The Argentinian newspaper provided in 1998 a brief description of each star player dating back from 1930. Some are controversial decisions as is the case with retrospective awards. The 1998 winner was awarded after the competition ended.
No way, as much as I love Puskas, he played in group games got injured, missed the absolute crackers versus a strong Brazil, then current World Champions Uruguay in the quarter and semi finals and then played half fit in the final. Kocsis all day long.
Indeed, some players are more chosen for their fame/success and marketing than them really being up there with the very best in the competition. Most notably Meazza 1934, Puskas 1954, Beckenbauer 1966 (imagine CR7 doing the same, against 9 men etc.), Maradona 1990. Also case possible for Pele 1958, Pele 1970, Zidane 1998 (Romario 1994 was at least the most consistent in some ways, compared to his competition). Eusebio in 1966 the most unlucky one. He was in dribbles, duels won, goals, shots and ball progression head and shoulders above the rest. Might as well be the default #1.
I agree with the doubtful choices. I'd Varela 1950 (I'm not sure about his other matches aside from "the final"). I get the impression that Zizinho and Ademir were better overall. Even, Ghiggia for uruguayans.
Agree overall, but I don't understand the comment about Cristiano. Well, if he had delivered the same performance of Beckenbauer, he would collect another ballon d'or by a secure margin (which Beckenbauer did not win in 66) and , on the other hand, would be critised on big soccer forum by 4 or 5 posters .
Touche. I don't think Cristiano will win this year though. (what I mean is CR7, Zidane etc. getting scrutinized for De Gea howlers inflating his G+A stats and WhoScored rating while others are playing just as good/better but this fits better in the other CR7 threads)