BigSoccer's Players of the Season: 1967

Good post. I've given him a place for this:
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/bigsoccers-players-of-the-season-1967.2097438/page-4#post-37552153

(thus also his game + goal against Italy etc. not really because of his domestic totals)

 

Well, Cruyff leading Ajax to a major final is an achievement already worth of the title "best from europe". But that's 68-69 and not 66-67.

More conspiracy theories?? You and Harokin really are soul-mates. lol.

Well, that's a nice and cool fact to tell your grandkids.
I guess in Brazil ordinary people, players and journalists have more to celebrate and talk about with 5 WC titles.
Great generations that ended up losing Brazil has 2 that are always remembered, 1950 and 1982. What are the ones for Holland, all of them (i'm talking about strictly WCs and not ECs)?? lol

 

Sigh, just as Peru FC you are incapable of logic. You also leave out one sentence of my quote, which happens to be the most important point of the whole thing. I stop here. Hopefully Bolsonaro will show his muscles in the country with an average IQ of 75.

 

Honestly don't see what makes him go ahead of Eusebio. Looks underwhelming on highlights

 

What they also do is to make the big marketable teams seeded regardless of recent performances (e.g. Argentina). Others like Holland (Belgium, Iceland) generally end up in tough groups (the big exception is 2010) and then face fatigue, injuries and suspensions once they have stumbled through (if they do).

 

A textbook example of an incorrect approach, comparing team results in a poll about individual players. But hey, Garrincha and Didi won the WC five years ago, so let's give anyone who played in the same league a free pass into the Ballon shortlist.

Likewise, a team that didn't win a major title surely cannot have any great players in it, but once a team wins something, the entire 11 transforms into world class performers.

Would love to hear your expert advice on which European players have been overrated in this thread? Cruyff and Lubanski?

For celebrating read bragging. You'd think this would be enough, right? Instead it's all about obsessively fabricating more all-timers and undermining everybody else at every opportunity.

Brazilian mentality in a nutshell.

 

Not that I disagree per se (I had Albert #4 but in the top group, Johnstone #1) but can you say what you've seen that impressed you about Albert?

Given the recurring questions about what made him 'win' the BdO in 1967.

I liked the highlights of him for Hungary very much (despite not scoring well), it was a good league (#5 average in ClubElo, 16 teams) and also impressive only a few of his goals were penalties (it's not more than two). In Europe he didn't face proper opponents, as Tom Stevens remarked to an extent also true for his Hungary matches, but can only do what is in front of him and he did well, including one of the matches of the tie where's eliminated.

Explanation for Charlton would be welcome as well (personally not so impressed here - I saw Ariaga is more sold on Law from that team and I can get that although it seems in some matches Law was 'just' a restricted striker - in others not).

 

Albert

 

Might be wrong but didn't you say yourself their underlying reasoning could wildly differ and there weren't voting instructions until 1995?

"We also need to point out that France Football had no clear criteria in terms of what people were voting on. Was it the best player of the year, the best player overall, a lifetime award, favourite player? None of this was articulated."

For purpose of clarity, what do you mean with become? That the individual fame became bigger (also relative to the club fame) or that he really became a much better player. Especially in this early career forward role he had quite a habit to deliver against the big teams. What should he have done more? Isn't delivering ~50% more points, 41 more goals as the next best team, already outstanding. In terms of influence on results he was potentially already #1 (I can understand the logic of PDG's thought here and why none of his team-mates apply for the best 40-50, even though the 'unlucky' team itself got more fame than the individuals at the time).

What I just dislike is the modern tendency to only consider him for years where his team wins something big (more wrong for 1970s) - and (per usual procedure) it's even not uncommon to take one or two BdOs away. That is not the case for other greats where people are suddenly able to see that the winner isn't always the best player.

In fact, when by early 1973 he got compared to Pele by the international media, and had now as underdog player for a truly small team the trophies, they saw the exploits he did in the 60s (this has also happened with Modric and who knows De Jong in the future - he should score a bit more btw). By the 70s they could also see through the lucky breaks he or other teams got.

Personally (unlike case for Mazzola, Eusebio, Albert etc.) I struggle to see how a Charlton was a better player by this point, from an individual perspective, match-winning capabilities, influence, goals against the top nine sides. Even the middle of the road WS writers had their doubts on his consistency.

To cut it short, peterhrt his original post alludes to both the phenomenon of delayed recognition as well as the player becoming 'better', or both (Florian Albert himself a product of this, too). Or that it's the team that's become better rather than the player.

 

Would it be possible, now, to make a list of honorable mentions? If Tom has not thought about it, I would propose to include in that list, all the players that received a vote in the top 23 and those that were mentioned by any of us in the XI.

 

As much as it goes against my choices (putting Murdoch and Viktor in) I'd say, that if Puck and/or wm don't vote for those players (or don't vote, or vote for one each in each slot), then it might make sense to have Pirri in since he was in the consensus 23, and Simpson because he has a podium vote?

 

Yeah, I just had another thought too: looking at the chosen 23 of Puck and wm and using their choices to determine who they'd put in and see if that makes it clear who'd be in if they voted. But you may want to just use actual cast votes for best XI of course (like Peru has cast one for that, but not a full 23 players).

I'd need to check how that'd change things, if at all. I have a feeling Pirri and Simpson might get in that way too off the top of my head, or it'd still need the consensus 23 tie breaker anyway. Going purely on total votes for the 23 as you allude to, for the goalkeeper slot (even prioritising over podium votes, despite both making the 23), would result in Simpson in anyway I suppose, so Puck casting a vote which includes both Cruyff and Viktor seems to be the way the team would be decided differently. Using podium votes to decide between Cruyff and Rocha also looks complicated lol (total votes vs points due to my first place Cruyff vote!), but yeah I think the nature of allocating positions ought to put Cruyff over Rocha if he gets the vote from Puck (but I'll understand if you see it different).

 

I had both Simpson and Viktor in my 23 but if I'm asked to take a pick it's Viktor. Had perhaps more strong performances (in an absolute and relative sense) this season and also a better career overall (though Ariaga his Storari comparison is a bit overdone I think).

I had Pirri in and not Murdoch, but in a strange twist I go for Murdoch here. He was very good in the final and treble winning Celtic merits a fair representation. But the original vote is also okay if you like.

As far as the forwards go, if it was a comparison with/between Eusebio and Mazzola it would be tough (then Mazzola - you can use this if you like since it would be my original choice, had him #2 overall too behind Johnstone) but since I'm really not convinced by Rocha his domestic resume (which also TS noted) and not convinced as well what he did against the good A-team opponents internationally (in an absolute and percentage sense) I'd go for Cruijff here since he does that quite well (at least percentually, but also in an absolute sense it adds up to ~10 or so).

The other top guys for each position would be my pick too (Perfumo would be the first to change, then Charlton).

 

It's okay to see it different but I think some of those contemporary sources indicate this (not all - likewise for a F. de Jong today in terms of 'best midfielder' things) and at least his club team got high praise. Of that I think we can certainly wonder whether it was correct the team was elevated more than the individuals (the same happened to Dynamo Kiev), with indeed a benefit of hindsight here.

(also note that for later years often 'penalty points' are applied for 'team edge' and playing in a slick team, with not always asking and thinking through the sources of the slickness)

Of course this is sometimes also a debating subject here, and it often comes down to what those guys did in an international setting (given opportunities) and then also the games against the Big Three.

Van Nistelrooij for instance - and as you know he isn't universally applauded - has it going for him he was already doing well in the Champions League (champs Kaiserslautern, Bayern, Valencia were good teams) and has a few spectacular goals against Ajax too (in some ways he lost somewhat after his knee injury). Then we can also notice things as him receiving two ESM team of the month selections as a PSV player (an even better return as the great Ronaldo) and him going for a British transfer record (despite his league and/or relatively non-marketable nationality).

For Kezman, outside a famous goal against Manchester United, this is already less obvious and there we see now his 2002/03 ESM team of the season selection gets at hindsight attributed to his team mates (not without merit, given his playing style). Same for Alfonso Alves, who was also a bit streaky (when his team Heerenveen was put against the wall, he already lost a big part of his threat and value so at hindsight no surprise he didn't impress at Middlesbrough).

Another aspect is if we can see/say a player made their team really better (an arguable weak point of Suarez and more so Ibra before him; a strong point for the likes of Litmanen, MvB further back in time).

 

Homophobic, mysoginist and dictatorship loving Bolsonaro? Really??
Well, this says more about you than me. Go Euro pride, go!!

And thank God playing football does not request a high IQ.
Brazil had winning generations in the past and still is a representative force (top 3) among Champions League players (starters) for the last 10 years.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/45537728
I guess the great conspiracy of overrating normal brazilian and latin players also menaces coachs from different nationalities . lol

Maybe having a high IQ is a really usefull tool while rationalizing excuses for losses/loser generations, overrating Cruyff and creating high end conspiracies.
Congrats Puck!! lol

incorrect approach?? Really? How?
Football still is a collective sport played by 11 players. A stronger and consistent collective side allows great talents to shine even more.
Pelé shone in 58 because he had Didi (the best player from the team), Garrincha and others by his side. Ajax dominated the early 70s because Cruyff was a beast and had other great players by his side like Neeskens, Keizer... It's always like this. The great yugoslavian and urss generations, Real madrid from the 50s...
It's a mutual growth, genius players (Cruyff, Pelé, Platini...) help to improve the team and good/great players help with the "franchise" players improving their own game.
Every great player has a big name because they were part of winning teams of strong and meaningful competitions or even great campaings (Atlético Madrid CL finals 14 and 16).
Teams from weak leagues can have good/great players... But to be among the best you should at least have done something meaningful among/against other great ones.
Team results will always affect the analysis of individual players. We are not judging Michael Phelps or Usain Bolt.
This is impossible to disassociate. Again, because it is and will always be a collective sport.

 

Good one, that example, only saw it now. It's also said a couple times Brazil is the best in football since 1950 but somehow this and the subsequent qualifiers are missed.

Also the point that wins by others are 'always' considered a fluke anyway, therefore a 'no win situation' (unless, of course, Romario hops along, who struggles to get past the 20 league goals barrier). Instead, we pick local heroes with tinpot trophies and no international performance whatsoever.

 

No thanks. I'm done with it, I'll just wait to see the results now.