Here are interesting comments by Mario Zagallo in the christmas 1977 issue of Placar (23 december 1977, end of the year). At least I think he touches upon an interesting paradox. " Cruyff é um examplo, um craque que, na opiniao de Zagallo, é a soma todas as virtudes. Diz: Tem uma frase no livro dele que deveria servir como exemplo para todos os jugadores Brasileiro. "Jogo tres minutos para mim e 87 para time". E serve tambem como examplo de tudo, quando se imagina o futebol moderno em todo seu esplendor: arte, tecnica, vigor, disciplina, lideranca. É o simbolo de uma epoca, um fenomeno da bola. Paradigma do futbol moderno, Cruyff motiva outra observacao de Zagalo, quanto ao Brasil. [...] Da parta tática, não abro mão, sou e quem manda. Hoje, ninguém pode ficar mais de mãos nas cadeiras: craque que joga para o publico, morreu. Tuem que correr, suar a camisa. Meu exemplo, repito, é o Cruyff: jogar tres minutos para ele, 87 para o time. ---------------- Cruyff is an example, a star player who, in Zagallo's opinion, is the sum of all virtues. Zagallo says: 'There is a phrase in his book that should serve as an example for all Brazilian players. "I play three minutes for myself and 87 for the team." And it also serves as an example of everything, when you imagine modern football in all its splendor: art, technique, vigor, discipline, leadership. It is the symbol of a time, a phenomenon with the ball.' Paradigm of modern soccer, Cruyff motivates another observation of Zagalo, as for Brazil. [...] 'From the tactical side, I do not give up, I'm the boss. Today, nobody can get more hands on the chairs: a crack who plays for the public, died. You have to run, sweat shirt. My example, I repeat, is Cruyff: plays three minutes for himself, 87 for the team.' (which were also the very last words in the interview/profile)
Even for an attacker or forward player that is indeed not a lot (45% appearance rate). See for example: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30144373
Here's Placar from 11 june 1976. I still think it wasn't one of his best years (1977 was better for sure) but telling article. "During 75 minutes he justifies all of his fame: he is the best player in the world." Here the link: https://books.google.com/books?id=m58YuLQCJ1QC&lpg=PT42&dq=pedro rocha brindisi&hl=nl&pg=PT42#v=onepage&q=pedro rocha brindisi&f=false Which is also interesting re: Guerin Sportivo's comments on Rivelino in 1976 (next to a couple of other things) and that I was wondering about him. This is also nice (salaries of star players around the world in 1979): https://books.google.com/books?id=h...nl&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q=platini keegan&f=false
I might have missed the Guerin Sportivo quote actually. Did they make any comparison with Cruyff in terms of form etc? On the Mazzola issue - I suppose the fact Jose Altafini got named after him in Brazil says he was a famous, well known figure at least in that country.
Ah yes, in my mind I thought he only got that name once he started to play in/for Italy but he indeed got it as soon as he started to play in/for Brazil. Already in Brazil he was "Mazzola". This: " 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. [...] Miroir Football singled out Cruijff in 1977 and in 1978 (April) they singled out Keegan, Cruijff, Rivelino and Platini (not in any particular order). " https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/bi...-year-1950-2009.1389516/page-59#post-35389977 Re: that specific game above (actually two games; one in Sao Paulo and one in Rio) - Elias Figueroa was also playing. Who is especially for these years an interesting name (SApoTY of 1974, 1975 and 1976) when the topic is "media fame" and "media applause". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elías_Figueroa#Individual Baley, Ropero, Figueroa, Galindo, Carrascosa - Ardiles, Pedro Rocha - Amancio (Ganish), Brindisi (Valter Ferreira) (Dobilani), Cruyff, Cristiani. Baley (Buttice), Galindo, Figueroa (Freitas), Paolino, Carrascosa - Ardiles, Brindisi, Cruyff (Ropero) - Amancio (Doval), Pedro Rocha (Kuhn), Christiani Rivelino played for the opposing team (Ademir, Carlos Alberto, Clodoaldo, Dirceu). Figueroa also got Placar's own Bola de Ouro in 1972 and 1976. Also interesting is that you can see some wear and traces on his legs, in the picture he get interviewed (especially). Similar things - in Placar - can be found as well for Platini's peak years (as well as slightly before indeed, like Keegan's comment in 1980 as reigning EPotY). edit: Amancio (b. 1939) is a good one for the veterans thread. For the fairly thin 1970-1975 period.
This are some of the things I had made a note of previously (before I made that list, with the best of my ability) and thus considered. Here are two things for Platini in 1986: https://books.google.nl/books?id=3pnBeJLDhCAC&lpg=PA17&dq=platini melhor&hl=nl&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.nl/books?id=q9nmAafB9IIC&lpg=PA51&dq=platini melhor&hl=nl&pg=PA51#v=onepage&q=platini melhor&f=false Obviously by 1987 he wasn't in the conversation any more... I was doubting a little about ascribing 1986 to him. Also thought whether there was maybe a legacy effect for Maradona in 1991 (similar to Baggio and Romario in 1995), but his departure in disgrace kind of rules that out. So 1990 is where it ends. There's a reference in the magazine that national team managers voted MvB as the best player around for both 1991 and 1992. https://books.google.nl/books?id=El4S-exVfqcC&lpg=PA54&dq=basten 1991&hl=nl&pg=PA54#v=onepage&q=basten 1991&f=false Also searched whether JC14 played in Brazil after those two June 1976 games (the 75 minutes refer to one of those two games, was subbed out 15 minutes before end; televised live on Globo television apparently while the other game wasn't). No he didn't return to Brazil after June 1976. Because of travel restrictions and safety concerns he didn't play there after these two games (despite invitation in the winter of 1977-78). Andy Gray mentioned that as well, as you know. He did play against a 33-years old Pelé some years earlier (in the Santos stadium). Gray had as reigning PFA player of the year and reigning young PFA player of the year by the way first hand experience. In some years there are two or more names in my attempt (1991 for instance, the year 1976), but in 1979 there are none, so far. Msioux75 his shout to rule out Keegan for 1979 is also supported by this.
Yes, maybe before the 1986 WC Platini would be regarded as the worlds leading player still (not necessarily on recent form, but in status), and then Maradona took over because of his huge impact in that tournament (comparisons to Pele etc starting to be made too, as reaction)? Probably early 91/92 would see Van Basten re-confirming an idea about him as best in the world?
I don't mean this in a bad or pedantic way but it depends on whether you mean the tournament performance itself, his supposed i.e. perceived talent/abilities (these plaudits started ~5-6 years earlier) or his individual career c.q. all-time perspective. (I haven't forgotten your other question but will answer it together with the one above)
I suppose whichever of those the commenter was thinking of. I was just thinking comparing him to Pele became more common and perhaps more acceptable (comments during the England game being made by commentators etc). I wasn't really meaning to give you a question to answer though unless you wanted to, but thought I'd add the question mark rather than leave my comments as a statement (because I felt a bit on uncertain ground in some respects). Same goes for any questions really - if you feel you like to answer them then cool but I wasn't meaning to ask for anything as such.
Yes OK that is fine. I'm actually the least sure when the duopoly with Pelé started (at least in layman terms, as a manner of speaking by the media). It's difficult to trace this in the lists. He was put #1 in the early 90s ITV list as posted by peterhrt, but didn't do as well - next to Pelé - in the above mentioned 1990 FF vote (with Europe less than a majority of the voters), the 1995 FFT vote or the 1995 Onze Mondial public vote. Am I forgetting one here of the early 1990s? So when that duopoly with Pelé started - as a manner of speaking at least - I don't know. The tournament performance and abilities perspective is ofc easy to answer. The tournament performance was seen as better than anything than Pelé could offer but in WS and FF it was also remarked that the schedule wasn't great and some big things went in their way (handball most famously, but also the venue; Socrates had btw some spicy remarks about Brazil and Mexico their chances). From an abilities and athletic potential perspective I think virtually all European audiences were convinced after the hat-trick against Austria in may 1980 (his only hat-trick in the career as it turned out). For the other question mark (not really a question I understand now, but I interpreted it because of the question mark and phrasing) I was intending to refer to e.g. the 1991 FIFA world player vote and this here below (among other things). Also that his goals + assists in the low/bad 1990-91 season were worth 19 points which is still quite a bit; he wasn't playing in the ill-fated tie against Marseille either. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwL4ev1QI1K6U2NnYlg0cERCT1E/view
Yes, clearly MvB was prominent in French minds for what he'd done in 1991 overall (as much as most non-French-based players) - I guess recent form would have played a part but yeah maybe some of his displays to earn points in 90/91 were also in mind. As another speculative comment by me (but without adding a question mark): I think probably Maradona might be looked at more favourably in a comparison with Pele in some respects (by people who look more at quality rather than career catalogue) in 1986 itself as opposed to by 1991 when some of the downsides might take away from him in some minds (but obviously in the intermediate period, such as but not exclusively during 1988 say, he would have added more reasons to regard him so highly with goals/assists/performances and of course trophies with Napoli).
Looking back through this thread and others, the sequence of serious candidates for perceived world's best player might look something like this. Candidates are included this time even if they may only have been in the frame a few months. Start point is after the 1950 World Cup. Ademir Zizinho Schiaffino Kubala Di Stefano Ocwirk Puskas Di Stefano (again) Didi Di Stefano (again) Pele Eusebio Charlton Best Pele (again) Cruyff Beckenbauer Figueroa Cruyff (again) Zico Maradona Rummenigge Zico (again) Platini Maradona (again) Matthaus van Basten Stoichkov Baggio Romario Ronaldo Rivaldo Figo Zidane Henry Ronaldinho Cristiano Ronaldo Messi Cristiano Ronaldo (again) Messi (again)
The Spanish list you posted here (albeit from the 2nd half of the 1970s) tends to support the idea of tying Matthews to "somewhere between 1945 and 1953". https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/ol...-esp-1950s-1970s.2038892/page-3#post-35419018 Other midfielders and attackers in that XI are: Meazza (pre-war), Ben Barek (for 'european' or worldwide fame not really a candidate I think), Pontoni, Martino (interestingly no Pedernera, Moreno etc. selected there), Orsi (also a pre-war player). Although it might be, as peterhrt says, that Matthews increased his profile after he was 35 and 40 respectively with his travels around the world and his efforts for the good causes. Pontoni and Martino played together at San Lorenzo between 1945 - 1948 and toured (recovering) Spain at the time with their clubs if I recall correctly. N.B. a funny coincidence is that for the "best of the continents" section Arsenio Erico and Faas Wilkes are the two highlighted with a photograph. Erico was the idol/example of Di Stefano, while Wilkes was... indeed.
Yes San Lorenzo did in 1946-1947: http://www.rsssf.com/tablesl/lorenzo-trip47.html The first visit of River Plate (or Boca Juniors for that matter) came in 1951-1952: http://www.rsssf.com/tablesr/riverplate-trip52.html (Boca Juniors visited Europe in 1953-1954, post-war I mean - they had already done so in 1925) http://www.rsssf.com/tablesb/bocajuniors-trip54.html
Looks pretty good to me. I guess the likes of Figueroa and Stoichkov are borderline, but the fact they took continental awards (albeit the latter did that after Baggio's peak period), give them more of a case in this respect than alternative/niche choices such as Rivelino and M.Laudrup.... Perhaps Van Basten also before Matthaus (and Gullit too?)? I also wondered about the progression of the commonly hailed 'best player of all times'. Maybe something like this from the beginning of the 1930's: Meazza Sindelar? Sarosi? Meazza (again) Moreno? (continental choice?) Zizinho? (continental choice?) Matthews Puskas Di Stefano Pele (afterwards only 'altenatives to Pele and perhaps Di Stefano as follows) Best? (peak only) Cruyff (Beckenbauer as alternative) Maradona (Platini as alternative) Ronaldo (peak only) Zidane (niche choice) Ronaldinho (niche choice/peak only) Messi (C.Ronaldo as alternative among those who rate him over Messi)
The list has a spanish bias (or players who made an impact in Spain). I personally think only three are undisputed choices for the prewar World XI and maybe three more as clear contenders. The most interesting part for me is the complete list of spanish players and the selections of the best of the main countries. Even, when I disagree with the selection for the South American powerhouses (again, in a spanish POV, favouring San Lorenzo's tour or WC 50 players). But all in all, I think it's interesting the selection for a knowledgeable person who was contemporary of those players. btw, he said that Wilkes has the handicap of being between two eras (pre 1954 and post 1954)
Figueroa, as Puck mentioned, won three successive SAPOTY awards so would have been in the running. I seem to remember Stoichkov being mentioned as a candidate shortly after Barcelona won their first European Cup, but it may have been later. The progression of perceived best-ever player is an interesting one, with a fair degree of conjecture involved. The first name would probably be GO Smith around 1900. He was the first footballer to bridge the English class divide and was very highly regarded by journalists. JL Andrade might take over after the 1924 Olympics, uniting Europe and Latin America temporarily. Andrade would probably hang on in the Americas until the early 1940s. Moreno then takes the crown there until supplanted by Di Stefano, or perhaps by Pele given that Di Stefano's peak occurred on the other side of the world. In Europe the peaks of Sindelar and Meazza coincided in the early 1930s. Sindelar's more subtle skills were appreciated by European writers, who might have considered him the best-ever until some time in the 1940s. On the face of it Matthews looks an obvious successor, but there is a problem of timing. After cementing his place in the England team for eighteen months before the war, he was a regular member of the English eleven that flourished in unofficial wartime internationals. When official internationals recommenced in September 1946, Matthews (aged 31) was left out in favour of Finney. He was omitted for five of the first six matches, only regaining his place on a regular basis between mid-May 1947 and April 1949. It is difficult to see how he could have been considered the GOAT when he was not being selected by England. At best he can only realistically be considered from around 1948 until 1953 when Puskas takes over as European GOAT. Puskas and Di Stefano then vie for the title of best-ever until Pele becomes the overwhelming choice in the early 1960s. He still is. The only challengers seriously discussed in the media since have been Cruyff, Maradona and Messi. Barring an exceptional 2018 World Cup by Messi, Pele's position as most people's GOAT looks secure.
Just wondering what makes you think - or have seen/read - he was already seriously put a notch above in the early 1960s? Of course there was recency bias, which is part of the differing accounts on whether Pelé was already there in the first half of the 1960s, or secured this standing above Puskas/AdS by the 1970 World Cup (despite team mates playing as well as him, per some dominant accounts). For example the World Football Handbook description matches this second reading - after the 1970WC - while for example Miroir Football did it earlier. But as said, some type of recency bias makes this always tough. Pelé certainly arrived at the right time in history/technology as well; pretty arguably not 10 years too late either (just like The Beatles for ex. - as some arguments tend to go; btw John Lennon and Pelé are from the same year of birth; as are Bono of U2 - the most successful post-1960s band - and Maradona coincidentally). He cannot receive enough credit for being a good ambassador to the sport for the very most of his life.
Going by the France Football write-ups Eusebio had maybe an 'score' above Best in this respect. Their own website has the main articles re-published but soccer.nostalgia has also a few full editions. I've personally also the full edition of 1971 and 1965 too. Of course Eusebio's injury problems after 1968 ruled out any distant/remote comparison with Pelé. Interesting btw that the American sport magazine (2nd in circulation behind SI) had in 1975 a take on the differences between European soccer and South American soccer - that article you saw. https://www.francefootball.fr/news/1965-eusebio-da-silva-ferreira/423377 https://www.francefootball.fr/news/1968-george-best/423383 https://www.francefootball.fr/news/1976-franz-beckenbauer/423402 France Football - which by no means should be the only source - is maybe a good help to trace this for yourself. Think this happened vaguely for the first time in 1965 and then more clearly in the description with the landslide (as mentioned on previous page) in 1971. https://www.francefootball.fr/news/1971-johan-cruyff/423389 https://www.francefootball.fr/news/Ronaldo-premier-bresilien-couronne/423462 There you can also see that Ronaldo was for a brief moment indeed put in that category by them. This was also after they had given Maradona a honorific Ballon d'Or in 1995. The other two three times EPotY winners: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwL4ev1QI1K6NmVhRWhFWGh4dmc/edit https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwL4ev1QI1K6Q3dMc0V1MDdheHc/view Platini himself plays a bit to the "alternative choice" thing you mention by refusing - still refusing - to say Maradona was better than him but at the same time still believing Pelé/JC14 was better. During his playing days and ascendancy, at the 1978WC for example, he also said this very often.
Thanks - as my French might not be good enough and I only briefly look at the moment, is there a good phrase used in the Eusebio write-up you can pick out that lead you in that direction? Yes, increasingly I tend to think Platini's vote for France Football's Player of the Century included only those who he thought were better than himself!
Google translate helps maybe a bit. https://www.francefootball.fr/news/1965-eusebio-da-silva-ferreira/423377 I remembered this and maybe it's of interest for @wm442433 and @msioux75 (@comme can read French too I thought?). Possibly that also influenced the thoughts for 1945-1953 in a way. http://museedelapresse.com/france-football-no-2280/ (click pictures to enlarge) As already mentioned by peterhrt, he was some 11-12 years older than Puskas and Di Stefano. The interview also covers a few of the things peterhrt mentions, like his development aid work abroad.
Ah, I see now the equivalence drawn with Pele (rapproachement doesn't actually get translated though!). For Best, I did think a bit about the Dutch poll/questionnaire from his prime as one indicator (IIRC the majority saying at that moment he was better than Pele, but not better than Pele ever had been?....still the question was at least asked) but mainly the retrospective idea that in Britain at least may have prevailed at his peak too - that he rivals Pele for performance on his good days, may be considered equivalently or even more talented/complete etc (the saying Maradona Good, Pele Better, George Best is obviously a relatively recent thing however and doesn't mention Cruyff who probably was even largely in Britain considered better than Best in the end, and the Radio Five Live Eurostars Poll did go along with that too, although actually Zidane ended up on top of course that time among European players).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapprochement As I said I think this happened more clearly in the case of 1971 and 1997 with Ronaldo while in 1965 (also the full issue) it's more circumvent and a poetic hint. Searching a bit through I see for ex. also this WashingtonPost article from late 1980 (was also NYT writer, hence somewhat relevant re: media perceptions). First and last paragraph; " Johan Cruyff. The name sends ripples of awe and admiration throughout the world, wherever soccer is played. Judged by many experts to be the equal or near equal of the legendary Pelé, the 33-year old Dutchman with the hawkish profile has already achieved a niche among such greats as Luis Monti, Alfredo di Stefano, Ferenc Puskas, and the will-o'-the-wisp Stanley Matthews. [..] Like Pelé, the Dutch superstar has the rare ability to communicate the joy and verve of soccer in a way that transcends sports. Regardless of what the future may bring, one can only see Cruyff striding regally on, for in the world of soccer Johan Cruyff will always be "the once and future king." " Maybe with some effort it's possible to look how they viewed Matthews during/before the 1950 World Cup (as foremost player of England? @peterhrt?) but a 'quick and dirty' search finds little and perhaps that means actual coverage was shambolic (for a niche sport, played in Brazil).
I was vaguely aware of how Matthews himself didn't like the notion "Matthews final". http://footballwriters.co.uk/features/was-it-really-the-matthews-final/ http://www.wsc.co.uk/reviews/64-Players/10191-the-great-english-final http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/fa_c...final-really-all-it-was-cracked-up-to-be.html It has even inspired scientific takes and articles: http://www.idrottsforum.org/articles/taylor/taylor070117.html The 1953 FA Cup Final: Modernity and Tradition in British Culture http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13619460600600847?src=recsys&journalCode=fcbh20 edit: At 12:00 "Stanley Mortenson scored three goals, the media made it my final".