Yes, re: Platini it might be interesting to know whether in the mid 80's many journalists were saying/thinking "yes, see, he was the best and now he proves it" or whether they saw him as an inherently improved player significantly. Probably the French media might have been hesitant to suggest one of their own, while they were as a nation not high achieving prior to 1982, despite some impressive games by club sides and some 'lesser' trophies in Europe. But anyway even if they did/had that would fall under 'regional' opinion, and actually I think that might have been the case with Finney too now I think about it, with Matthews having a sustained worldwide reputation moreso (and hence a more enduring fame now too).
There are some references by himself that he improved but certainly he was already consistently performing big against top 10, 20 opponents (Elo)before 1983. Just as some others outside their windows. Think that the increased uniformity of the sport (at the highest levels) has helped to point at this.
Nordhal-no, Rivelino-no, Keegan-no, Falcao-no Candidates: Woodward 1908 Andrade 1924 Scarone 1924-25 Sindelar 1932-35 Meazza 1938 Leonidas 1938
This could lend an interesting alternative perspective. Trying to gauge the media spotlight/narrative rather than analyse too closely players' performances in a particular year. Popular opinion and fame would presumably carry more weight than usual. Here is one interpretation covering 1945-59. Before 1950, with the odd exception such as the 1924 Olympics, there would be very different perspectives in Europe and Latin America. Between 1945 and 1948 in Europe, for example, the leading contenders for best footballer in the world would probably be Stanley Matthews and Valentino Mazzola. Latin America would be aware of these two but would place their own established stars ahead of them: Moreno and Pedernera. By the end of 1949 Mazzola had perished in the Supergra disaster, leaving Matthews in pole position in Europe. Brazil's emphatic Copa America win would elevate Zizinho above Pedernera, now plying his trade in the rebel Colombian league. The 1950 World Cup brings the two continents together, with South America on home soil clearly superior. Zizinho is again the best player in the most impressive team, but they don't win the competition. With Uruguay world champions, Schiaffino must take a fair share of the popular vote. One of these two would be world number one, with no Europeans in contention. The following year Schiaffino cements his position with a Uruguayan league title as attention in Europe switches to Serie A's Swedish imports Nordahl and Liedholm. Assuming that the 1952 Olympics receives reasonable coverage, Puskas establishes himself as the world's best player and holds on until the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, after which Di Stefano, star of the new European Cup, takes the crown for the remainder of the decade.
I had been thinking that Meazza and Sindelar might have been interchanging with each other a bit in the early part of the 1930s, and possibly at some point before the end of the decade Sarosi and/or Piola could be given the verdict. But yes I guess in 1938 Meazza might again be in contention anyway. Early 40s is difficult, and maybe things were too fragmented to have a widely accepted number 1 player? I think Matthews is a difficult one to know about accurately actually. As early as 1937? I guess not in terms of established opinion. As late as 1956? I guess not as at least Di Stefano was probably seen as superior even if Matthews took the Ballon d'Or and not only for retrospective reasons. But in the whole period Puck labelled for Matthews (or Nordahl as an intermittent option - I guess you feel he was never thought as really the outright best inherently though) I don't know and maybe it did vary with his form?
Yeah, Valentino Mazzola must have slipped my mind earlier! Good call, and I'm thinking pretty much until his death he'd be in contention at least (not sure from how early though). On Schiaffino I could be wrong, but I had thought his form and reputation both peaked just before and/or just after his move to AC Milan. That 'All-Time World Cup' book we discussed before provides that impression anyway. Obviously in 1954 he was the most expensive player in terms of transfer fee, but that isn't much of a guide in itself. I'd have thought Puskas was generally seen as the top player at that time, and maybe Di Stefano's start to life in Spain might be convincing enough to some already? I was wondering about Zizinho even for 1944 say (and maybe Ademir for 1950, but that would require him being the one viewed as best at the World Cup - sources maybe conflict on that or maybe as there can be today there were just different opinions - that same book and the World Soccer 100 player guide list of 1999 maybe hint at a European view favouring Ademir?....though the author of the book definitely said he'd researched widely for a non-British viewpoint) but yeah I think there likely wouldn't be widespread agreement for 1940-1946 and as well as the Argentine contingent, others to have their advocates might include Matthews, possibly Lawton too?, Fritz Walter, Bican.....
Here is also an early example featuring Puskas. It is a list made by "Austrian insiders" (managers, officials). http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010761977:mpeg21:p006 Think that he had fully established his name slightly before the 1953 England game but not yet completely after the 1952 Olympics (which was already a slightly devalued tournament). Before the 1953 England game he was already dubbed as "best player" or "best inside forward" (which meant 9/10 times about the same). The article also explicitly mentions the absence of Nordahl in their list ("who are playing now in Italy such a massive role").
Looking at this translation, I see reference to Zizinho being called best player of WC1950 by International press, and also seemingly his opening match vs Yugoslavia being deemed the best performance ever in a Brazil shirt!? https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...013/04/10/craque-imortal-zizinho/&prev=search Apart from talk of world fame, at that time and generally, I'm not sure enough is said (even in un-translated form?) to pinpoint him as near unanimous choice as the worlds best at a particular time though. I had thought I'd read before around 1944 was a peak time for him but not sure which source/s now.
Thanks - sorry I have difficulty to navigate/read etc but I think the article says that Lenstra and Wilkes are considered among the best in Europe, in their opinion?
Also rated well were Lenstra, Mitic, Gren, Boniperti, Mermens, Baratte, Zarra, Amadei, Wagner, Cejp. Particularly noticed is the absence of Gunnar Nordahl. "The many Swedes who play nowadays such a big role in Italy, don't come to the fore that much here in a selection for an European team. Footballers as Nordahl, Lundberg, Nilsson and others are mentioned in second or third instance. Apparently in middle Europe they see more in ball artists than in sturdy, steady but technically less delivering football players. About the very famous Nordahl it is said that he might be a good club footballer but that he misses the 'lining up' that has to mark a star of international class."
Oh, I think as no name seems to be mentioned twice it is more like a brain-storming exercise (taking it in turns to mention players, equivalent to the start of a Big Soccer draft? - so all players listed with a number 1 were among the first picks?). Perhaps surprising also not to see Liedholm (would he be deemed more skilful? at least more of a schemer I guess anyway - Nordahl along with Gren had starred for the Swedish Olympic team of course but full International football must've been viewed in a different light). Maybe Bozsik, even Kubala too seem notable omissions. And Finney or even any English/British players (unless excluded by the poll as not being part of mainland Europe). And Boniperti only being a supplementary mention might seem surprising at that point too? Zarra too I guess (might the same reservations applied to Nordahl fit his case too though?).
Schiaffino's actual peak probably occurred later as you say. But his global reputation was made by winning the 1950 World Cup.
Continuing with a simplified narrative to feed popular consumption at the time, Real Madrid and Di Stefano enjoy their last hurrah at the 1960 European Cup Final. Puskas by now is an overweight specialist goalscorer. New world number one is Pele and he stays there for ten years until the end of the 1970 World Cup. During the second half of the sixties the leading Europeans outperform him at times but none threatens to take his crown. His closest challenger is Garrincha in 1962. Other teammates shine in 1970 but Pele provides the four moments that dominate the media: the lobbed shot from the halfway line against Czechoslovakia; the dummy on Uruguayan goalkeeper Mazurkiewicz (Brian Clough typically claimed Pele chickened out of the challenge but nobody believed him); the perfectly-executed header to produce the famous Banks save; and the simple-looking measured pass for his captain to slam in the fourth goal in the final. Pele's long spell at the top secures his legacy. Cruyff has 1971-74 to himself, and momentum carries him over into 1975, though his second Spanish season did not match his first. Cruyff's closest challenger Beckenbauer was not at his best that year despite being reigning world champion, European champion and retaining the European Cup. The German takes over in 1976, winning another European Cup and only failing to retain the European Championship on penalties. There is a bit of a continental split as many Latin Americans prefer Figueroa. I am not too sure about the next few years so will have to give them some thought.
Ah, I see what you mean yes. I guess Ghiggia would be talked about a lot too, but probably not as a contender among the worlds very best players I would assume.
Do you know or have something where Garrincha was in 1962 mentioned as best player in the world? Above Pelé at his prime. Can go a long way with the rest, as aptly covered in the Pelé Albums
I think Pele would still be number one in 1962. But Garrincha's performance in the World Cup would take him close. Brian Glanville: "Perhaps because he was no longer rivalled and obscured by Pele, Garrincha continued in a vein of luminosity which would persist into the semi-final. Wilson did what he could with him; but it was inevitably little. To the panther swerve and acceleration, the deadly goal-line cross, which one had seen in Sweden, Garrincha had now added a thumping shot in either foot and remarkable power in the air. The first Brazilian goal, after thirty-one minutes, came when he, at five foot seven, utterly outjumped Maurice Norman at six foot two, to head in a corner kick. That it was no fluke, no mere aberration by Norman, was shown when he did just the same against Chile."
The Pelé years are more or less aptly covered in his 'albums' (with excerpts from all around the world). So that is a short I'm not entirely neutral but here are some of the things that informed my thought; In the February 1977 issue of World Soccer a younger Keir Radnedge wrote that Beckenbauer is the best. In june 1977 Brian Glanville wrote in the Washington Post that Beckenbauer is the "chief rival as the best of the world". The same Washington Post also wrote early 1978 that he (at that time playing in USA) "may or may not be the world's greatest. There is competition in Europe from Dutch ace Johan Cruyff, who has overshadowed countrymen Johan Neeskens and Rob Rensenbrink. Other European pretenders to the throne are Denmark's Alan Simonsen; England's Kevin Keegan and brillant young Frenchman, Michel Platini, who many feel is about where Beckenbauer was in 1966. Latin America has its candidates, particularly Brazil's erratic Robert Rivelino and Zico, who is untested in major international competition outside South America. Chilean defender Elias Figueroa, Argentine midfielder Rene Houseman and a half dozen others are great, but merely on the brink of being The Best." Keir Radnedge as Spanish correspondent also noted in the December 1976 WS issue that Cruijff - following surgery - was back to his best and most influential. He also noted the insane violence in Spain. Later articles in World Soccer (from first half of 1978) wrote down the "world's best player" tag (see the recent Tom Stevens thread re: Neeskens). The skeptical Eric Batty placed the latter in his ideal team for 1977, and in the Singapore newspaper archives you can see him writing that 'Holland' without him is as "an orchestra with no conductor". Batty is kind of a 'least likely' case to win over. The prominent Norman Fox of The Times placed Beckenbauer up there with the best for 1976. A year later (late December 1977) he noticed Cruijff had demolished four times a good British team that year, and that "possibly only Eusebio and Pelé had the ability to dominate a match so completely." In the same newspaper, in April 1976 Bill Shankly of Liverpool praised him for showing it with a "not particularly well-balanced or outstandingly talented team" (in between both legs of the UEFA Cup semi final). Kevin Keegan wrote in June 1977 for Shoot that Cruijff had "lost none of his ability" and placed him in central midfield for his ideal team; two years later he wrote it was "a joy" to play with him in one side. Similar things apply to Andy Gray (in Shoot!) and Ron Atkinson (elsewhere). This supposed 'magical' influence is at least backed up by his high GoalImpact rating (which only covers his Spanish years). Guerin Sportivo backed Beckenbauer and Cruijff at the end of 1976. However, with the departure of the former to the USA looming, and following strong performances against England and Belgium, and a for them impressive solo goal against Real Madrid they moved back to the latter early 1977. In may 1978, after a fourth semi final place with Barca in Europe, they said the same. My somewhat bold hypothesis concerning Rivelino is also informed by Guerin Sportivo. In the issues I own they were mightily impressed with him at the end of 1976, and mentioned him in the same breath with the top dogs. This was possibly helped by his game against Italy in 1976 (a 4-1 loss, which they very rarely suffered). Maybe also a little bit by Rivelino being of Italian heritage. A few years later (in 1979) they were also one of the first in Europe to call Maradona the best in the world (World Soccer and Shoot! magazine were not yet convinced at that point). Yet, Guerin Sportivo is among the upper end of the 'respectable magazines' scale and is European. Until Zico came along (late 1976) Rivelino was almost certainly the best paid player in Brazil. Rivelino himself succeeded in 1971 Pelé as the best paid player. The 1977 Ballon d'Or vote of France Football had a respectable number of comments by voters saying that Platini and Cruijff are the two best (ofc with only Europeans available, and Beckenbauer in the USA & per statute ineligible anyway). Those voters came from all around Europe. Intriguingly there are not really such comments for Keegan or Simonsen, and at any rate fewer of them. Miroir Football was in the French context at the time a relevant publication: "Mirror Football was always advocate of the beautiful game and beautiful gesture (hence the emphasis given in its columns to Latin America), while its competitors - and L'Equipe and France Football - defended primarily European efficiency. François Thébaud, who was long the chief editor, devoted a book to this magazine not quite like the others: The Time of the "Mirror": another idea of football and journalism (Paris, Editions Albatros, 1982 210 pages). A website dedicated to the journal and bearing its name exists." https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miroir_du_football Miroir Football singled out Cruijff in 1977 and in 1978 (April) they singled out Keegan, Cruijff, Rivelino and Platini (not in any particular order). The L'Equipe readership had Cruijff as the foremost footballer for 1976 and 1977 among other athletes of other sports, but the one of Onze was not as decisive and not as favorable (esp. for 1976). Also in their all-time poll of 1980 this is reflected (although the gap for 'greatest player' is significantly smaller as with the 'most popular' player question). The basketballer Michael Jordan once famously said "Republicans buy shoes too", anxious too alienate half of the public, and there are hints this could've been a background factor. The leading South American nations were at that time under the thumb of authoritarian nationalist military leadership, and most likely backed one of their own. However, I saw one excerpt from an 1978 El Grafico article where they put Cruijff as "mejor del mundo" although they questioned the strength of his character, and stereo-typically put him down as a naive hippie, in the way he was (a few months later with Ruud Krol they suggested he was gay). Including the year 1975 would make this post way too long so therefore it isn't really included (and my impression/idea is along the one of peterhrt). Apart from the factor Blokhin, the events there carry over in the perception of 1976 I think (this is - as an aside and funny tidbit - also interesting). Maybe msioux75 is right about Rivelino. That's why I like to share thoughts.
Do you want to make a list of the "undisputed King of World Football" at any different eras? Maybe, I'm wrong and I don't catch your idea, but if a list like this will be made, I have some ideas that I think others also have in mind, like @peterhrt . a) Not each year/era have an undisputed "King of World Football", some will have more than one as contender and some years will miss a King by consensus. b) The recent era, since 1993/94 a worldwide consensus was easy to follow, media fully developed, every top footballer played at least once in the top leagues in Europe, an unique annual award, CL replacing the WC as the Elite competition, etc. c) Before this era, a contender for the "King of world Football" has to prove himself with a standout performance in the WC as the highest level of competition involving the top players from Europe and South America. Arguably, in non WC years could be used other Intercontinental club / NT tournaments or Club tours. d) Other possibility is that in that Non-unified / Bi-polar world, the undisputed #1 player of some of those regions (Europe or South America) had been so great, that stands the comparison with the Kings proved in WCs. Maybe, the first year could be 1924 with a lapse of 4 years, until the 1950s when the competition was more developed.
That is a good idea but I think immediately a limitation comes possibly to the fore (one that is more in line with what I like to have feedback on). Di Stefano for example will not fully meet this criteria, yet he was at least in Europe and Brazil discussed in those terms by the media, at least at one point in time (I refer again to the Pele Albums here with various examples by Brazilian publications). Also think he was never really *that* outstanding above his team mates at Copa America level (esp. with subpar Uruguay and Brazil withdrawing) or even the Intercontinental Cup in club football (which South America always took more serious than European clubs). And he never played in the World Cup - cf. your criteria c + d. In the way you phrase it there are since 1945 only a few, if I understand your criteria correctly: Pelé first half 1960s + 1970 Cruijff 1972 to mid 1970s Maradona mid 1980s Ronaldo 1997-1998 Messi in the homogenized Champions League era Platini dominated the european championships and a Van Basten stood out against opponents with an extremely high average Elo rating (2x USSR, England, Germany, Ireland), but the parochial and proud South Americans aren't as easily convinced in terms of a truly "Undisputed King" by virtue of the euros. Hence also some voice for Figueroa in 1976. What do you think of the media sources I cited above? (I left out Reuters and Associated Press at his retirement, as well as the reputable 'Sports Illustrated'). Maybe you're right for Rivelino though. I already indicated that I wasn't really sure, but Guerin Sportivo and Miroir Football were at least somewhat convinced. I think it also helped the comparisons that some leagues were magnets for stars (Colombia 1950s, Italy 1960s, Spain 1974 - 1984, Italy post-1982).
Tend to disagree with this logic by the way since that heavily favors the South American players. That is also the way Zico gets a massive bump nowadays (in his time the 10% best Argentine players already moved to Europe). The geography and dominance of two countries is favorable to the whole Kings logic.
The logic in d) I think favors the inclusion of the likes of Di Stefano (european years), van Basten, Gullit too
Yes I think that is a little bit different as Di Stefano involved "winning" over ~10 representative footballing countries (creating momentum to the whole of Europe) rather than just one or two countries (in Zico's case with a super team in an authoritarian country, mixing themselves into Flamengo - simplistically and boldly put). Di Stefano "conquered" the European countries one by one so to speak. In 1960 Western Europe also represented 153 million citizens (Europe as a whole 606 million) while Brazil was at 72 million for instance. * Western Europe = Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco in this 153m count (not: Scandinavia, Italy, Spain). For the topic I raised I'm primarily interested in the media perception (for this task). With regards to the point/logic you raise here, I'll copy an old post of mine: "It also assumes that a player plays against all top players in the World Cup, but because it is a cup tournament this isn't true obviously. Against which top 30 or top 50 players did Maradona or Zidane play in 1986 and 1998 respectively? At a stretch. 1986 World Cup: 33 years old Scirea, Bagni, De Napoli, Altobelli (the latter three the best rated players by both Gazzetta and Guerin). Out of form Francescoli (Alzamendi, Rodolfo Rodriguez did not play and Ruben Paz came in as 61th minute substitute). Hoddle, Lineker, Reid, Shilton Gerets, Ceulemans, past-prime Briegel, Forster, pre-prime Matthaus, injured Rummenigge. Which ones do I forget? Of the 1983 to 1988 SApotY top 10 ranked Uruguayan players these did not play either: Morena, Diogo, Carlos Aguilera, De Leon, Aguirre, Perdomo, Ruben da Silva and Lemos. Bryan Robson of England was top 10 in the 1985 Ballon d'Or but he was injured and he didn't play. 1998 World Cup: Benny McCarthy, Maldini, Cannavaro, Del Piero, Vieri, Jarni, Boban, Suker, Roberto Carlos, Rivaldo, Ronaldo. Something like that? It was not uncommon to play similar top end talent in the European Cup, Cup Winners Cup and UEFA Cup of old. And beyond a certain level of players the players become more interchangeable and/or expendable (where system and organization counts more than 'talent'). Let's take the 1994 World Cup, the last one involving 24 teams, and look at the 1993 to 1995 Ballon d'Or top 10 and top 20. These top 10 players did not play: Cantona, Boksic, Michael Laudrup, Giggs, Litmanen, Desailly, Savicevic and Weah. These top 10 to top 20 players did not play either: Gullit, Schmeichel, Herzog, Papin, Paulo Sousa, Suker and Vialli (who was injured). Then there are also cases as Ginola or a 29 years old Van Basten. It's easy to see that many top players weren't there, nor did they need to for being rated as such. Yes, not playing in 1994 means you're without chance to win the Ballon d'Or, but Litmanen and Savicevic were still rated top 10 in a World Cup year. Just as easily it can be argued that the European Cup + UEFA Cup + Cup Winners Cup taken together captured more of the worlds top players than the 24 teams World Cup. Or that the European Championships with 8 and 16 teams had a denser schedule than the World Cup (5 matches against the 8 best teams of Europe, and this time with fewer space for an Havelange to corrupt/influence the party hence Denmark or Greece can win too). If you look at the various "all-time" lists of the 1980s and 1990s - made by journalists, colleagues, annalists - then you see many players who never showed something close to their best form at the World Cup. Something like 40 - 60 % of the top 10 and top 25 weren't anywhere close to impress at World Cup level. And they were aware of that." Maybe a bold sounding (and unrespectable) opinion but Maradona actually did not play against that many top 50/top 100 players at the 1986 World Cup. Yet in the media he was, without question, the 'undisputable King of world football' after the tournament. No doubt about it. Therefore in my rough list I had him put down for 1980, 1981, 1986 - 1990 (for 1980 joined by Rummenigge; for 1981 joined by Zico and Rummenigge). Whether that is deserved or matches reasonable logic is a different question - in the case of 1986 of course deserved. Btw, this is an interesting match to see with also a few informative tidbits (informative too in knowing the level of information they had those days) & perspective of the time.
Using the same logic for Zidane's 1998 World Cup: Benny McCarthy, Maldini, pre-prime Cannavaro, out of form Del Piero, pre-prime Vieri, Jarni, Boban, Suker, Roberto Carlos, pre-prime Rivaldo (33rd in the Ballon d'Or metric of 1997), out of form Ronaldo (in fact, several journalists have actually claimed that Ronaldo was never the same player after his mysterious incident shortly before the WC Final was played). Which then further adds to the fact that Zidane enjoyed home court advantage in all the games. Not to mention the fact that Zidane didn't play vs. Paraguay, which was one of Paraguay's best teams of all time. And not to mention the fact that Zidane also didn't played vs. Denmark, which was Denmark's most successful WC team of all time. "Look at what happened to France 2002 without Zidane." A completely baseless and irrational myth when one looks at the fact that France 1998 defeated Denmark's most successful world cup team of all time, without Zidane; or that France 1998 also defeated Paraguay's best world cup team of all time, also without Zidane; or that Zidane was not a factor in the Group Stage of France 2006; or that Zidane was also not a factor in the Group Stage of France 1998; or that Zidane was below-average in the Euro Final (2000); etc. European players, more or less to the same degree as South American players, have benefitted from parochial and proud fans, e.g. Zidane 1998 WC, Zidane 2000 Euro, Zidane 2006 WC, Lothar Matthaus 1990 WC, Michel Platini 1984 Euro, Franz Beckenbauer 1974 WC, Johan Cruijff 1974 WC, Roberto Baggio 1994 WC, etc. There's no shortage of exaggerated 'proud and parochial' praise for overrated performances. Well that's my opinion, at least. It's one out of several big reasons as to why I'm not a fan of the World Cup - I don't hate the WC, but I certainly prefer the home-and-away format of club football. Why should the 'undisputed king of the world' be defined by virtue of Platini vs. Portugal (Semi Final), Platini vs. Spain (Final), Platini vs. Belgium (Group Stage)? Not one of those European national teams, with the exception of France, would be expected to win a World Cup. Furthermore and perhaps more important to this discussion: Spain 1984 and/or Portugal 1984 would've been widely portrayed as 'the underdogs' had they played the Copa America against Brazil's A team and/or against Argentina's A team. So why should South Americans be easily convinced, if at all convinced, of a so-called 'undisputed king of the world' by virtue of the euros in an era wherein Europe was not clearly superior? And as for Van Basten's Euro 1988 - Gullit was impressive in many of the most difficult games. Gullit also, won the Ballon d'Or 1987 and was better than Van Basten in the Serie A 1987/88; I think that's important leading to Euro 1988, the perception that Gullit was the Ballon d'Or 1987, and the fact that Gullit reinforced that with his performance throughout the tournament. And so regardless of how great Van Basten was, the fact that a player as highly rated as Gullit played in the same team (and was impressive in his own right), will tend to take some of the shine away from Van Basten's performance. I'm not saying that it's necessarily fair or unfair, but it is a known tendency. Plus West Germany was a beatable team, and particularly so when you have Van Basten and Gullit in form and in the same team. West Germany's record included results such as, draw vs. underperforming Uruguay 1986, defeat vs. Denmark 1986, defeat vs. Argentina 1986, defeat vs. Netherlands 1988, unimpressive draw vs. Colombia 1990, unimpressive win vs. Argentina 1990, defeat vs. Netherlands 1992, defeat vs. Denmark 1992, etc. Certainly mixed results throughout. Also notable were West Germany's lack of results against South Americans, draw vs. Uruguay 1986, defeat vs. Argentina 1986, draw vs. Colombia 1990, i.e. their only win against a South American was by virtue of a nonexistent PK.
I think the old importance of the WC to "enthroned" a certain player ´had more to do with the elite players than were on display than the direct confrontations (that were a plus, imho). In other words, the impact of a certain elite player at WC was founded in his great performances more than being part (even underperforming) of the team that beat all the big guns.
Yes, the same thing also applies to Zidane in 1998 - as indicated in my own post. I think Zidane became widely dubbed as "best player in the world" (not just "best midfielder") slightly later. In 2000 I think. By the time of his world record breaking transfer in 2001 he certainly was viewed like that. Whether that is correct or incorrect is a different question, but like to have input on this - the 'media perception'. This might or might not be accurate or fair points, but certainly Platini was at one point close to an undisputed best. Even Placar and El Grafico joined the choir (see what Vegan10 posted for El Grafico; Placar is digitalized on the internet). Crucially however, this was at a time that both countries moved away from nationalist authoritarianism, and made strides to the rule of law, free speech and moderate democracy. I'm interested in those media sentiments. This is a debate in itself (a different subject) but I don't think they were *very* beatable. At the time they were #1 in the ELO ranking, and they played at home (although in the 'problematic' Hamburg city). Through the UEFA they pushed through a for them favorable hotel swap and training ground swap (this is a fact). NL was located on a training ground with potholes and with sunday amateurs vacating the pitch. Anyway, their strength and record is a very different type of subject.