes, you're correct, the strength of Real Madrid as a whole has strengthened CR7. Messi brought Barcelona to new heights, but they were already a high level of greatness prior to being the world's best player. The guy's career has been accompanied continuously by genuine legends of the game. CR7 was never afforded that luxury. Manchester United, Portugal, and Real Madrid, he brought each of them to new levels relative to when he first entered those teams. Brought all three to the top of Europe, and nobody questions that he was the main player to each. Messi cannot do that, because of how he is. He cannot impose himself on his environment the way CR7 can, as a result, you arrive to the point I meant in decline, which means lowered level of performance/output. This much is a fact, the data is there. Take a look at Messi in CL knockout stage games over the course of his career, rather than games against La Liga Fodder. Let me know what you see. His talent has not fallen, his performances have. For the first time, Messi has a worse environment to play relative to Ronaldo, and it doesn't look like it'll stop declining any time soon."
Was the Jan Peter's match! If I remember correctly he had an empty English half completely for himself.
He scored both goals in the first half within a few minutes of one another. Both low to the keeper's right.
Yes, Bobby Moore was "at the age of 25" the best paid player in the English league. Between 1966 and 1968, when George Best broke the barriers.
OK, PDG1978 said he had difficulties to understand it fully, but just to start with the Jacques Ferran article, here below is a helpful website to aid with this. https://www.onlineocr.net/ This website made it so much easier. AT THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM With Jacques FERRAN The signature of Johan the first HERE is Johann Cruijff - European ball for the second time. Only one footballer before him had accomplished this prowess: Alfredo Di Stefano. But Cruijff's age allows him to hope for even a third crown. And why not in 1974, on the occasion of the World Cup? Cruijff, as we will see in this issue, conquered his title 1973 with a derisory ease. He won twice as many votes as his dolphin, "Dino Zoff, the invisible goalkeeper of the Squedra Azzurra. For the great majority of our specialized confreres have not failed to establish a difference between the one who owes the bulk of his invulnerability to the implacable defensive organization of the Italians and the one who, by himself and wherever it may be found, creates and invents danger. All the reasons for the crowning renaissance of the Dutch center were: the Ajax European and national title, the Dutch qualification for the World Cup, the record transfer from Amsterdam to Barcelona and the meteoric rise of the Catalan team in the Spanish Championships since the beginnings of Johan. One could even add, as a contrario criterion, the elimination of the European Cup of Ajax deprived of its tenor. Rarely, perhaps never, a man has so marked the European football with his signature. In order to illustrate his superiority, it would be almost necessary to make a comparison with an individual sport such as cycling, and to quote the name of Eddy Merckx ... And, no doubt, given that it is a collective sport, is the value of Cruijff conceivable and is expressed only within a team and in accordance to his partners. However, Cruijff belongs to the breed of these exceptional footballers who seem, by their personality, to transcend the team to which they belong and to model it in their own image instead of depending on it. Stefan Kovacs, who knows his man at the tips of his fingers, had a particularly revealing observation on the subject at the beginning of the season. It was the evening of the match Nice-Barcelona, in Cup of the U.E.A., during which the Catalan team undergoes a real rout (3-0). She had behaved, without Cruijff not yet qualified, with so much softness and clumsiness that several Spanish journalists exclaimed: "Poor Cruijff, what will he do in this galley?" Kovacs replied: "Cruijff will not only bring his personal worth. When he's there, THE OTHERS WILL PLAY" We know the sequence, dazzling. Barcelona, in the blink of an eye, climbed all the levels of the ranking, from bottom to top. And Martial, Asensi, Rexach, who wandered miserably, regained a taste for play and life. Cruijff has, so to speak, rendered them to themselves. Is it not the character of the great footballer to bring it to his partners and convince more by his influence than by his personal efficiency? For example, Cruijff and Netzer, who were both responsible for relaunching Spanish football, the first to F.C.Barcelona and the second to Real Madrid. Cruijff succeeded instantly, as if his mission was self-evident. Not only did he successfully complete his magic tricks, but he passed the current on to his team. Netzer sought in vain, uncomfortable among partners waiting for everything. Cruijff inspires, animates, creates. Netzer seems to be able to express itself only in a favorable environment. In the same way, Real, fifteen years ago, could have made the difference between Di Stefano, the creator, and Didi, the man of a certain context. The former was leading his comrades, the latter depended on their play. Cruijff, again, is not essentially a striker, like Muller. He is a facilitator. And he draws the essence of his personality, so to speak, from his effacement and his spirit of solidarity. So if I had to say how Cruijff dominates European football so high today, I would say that it is precisely because of his concern not to draw the cover to him. I would add that in other areas too, less often explored, Johann Cruijff is exemplary. His passion for football, in spite of glory and money, is that which has always animated the 'sacred monsters' of the round ball, that they are called Di Stefano or Kopa, Seeler or Eusebio. He was born in front of the stadium in Ajax, Amsterdam, of a very modest family. His mother was doing washing for the club. From his earliest years, like Puskas, like Pele, he tapped in a ball, in a vacant lot. And his gifts burst as soon as he belonged to a team competing in a competition. "Very quickly," says Kovacs, who is passionate about Cruijff's story, "there were 2,000 or 3,000 spectators every Sunday who went to the stadium only to see this junior or cadet score goals." It must be added, he said, that "all the different teams where he played in won their championship." Like all true champions, I add that Cruijff has remained amazingly simple. And of a remarkable affability. It has been said of him that he demanded money to allow himself to be interviewed, and that it was scandalous. I never saw anything like it. And recently, in Barcelona, he said to me: "I have answered thousands of times to journalists without my thinking for a single moment of monetizing these confidences. But when a newspaper asks me a private interview of several hours, at my own home, to talk about something other than football, then I have at times a rate. Even if it is to not be invaded constantly ..." Such is Johan Cruijff, that we cannot stop talking. His vivacity of distribution, his intellectual courage, his casualness make him one of our most representative 'heroes'. He has the nerve, the impertinence, the spirit of modern youth. He is, on the ground and in life, the symbol of a free and audacious generation, skillful in advocating everything without being imprisoned by anything. He goes to the end of himself, his gifts, his limits, without being the dupe of his glory. And he has learned by himself everything that he knows. Behind Cruijff, in our 1973 ranking, we feel all that European football has to be thankless and confused. No clear hierarchy can be distinguished. Zoff is the symbol of this undefeated Italy in 1973, but the metamorphosis is still in vain; and it is somewhat regrettable that Sandro Mazzola, who has Cruijff in his determination, self-denial and efficiency, is undoubtedly passed by a "golden ball" that will miss his exemplary career. Muller and Beckenbauer are still there, certainly, "Ballon d'Ors" of yesterday and perhaps tomorrow. Unless the future belongs to another German, blond one, and whose ambition is already drawn: Hoeness. No English, and for good reason, in the first twenty. But in fifth place, the little red Scotch of Leeds, Bremmer, another hero of our time. Watch them all in 1974, with the Deyna. Rivera, Edstrom, Netzer and Bonev, who will also be in Germany. The World Cup will redistribute, for hundreds of millions of spectators, the protagonists of the greatest show of our time. @PDG1978 ?
Thanks Puck - the general gist can be shown to me in French I guess, but it does add to the feel of the article for me when I see the English translation and can follow every nuance. Very much on the complimentary side about Johan (with no real 'buts' - I typed that in English and not French lol) isn't it, and emphasising the impact in Barcelona including the lifting of other players games. Seems to be some feeling Zoff benefitted hugely from the tight defence, and questions about whether his votes were a bit 'token' in that respect, as if he often had little to do (perhaps only one view and those who voted for him might differ)?
Yes, Jacques Ferran is also from 1920 so effectively in between Matthews and Di Stefano's generation isn't it? So not a fellow babyboomer or so. Yes I tried to translate it as good as I could. Maybe in 1971 there was a push to give Mazzola a career Ballon d'Or? If you also want another thing translated (maybe another player in VIs list) give a shout. As you now know VI did write that Johan was leaning to Pelé and Messi if he was forced to make a call - in that way I came across this too
Yes, true and thanks for the offer. Maybe that's right about Mazzola then (maybe even a retrospective feeling he was a bit short-changed in some other years, or just that while no year made a perfect case for him he might still seem under-valued at that point?). Any reference to him that year or Dalglish in 1983 might be useful I guess, but as they didn't win and were well behind the convincing winner on points they might not have had much in the way of designated words maybe....
Following further comments received, here is a first attempt at a BigSoccer Top 100, reflecting posters' input. As suggested by PDG, the first era has been extended by a few years and British Isles has gained one place at the expense of Other Western Europe. Also, the historical spread has been evened up further. Each twenty-year period since 1950 has been reduced to twenty players. The eight years from 2010 still has eight. Freed-up places have been allocated to the periods before 1950. Hopefully this will give the list a more representative historical feel than some of the commercially-driven ones, as well as reflecting the work posters have contributed while looking at the entire period of organised football. 1870-1919: 6 players (average 1.2 per decade) – Charlie Campbell, Nick Ross, GO Smith, Bloomer, Piendibene, Friedenreich 1920-1949: 26 players (average 8.7 per decade) – Scarone, JL Andrade, Obdulio Varela, Seoane, Sastre, Moreno, Pedernera, Monti, Orsi, Domingos da Guia, Leonidas, Zizinho, Erico, Meazza, Valentino Mazzola, Zamora, Fritz Walter, Sindelar, Bican, Braine, Nordahl, Orth, Sarosi, Hughie Gallacher, Matthews, Finney 1950-69: 20 players (average 10 per decade) – Di Stefano, Didi, Garrincha, Nilton Santos, Pele, Schiaffino, Spencer, Eusebio, Facchetti, Rivera, Gento, Suarez, Kopa, Puskas, Bozsic, Yashin, Djajic, Best, Charlton, Moore 1970-89: 20 players (average 10 per decade) – Maradona. Passarella, Rivelino, Zico, Chumpitaz, Figueroa, Beckenbauer, Muller, Maier, Breitner, Rummenigge, Cruyff, van Hanegem, Krol, Gullit, Rijkaard, van Basten, Scirea, Zoff, Platini 1990-2009: 20 players (average 10 per decade) – Romario, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Roberto Carlos, Kahn, Matthaus, Baresi, Maldini, Baggio, Buffon, Zidane, Desailly, Thuram, Xavi, Figo, Ronald Koeman, Nedved, Cech, Michael Laudrup, Weah 2010-17: 8 players (average 10 per decade) – Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Lahm, Neuer, Iniesta, Lewandowski, Modric, Alexis Sanchez By nationality: Brazil 14, Argentina 10, Germany 10, Italy 10, British Isles 10 (England 6, Scotland 3, Northern Ireland 1), Eastern Europe 10 (Hungary 4, Former Czechoslovakia 2, Former Yugoslavia 2, Poland 1, Former USSR 1), Netherlands 7, France 5, Spain 5, Other Western Europe 5 (Austria 2, Belgium 1, Denmark 1, Sweden 1), Uruguay 5, Other Latin America 5 (Chile 2, Peru 1, Paraguay 1, Ecuador 1), Portugal 3, Rest of World 1 (Liberia) Goalkeepers: 8 Defenders (including old centre-halves): 22 Total: 100
For Other Latin America, I went with your suggestion of Chumpitaz and Spencer. Chumpitaz also gave a defender. Can swap him for Cubillas if you wish.
It was marginal. Koeman won more. Also gives a defender. All three appeared in your short list, in no particular order.