I suppose Phillips only scored 20 Premier League goals during the 2000 calendar year, including a hat-trick and a penalty after Christmas, while the Ballon d'Or results were announced on the 19th of December. His Player of the Month award was received for October 1999 too, and in 99/00 he'd scored the majority of his goals in 1999 even if some of them also in the latter stages after voting finished for the Ballon d'Or that year too. By the end of 2000 people could look and see he'd had the odd cap for England but not established himself, and Sunderland weren't doing so well as before in the league. I think also relevant is that to get any points in those days, players have to be considered by some people (ok, just one is enough) that vote, to be a top 5 player, not top 23, or 30 or anything even if that's more like the amount that end up in the results list. When we get round to 1999/2000 here I guess some people will put him in their 23, and perhaps others won't. With the same voting system and based on football seasons, not calendar years, I could imagine there might have been a split like that in reality too though. It wouldn't have been too surprising to see him feature among some lists anyway I guess (not that I'm saying it'd be a foregone conclusion as there'd be plenty of options for the 23, and to an extent it'd probably be fair to see him as an outright scorer in terms of his abilities and effectiveness, and one that benefitted from Quinn playing alongside him certainly at that moment).
Although to be fair I should add that having double-checked the long shortlist of 50 players eligible for votes for that 2000 Ballon d'Or he wasn't on it! I'm not completely sure which side of the argument that would fall on though, as obviously it means no voters could choose him for a place in their top 5 even if they wanted to too. Anyway I think the calendar year vs season aspect is definitely relevant. And it is still different compiling a list of 23 by consensus among journalists, as opposed to having them pick 5 each from a shortlist (which only started happening a few years earlier - before that there was free choice...and so the Zagorakis votes for example did come from the high value the Euros was given among those making the shortlist and various voters).
Schillaci and VB in 1990 would fall into the major tournaments being the weakness, which I mentioned. But Futre a Phillips? That's the harshest thing I've read in a long time. Futre was legitimately one of the best players in the world throughout his Atleti tenure. If anything, I think he should have received more Ballon votes. But playing in an unsuccessful club and NT probably worked against him, I imagine. Even as a broken down has-been his reputation was enough for the top club in the world to take a gamble on him. If you're looking for a Portuguese flash in the pan -type, might I suggest Fernando Chalana? A player whose reputation seems to be mostly made at Euro 1984. He earned a big money contract abroad, got injured, and was pretty much done as a top player.
No, I strongly disagree. The only other players to score 30 goals in a 38-game PL season are Shearer, Henry, Ronaldo, Van Persie, Suarez, Kane and Salah. All of them played for much better teams. To do that just once is an exceptional achievement. Fundamentally every player in the top leagues can have their day. What differentiates the best is the ability to do it consistently. What then differentiates the greats is the ability to do it year after year. But being the European Golden Boot winner (and doing it in a top league) is not some 'second grade achievement'. Otherwise what are you judging? Some nebulous sense of class? Moreover, the Ballon d'Or has not done that. Throughout its history we can see votes for random lesser level players.
Uhmmm, yes. As indefinitive as it is, you have done the same many times over. Just recently with Florian Albert (you mentioned how he looks on video), or with Messi vs Ronaldo. I agree though with the general gist of your and TS thought.
As mentioned, this is exactly what we're doing. Picking the best players is always going to be about judging a nebulous sense of class, even when using criteria like statistics, which may seem absolute at first glance, but actually aren't. Take case Phillips and his 30 goals. Do the numbers mean he was the best striker in England/Europe in that season? Most people would say no, so there are other factors at play than just pure numbers. To get an accurate picture, we'd have to micromanage every aspect of Sunderland's play. How many goals were self-created by KP, and how many tap-ins? How many were scored against tired or jaded defenses with low motivation? What is the role of the Sunderland playing system, and in what way it benefited KP as a player? What about the fact they were a promoted team, and opponents might not have been that well-versed with the Sunderland/KP playing style. Yadda yadda, the factors that led to those numbers are endless. I've been thinking a lot lately about what constitutes a player's reputation and class, what with these threads going on and everything. It's amazing how quickly reputations can be gained and lost in football. A player's performance is deeply tied to the performance of the team as a whole, and some have talked about how futile it is to award individuals in a team game. The examples of a player being absolute world class in one team and a terrible disaster in another are endless. What is such an abstract thing as a player's class built on, then? The media has a huge role in establishing it, and that's why I think the least nebulous thing we can do is to look at the media opinion and try to replicate it. I'm basing my votes on the actual BdO as well as my WS-reading, because they offer a pretty accurate window into the media view. If someone else is using a different method, fair enough.
Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree because we have different concepts. To me building a entire team around great talents is something like what Argentina has been trying to make around Messi and Di Maria (specially at his best in the Real Madrid days) and what Oklahoma City Thunder tried with K.Durant and R.Westbrook. Good performances but they could be better if they worked as real team. To have a stronger collective side you have to build your team (or NT) with talents, and not around them. Something more likely what Germany has been making, no superstars but great players still (the last top3 players were Kahn in 2002 and Neuer in 2014 mostly because of the WCs. And during the last 10 years they had top10 players only in 2014 and 2015). This is not something to hold against Germany, I’m trying to show their greater collective work during this last years with talents and not around 2 or 3 big names. Something similar to what Greg Popovich does in San Antonio. And some little examples of the idea of collective game I’m trying to make: - While Neymar where a smaller part of the collective Barça side his game was way more efficient. Now in Psg that he is the main star he still is really good but not at the same level at the team and the NT. - And building with talents, not around them, makes even some amazing players being underevaluated. Iike Busquets, probably the best DM from the last decade but only named for Ballon D’or once (2012 – 20th). I hope the confusion is clarified. And now… what’s the point of you saying all that if in the end you are still the guy that fabricated a “Puskas from DDR” and misplace players from South America… Please, tell me how someone can make a proper and accurate assessment of a player if he does not even know the correct positions of the teammates and probably even from the opponents?? How?? I really understand “World Soccer” mistakes because in those years the access to info was way smaller and harder and most of them watched few games from South America on the field. Maybe some friendlies and that’s all. And those mistakes makes me question their evaluations. That’s ok. But you reproducing their mistakes is just bad work. Just cross reference that info with other sources and you would know that Ramos Delgado was not a RB. Easy. You are the guy that bashes South American soccer and relies blindly on mostly just one source made with few info (in the old days). And talking about sources, here are a few names: José Trajano, Orlando Duarte, Juca Kfouri, Eduardo Galeano, Paulo Vinicius Coelho, João Saldanha, Jorge Valdano, Mauro Cezar Pereira, Roberto Avallone, Mauro Beting, Luís Carlos Quartarollo, João Carlos Albuquerque, Celso Unzelte, Rivellino, Sócrates, Mario Kempes, Alberto Helena Júnior, Fernando Calazans, Mauro Guedes, Fabio Sormani, Roberto Assaf, Paulo César Vasconcellos, Cláudio Arreghy, Marco Antônio Rodrigues, José Carlos Araújo, Muricy Ramalho, Júnior... and a lot more. You can use your High IQ and this great tool called Internet to research about them. All journalists, soccer historians, former players that I saw and read their opinions during all those years. People that went (or played) to many World Cups (Trajano even played against some former great players in the journalists match in Mexico´70. lol), Libertadores, Maracanã, Pacaembu, Mineirão games… people that saw in the flesh real talent win and lose, great generations, deceptions, Maradona's goal in 86, 74’s total football… And yes, they are not pretentious male Europeans that spent most of their time in a computer reading about how smart they are and how great it is to live in gallic villages.
You tell me, because it was your confusion, not mine. You misunderstood me, and had a meltdown over your own misunderstanding. Another misunderstanding and a useless rant over your own misunderstanding. What was said was this: I retract my statement you can read even at schoolboy level. Today I learned from Mr. Maniac that only South American journalists went to see World Cup matches live. No? I noticed you didn't mention what experience these experts had on the European game. So, to recap, European journalists (from WS) are mistake-prone and unreliable people with limited access. Meanwhile, South American journalists are 100% reliable on everything and saw every game ever played on all continents, am I right? Americentrism to a tee.
Those are strong and logical points for this type of exercise. It's understandable that we can assume certain things for some players for whom we don't have detailed information, but already at this stage (the 1960's) I think we can calculate the one-hit wonders and determine the real possibility of selecting them in a top 23 without having a prime career (they are 2 different themes). Phillips and Verón seem good examples. Likewise with internationals. Too many cases to relate so directly the level with the caps just to simplify equations when estimating players.
@PuckVanHeel Here we talk about football, not stupid things. Do not embarrass your Dutch compatriots and talk coherent things.
That point doesn't make much sense because you try to set a standard parameter when each case is very different from each other and the international history of each player is determined by various factors, many of which have nothing to do with the level of play (which is what aims to estimate individual levels, as here). Ademir (da Guia) is an emblematic and controversial case.
... spoken by someone who generally contradicts himself. On the one hand Butching Maniac argued in the 1967 thread great players are only great when they are part of a great team, but now the whole logic is flipped over, erased and turned upside down. Okay, coherent mister Stalin. Not more absurd than your ignorance of logic (see your handling of the Tevez 2011, Dybala 2017 cases, where you got stuck, fumbled and included them anyway - "but Dybala scored against Crotone!"), your unlimited revisionism and twisted logic (denying the value of Elo rating and having players in a CL final), your boldfaces to pimp up your trainwrecks, your many evasions of the topic (Zico 0 wins vs Platini? you don't show up; when it is argued Matthaus>MvB is like Totti>Ronaldo or Modric>Cristiano if the latter had retired at 27), your inability to explain yourself, repping everything that is pro latin, your listdumping in the 1967 thread without explanation or answering questions raised, or - last but not least - you making up many, many things like your 'visit' to the RAI archives to watch full Serie A matches of Junior or seeing Pelé play a dozen league matches in 1969. I put you on ignore now.
'El Grafico' their name is even an allusion to not being 100% limited by 'facts' and taking liberties with reality. On the other hand, 'Placar' was at times more reserved with making certain calls (on Zico in the 70s, Romario in the late 80s/early 90s, they saw at times an European as the 'best in the world') than is nowadays popular.
Not to nitpick and maybe it is unreasonable in his context to expect something better, but it seems Philips had a large portion of his goals against the 'lower' sides. https://www.bdfutbol.com/es/p/j93772.html?temp=1999-00&g=1 He had at least no open play goal against the top three (but to be fair and as many know, something similar can be said about Suarez in 2013-14 for ex.)
Yeah, true. I guess it was more a case of firing Sunderland into 'best of the rest' kind of territory position wise in the PL that season, rather than having an impact directly vs the top clubs. Like you say, probably understandable, but can point to him not being some kind of super talent that can take teams on nearly all by himself whoever they are (which nobody claims) of course yeah. Maybe for a short-time he was a kind of 'Shearer-light', in terms of attributes and effect (not to say in real time he wouldn't actually be rivalling Shearer at that particular time as it wasn't the height of Shearer's career and prowess, even if he did retain his place in the England team until he decided he didn't want it anymore). Afterwards Shearer probably even improved again a bit (or at least had some great moments and goals) while Phillips' career and form was never at the same level again.
Anyway, maybe we should all return to 67/68 now,and also try our best to get along with each other?! I would agree that Futre at Atletico seems to have been in some really good form for what it's worth, but again I guess that's more an issue for 91/92 and seasons like that when we come to them (which could be relatively soon if Tom took my idea on board, as described on the main thread, but no problem if not as far as I'm concerned and it's up to Tom obviously!).
Can you explain why half a dozen Brazil managers did not pick ADG for the NT? Zagallo and Nunez(?) tried him out and then discarded him. Same with Veron. If new details emerge that explain his omission as not being related to his level of play, I'll gladly revise my opinion. Hey Maniac, did any of your 30 knowledgeable experts ever explain these mysteries?
I don't want to criticize your reading skills but it is pretty consensus now that Verón had a single season blow out. This got him into the NT. What mystery lead to his omission? His season came to an end.
Yeah he was rated well in 1991-92 but the other seasons much less so and not included in the top 50 (not helped by injuries but yes he had some sensational moments against Barcelona and Real Madrid). I meant he was a "somewhat similar example" (to Schillaci, Phillips) in the sense he was once close to winning the BdO but in other years (1986, 1989) received only one vote (both times by the Portuguese voter). I'm not doubting his talent or that he had the level to excel against top sides for sure when it clicked (I don't think he has many goals, assists against top teams or at the advanced stages but if he did it was spectacular - anyway, the comment was more about him being close to winning the BdO, and deservedly so, while maybe harshly not included in other years if it was not for the Portuguese voter). So this is actually a response to what Ariaga says/thought. In spite of his injuries Futre still achieved some good things, sure.
All - These threads have the potential to be hugely useful and informative if we work together in the right way. Let's please try and be civil and cooperative.
Yeah, you probably don't, because there isn't a consensus, and there isn't a single season blow-out. If you look at the original list, Veron was nominated at least 4 times. He won the Libertadores in three seasons. Why is this the blow-out season? People who rate him do so because of the Libertadores-wins, so why not consider him every season? The intercontinental cup win doesn't count until the following season, even. His first cap also isn't until 1969. TBH, this seems to me to work more against the ratings than Futre. I've long held a certain distrust against league rankings. They seem to be too skewed towards the smaller teams. Like a basic league performer who played at a consistent level will come off as a lot more impressive than he would actually be perceived. I'm not even saying Futre was inconsistent, but I'm definitely saying a player's class has some sort of abstract factor that these ratings fail to take into account. Like maybe some players/teams have a style that doesn't endear them for these ratings. Maybe being primarily responsible for creating chances and having to do a lot of hopeful/risky moves that don't always pay off, and thus taking a hit in the ratings. Just a thought. I'd like to look at Futre's career from another angle. He survived 6 and a half years in Jesus Gil's private circus. For a lot of this time he was desperate to get out and move to a more successful club, but Gil was practically on his hands and knees begging Futre to stay, and giving him super contracts to keep him happy. I'd like to emphasize this is Jesus Gil we're talking about, in an era where the designated foreign star always took the rap if the team wasn't doing well. I already mentioned how as a has-been Futre was still good enough for Milan to take a gamble on him, but that's not all. Two years later, as an even more broken down husk he was still being welcomed back into Gil's circus with open arms. Clearly there's something there the rankings aren't telling us. Anyway, that's just my view on league rankings.
I've now rematched England - USSR from Euro 68. Unfortunately, it was without commentary and the picture was what you expect for a 1960s match. As such it's pretty hard to identify a lot of the Soviet players consistently as their numbers didn't stand out as much. In relation to some of the leading players: Moore: Outstanding. An excellent defensive performance and a game which encapsulated a lot of his best qualities. Seemed to have a preternatural understanding of where the ball was going to go and was almost always in the right position. The way he read situations was top class. Always appeared to have so much time on the ball and his passing was crisp and consistent. Initiated attacks and strode forward well, always looking in command. Bobby Charlton - A clearly better performance than the one against Yugoslavia. More measured in his use of the ball, he was demonstrably the main man in attack and midfield for England. He was also tireless in his workload, chasing back, pressing and harrying the opposition. Took his goal really well, got into good positions and his movement was impressive. Hurst - Strong performance up front as a target man. Made Charlton's goal and scored another himself. Excellent in the air. Banks - Never worried by anything and always in control. Was playing without gloves. On the Soviet side it was harder. Evryuzhikhin began really brightly but didn't do a huge amount. Byshovets and Banishevsky both had bright moments and Malafoyev was a lively dribbler. I didn't see a huge amount from Shesternev though he could well have given away a penalty for a handball in the second half.
Well, it'd be hard to list a player for 4 continental games and a whole club season in hibernation/term for not much.