It's a minor detail but overlooked Vd Wiel who is at 11 votes... There are many with between 1 and 5 votes (incl. Preud'homme when he was 40, who is in his own country generally seen as a better goallie as Pfaff was), but I settled for the ones with at least 1 inclusion. 116 - De Bruyne 97 - Courtois 83 - Hazard 50 - Kompany 49 - Van Buyten 21 - Mertens 16 - Alderweireld 14 - Albert 14 - Fellaini 13 - Vertonghen (0 inclusions) 12 - Nainggolan 11 - Vermaelen 10 - Carrasco 10 - Meunier 9 - Nilis 0 - Witsel (until end of 2017-18) This doesn't look correct to be honest.
Maybe this thread is helpful for getting a feel: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/belgian-golden-shoe-soulier-dor-1954-2010.1853033/page-4 Not sure whether Gerets is a real candidate for a top 5 spot (akin to my comments on Neeskens on the same page). He was good, possibly an icon of his time, but how outstanding next to his contemporaries? From memory I've never seen him placed as high as top 5. He won the EC as only one of his generation (was captain of PSV on top when he won), but others won also a few things or played a few/multiple finals (UEFA Cup, CWC, euro 1980). Courtois, Pfaff and Preud'homme are hard to order. I thought Preud'homme was generally seen as better as Pfaff by 'experts' (is also my view), but the recent stuff starts me to doubt a bit more. If it's up to me he's #1.
MY BEST 50 1.Maradona 2.Messi 3.Cruyff 4.Pele 5.Di Stefano 6.C.Ronaldo 7.Beckenbauer 8.M.Laudrup 9.Ronaldinho 10.Matthaus 11.Puskas 12.Best 13.Zidane 14.Zico 15.N.Ronaldo 16.Maldini 17.Garrincha 18.Platini 19.Eusebio 20.Baresi 21.G.Muller 22.Moreno 23.Gullit 24.B.Charlton 25.Didi 26.Yashin 27.Rummenigge 28.Meazza 29.Rivera 30.Zizinho 31.R.Baggio 32.Kopa 33.Van Basten 34.Bozsik 35.Romario 36.Rivelino 37.L.M.Suarez 38.Sindelar 39.Passarella 40.Henry 41.Zoff 42.Scirea 43.P.R.Falcao 44.Iniesta 45.Ocwirk 46.Sarosi 47.F.Walter 48.Kocsis 49.P.Schmeichel 50.Seeler
Hello, why is this one quite different from this from mid 2017? (the Croatia - Germany connection well visible.... )
I've not checked exactly how many differences there were etc in those votes, but to be fair a few of us, myself included did at least switch quite a bit around within a couple of years previously! But obviously any discussion/explanation is welcome as are any adjustments to previous lists or even new lists, but I'll just confirm again that I closed off voting so won't go back and update consensus lists at this point. Thanks for the post anyway Kochees, and yeah let Puck know what changed in your thoughts if you like....
Forget about the glaring inconsistencies I never saw in my life any list that placed Romario ahead of Eusebio Eusebio beats him in big games In the European Cup In the World Cup Romario isn’t even relevant in a top 50 all time discussion without 1994 Eusebio had at least 3 similar years It seems he did some research which is good and his 2nd list clearly shows the effects of this Still placing though Micheal laudrup and Ronaldinho in the top 10 and AHEAD of ferenc puskas is one of the worst things I’ve ever seen here The German-Croatian connection you killed me with that I don’t understand people(millennials?) that include pre war legends in random places just to make it look “respectable” But heck it’s his personal choice and if that’s what he truly thinks than good for him
I have to be consistent with earlier comments (including when my own choices got criticised lol) and say please be respectful of others choices. In truth it is so difficult to compare Laudrup and Ronaldinho to Puskas in any kind of 'if they played in the same era' basis I suppose - on that basis having a perception that the two more modern playmakers would be more valuable can be kind of valid I think (but no one person can say it is not is more my point). The inherent flaw is probably in asking for top 50 all-time votes in the first place haha, but I think it was worth it that I did that originally. I'm not presuming of course that those placements are on a 'if they played in the same era' basis anyway of course. I'm not being consistent with what I said this morning in the 1966/67 (or is it 1967?) thread, in allowing votes without criteria anyway haha I suppose. But again on this topic I felt it worked ok to let people judge 'best ever' the way that saw it themselves and it was interesting to put together the consensus lists with various views and impressions taken from enthusiastic and knowledgeable posters.
Yes I agree with that. I've always more problems with players from the same era (as you know). It is very hard to compare Eusebio his era and context to Romario in his context. Romario was by the way in the country recently: https://www.telegraaf.nl/sport/3223497/romario-lacht-dat-heb-ik-het-meest-gemist-aan-nederland One thing I'm against is the internet tendency to downgrade Van Basten next to his contemporaries (to pick one out). That was not how it was seen in his own time, the mid-90s and the late 90s (also the 2004 poll among his peers). Yes, the short career is a problem and has only 2 assists in 4 World Cup games, but to me it's like ranking Totti ahead of Ronaldo (Totti who played until he was 40, Ronaldo who was done as a world class player at 28). Or imagine Cristiano getting a career ending injury at 27 and then ranking Modric ahead. The Brazilian Ronaldo is a legend of the highest order because of his high peaks and to me the same applies to Van Basten (it's a good and correct discussion whether his peaks were as outstanding as Ronaldo of course; but can his contemporaries really match his club & country tournament peaks and league peaks? even Laudrup, Matthaus and Romario had comments of this genre - Romario made recently on Brazilian TV a case for him as you saw) I also don't fully understand it. He was a spectacular player with spectacular scenes in various big matches (also in the league against 'legendary' defenders). From crazy headers against a very strong Real Madrid to left footed chips from a tough angle. Although he didn't score, he had spectacular moments in the widely televised Intercontinental Cup matches. Usually that is something to work in someone's favor, when the years go by (more so than someone's actual impact, which is also quite good for him). As you know (as another example) I also don't see a real argument in favor of Zico over Platini. There are hints in Placar itself that they saw Platini as the slightly more important figure. Also with the current knowledge I can't really see it, in my mind (almost) all possible angles end up in Platini's favor.
Still though this doesn’t address the fact that nobody can objectively rank dinho or laudrup ahead of ferenc puskas If the purpose of the thread was to discuss your personal favourites that’s cool I don’t have a problem if somebody ranked fillipo inzaghi as GOAT the favourite European player thread I started was made specifically for this reason I prefer stojkovic to Zinedine Zidane I prefer dejan savecivic to probably any Brazilian barring R9 or zico However There is no way I’ll let my personal preference cloud my judgement Bringing this back to puskas We are talking about a guy who was voted by a panel of experts and his peers as the greatest goalscorer of a whole century puskas would be an all time legend if we just considered what he did for Real Madrid Matter of fact what he achieved for Madrid post 31 years old is enough to place him considerably higher than either dinho or laudrup Forget about what he did for Hungária or honved which places him in a totally different stratosphere and very arguably as a direct challenger for Johan Cruyff(and recently Cristiano Ronaldo)as the greatest post war European legend EVER https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2006/nov/17/sport.comment2 “Puskas would be the greatest anywhere even on the moon” Pele
Well, I guess if someone voted Inzaghi number 1 I would be close to disallowing the vote lol (even though I didn't disallow a vote with an old timer at number 1 IIRC - I mean a really old timer from way before Puskas). So I guess I can understand strong views like yours, but still I feel it's hard to be so definitive (I guess you yourself would expect he'd score less today, and even less in the Van Basten era for example, so comparing actual skills/effectiveness can be tricky/impossible....and then there is the fact that for a short while at least...and longevity might be considered less of an issue for some voters than others....Dinho and Michael were the top players in a top league and helped to make their teams into European Champions too, while never being known as goal scorers so not expected to rival Puskas etc there, just as Zidane would not be even though he was more a true midfielder anyway). Anyway, I'll leave it there, but you get the idea I suppose. Your post was not out or order really to be fair, but I just felt I'd add a reminder to curb criticism of others lists - the best thing is to give your own views generally speaking and cast your own vote for everyone to see which of course you already did. I'll definitely leave it here now in terms of my own comments - of course I understand you may have the last word haha, but that's fine, as long as you don't mock any replies by Kochees or anything.
Just to be clear I wasn’t mocking this Kochees fella if I see something slightly odd or inconsistent the chances are I will point it out or at least raise some suspicion regarding it Puskas was in the context of his time a demonstrably greater scorer than Van Basten Look at his 1959/60 season during which he was very arguably the best player in Europe aged 33 (even though he did not “officially”win the Ballon D’Or) Even older he became the only player in history to score a hat trick in a European final for a losing team Most importantly His record in the latter stages is above and beyond anything Van Basten showed in the European Cup(and for the NT the gap is just as wide if not greater) outside of scoring he had the vision of a playmaker An inside forward who by many accounts set up nearly as many as he scored Van Basten was a number 9 not a playmaker by any stretch of definition
In the main I agree with you Puskas is the more prominent and 'greater' player (had this conversation with PDG in the past too and he sees it closer as I do). Possibly more technical as well. It is however very, very hard to compare an era with five forwards with rather defensive era with one or two forwards (one-and-a-half forwards). Both score actually very high in Delanay and Corbett their 'big game scorers' attempt. It's very well possible to argue Van Basten was decisive and impacted as many major finals (including the Intercontinental Cups), possibly more, in his short career as Puskas did in his long career for great teams. Van Basten did it for three different teams, creating the winning goal in a low scoring game or opening the flood gates (the 1-0 goal in the 1989EC final breaking the deadlock). Anyway, it's for me more about how they compare in their own era. I agree Puskas should be placed higher.
I respectfully disagree here with the comparison between their big game record Puskás even as a more “limited” player in his 30s was a phenomenon in big games In the SF and final of the 59/60 European Cup he was a beast You could argue particularly in the final he “stat padded”but this was a term only invented recently by some fanboys I’m unaware of a distinction pre social media era between “important” goals and “unimportant” goals His record that he shares with ADS of most final goals at least from a historical Perspective was treated equally Nobody said for example ADS is the real record holder because he scored important goals(in addition to assists on some of Puskás own goals) There is the consecutive hattricks in el Classico at 33-34 years old in 62/63 The hattrick against benfica in a European Cup final This was post prime In his prime Puskás was a dominant scorer whilst being an organiser and was putting up absurd numbers (albeit in a very high scoring era) Football was just so different though,different tactical systems and a straight up comparison just isn’t possible I would say MVB is closer to Eusebio (even technically better) But Puskas is a clear tier above if not a few My top 20 would roughly be Pele/Messi Maradona/Cruyff CR/Puskás/ADS Sárosi/meazza/zico Platini/Eusebio/beckenbaur R9/Charlton/maldini Van Basten/Zidane/Xavi Gerd muller/baggio
The fine research by Miguel Delanay in 2013 revealed this: "the biggest discrepancy between decisive goals (0.16) and simple number of goals (0.62) surprisingly belongs to Ferenc Puskas . It seems that his finishes decorated big matches rather than decided them." Van Basten is at 0.28 decisive goals per big game (#11 all-time, #1 of his era) but as you say it is near impossible to directly compare. For all three teams his ratio was above 0.20, which per Delanay his words means "a good record" (while "anything above 0.1 is respectable"). That is without counting the assists (vs France, Italy, Germany, USSR etc.). In Corbett his list, which is on a cumulative base, Puskas is #4 while Van Basten with his shortened career (and some injury troubled seasons in between) on #11. I don't think so to be honest, if you follow the debate around the late-career Puskas, Romario and Gerd Muller in their own time. 'Stat padding' had only a different name back then. Here a good website and profile from before social media (2004): "Scoring spectacular goals, in particular volleys and overhead kicks, were his trademark. Van Basten was a tall, strong, quick player blessed with World Class athleticism. A complete forward - dangerous with both left and right foot, sensational in the air and equally adept at making goals as well as scoring them. His performances in big matches, particularly finals, were nothing short of outstanding. Arguably the greatest striker in the history of this sport, unquestionably one of the greatest players of all time." http://soccer-europe.com/Biographies/VanBasten.html I wouldn't say he was an organiser. That job was for Bozsik et al. He was a goalscoring inside-forward (as the 'RoyoftheRovers' called it) and then later at Real Madrid a striker. His position and role was the same as Pelé, unless you would call him an organizer too. Yes true. Like I said, for me it's more about how they're placed in their own era. Sometimes that gets horribly wrong imho (on the other hand the differences are sometimes minimal, and there is diversity in styles, one of the more appealing sides of football). Agree with you it's also debatable whether ADS was really a class ahead in terms of influence, skill etc. In their own time ADS was not necessarily seen as the more individually accomplished player.
it’s hard to really assess the career of Puskás beyond his exploits for the NT and Los Blancos I think that’s why him and ADS are viewed to be roughly at the same level People are essentially comparing the best of ADS to the “worst” of Puskás as a bloated older man As vegan has kindly shared ADS wasn’t some phenomenon type in Argentina or Colombia He was just a normal world class forward and not even a virtuoso,not particularly technically outstanding either I heard some rumours Puskás played for a regime teams in Hungary and he even had a detrimental effect on The NTs chances at WC54, insisting on playing injured Puskás played for overly dominant teams no doubt that did just aswell without him(famous examples being against Brazil and Uruguay in WC54) I don’t know if he was the player to completely raise the profile of his team by himself (like a Cruyff with Ajax or maradona with Napoli) Or he was just the extra quality on a great team Btw when I say organiser I don’t mean in the way of bozsik or Xavi I meant as more of a playmaker of the final third like a Pele(as you pointed out) Anyways there is some discussion on whether or not him or Hidegkuti as a withdrawn CF was really Hungary’s de facto playmaker https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....g/18/what-is-a-playmakers-role-in-modern-game
Coming to new discoveries. We try to be objective, but we set the criteria ourselves. If you know more than me, receive all of my congratulations! This is my current opinion and what will be of me for two years ........... Your withdrawal of the relationship between Germany is a very superficial attitude. Funny
Here, now I have some time. So, I have compiled my new list by the following principle: 1.Skill, 2.Influence on the development of football through individual skill, 3.Career, 4.The importance of the player in the time he played, 5.Trophies and prizes. I'm not saying it's ideal, but it seems to me now. I used all the information I found on the net. In my 43 years I managed to look at "something" football matches. Ronaldinho and Laudrup disturb you. That is, their placement is better than Puskas. Ronaldinho is certainly the most exciting player I've ever seen. But Messi is of course better. What about Laudrup? 1. For ROMARIO, Laudrup is the 4th of all time. 2. For RAUL, Laudrup is the best he has ever played. 3.For ZAMORANO, Miki is a genius. 4. For INIESTA, Laudrup is the best of all time. 5. For CRUYFF: "One of the most difficult players I've worked with. When he gives 80-90% he's still far from the best, but I want 100%, and he rarely does that." (After Real Madrid's Laudrup had won 5-0 over Cruyff's Barcelona): "When Michael plays like a dream, a magic illusion, determined to show his new team his extreme abilities, no one in the world comes anywhere near his level. "Had Michael been born in a poor ghetto in Brazil or Argentina with the ball being his only way out of poverty he would now be recognized as the greatest genius of the game ever.It had all the abilities to reach it but lacked this ghetto- instinct, which could have driven him there. "6. GUARDIOLA:" The best player in the world, I can not believe he has not won the title as best player. " 7. for BECKENBAUER: "Pelé was the best in the 60s, Cruyff in the 70s, Maradona in the 80s and Laudrup in the 90s." 8. for GALIA: "I have played against Maradona, Platini and Baggio, but the player I saw did the most indescribable things was Michael Laudrup." 9.for CLEMENTE: "To me, Michael Laudrup is the most genius player the world has ever seen. He will always be my number one." 10.FIGO: "I think maybe Laudrup was the best player I ever played against". I believe you've seen this already, but if I'm in a group with these ignorant, there's no problem. I do not write often but spend a lot of time on these topics. I personally do not like the great impact of maths and statistics on player careers' ratings. Of course this is necessary, it does not have to be crucial. Ratings in the newspapers are also debatable. Let's look at the differences in certain years when it comes to "Marca" and "Don Balon". Often times these grades depend on what we expect from the player and the end result of the match. Puck, I've seen your The list of the best players, yes, there are confusing positions and names for me there, I'll try to study it more in detail. I would ask Carlito which old names i have for "spectacular list". And of course you Puck, can you explain the full meaning of the connection between Croatia and Germany? I greet you nicely
Okay there is no disputing the talent of laudrup which was legendary The application of his talent and the consistency(or lack thereof) with which he displayed that talent is why he should be far removed from any top 10 or 20 list of players in history The list of endorsements from teammates is impressive Laudrup helped a struggling zamorrano become pichchi winner which can explain the glowing comments Romario claimed laudrup was the 4th best ever (after himself you forgot this part) But Romario is lucky to be ranked anywhere between 20-40 by most lists So there seems to be a major contradiction between how Romario views himself(and others) and how the world views him Beckenbauer is a heavyweight and an authority as far as football is concerned no doubt Still though how can a player who did not win the ballon dor be considered the best over a whole decade Where is the evidence his peak was better than stoichkov 1991/92 R9 96-98 Baggio 1992/93 Del piero 1997/98 Rivaldo 1998/99 Bergkamp 1992/93 and even 1997/98 Was laudrup ever ranked so highly by neutral sources during his playing career The Ronaldinho topic has been covered extensively so I have nothing to say here
If you think of "Ballon d or", Laudrup is named there for 9 years among the top 20 football players. Of course, that does not mean anything to me. Roby Langers, Bent Skammelsrud, Guy Hellers, Sokol Kushta, Ali Cemal, Louis Pilot, Nikos Mahlas. These are just some of the names of some of the managers listed on the list of five top footballers of the season in Europe. Gordon McQueen was named 2 times. Alan Hansen never got one single voice. So, these choices are very unreliable to me. Otherwise, Laudrup has been nominated by many as "the best footballer who never won the golden ball". Probably neither Matthaus did get a gold ball that he was not a German so he managed to win the World Cup. Rune Bratseth and Chris Waddle had a great season for me in 1989. They did not get one vote, but because of that, Bonner, Langers, Snelders and Salinas were there. To my mind, Laudrup and Matthaus were the best generation players in Europe, and Van Basten did not even go to the Netherlands (Gullit for me). But, of course, I accept the opposite. As for the list of top footballers by Puck Van Heel. I see on his list players such as Scarone, Figo, Batistuta, Leonidas ......, or even more strange: Edwards, Savicevic, Rossi, Weah, Cantona ???? ? Should anything be commented on? On my list are: 10 players from Brazil, 7 players from Italy, then 6 players from Germany. In the top 5 there are 3 players from Argentina. But Puck noticed favoring Germany. Typically for a Dutchman.
Laudrup was in his time underrated, but to see him as #1 of his era flips it to the opposite end. The 'anti-technical' Matthaus as well. Neither of them had the continental and international peak in performances that others of that time had. Like I said, it is like rating Modric over Cristiano, Totti/Ballack over Ronaldo.
Which authority declared laudrup the best ever player to not win the ballon D’Or Better than Ferenc Puskas a Unanimous and undisputed top 10 all timer? I don’t think so How about Thierry Henry,hagi,savecivic,Arjen robben and yes even recently Neymar Jr Anyways this is just opinions I’m not having a go at you so don’t take it personally I just think an important distinction has to be drawn between your personal favourites and best ever players Titles and influence on team titles is the most important measuring stick with which players should be judged Ronaldinho with 2 league titles+1 CL as the protagonist shouldn’t be regarded as any lower than Rivaldo/stoichkov/Thierry Henry And not any higher than Zidane/George best/Xavi Ronaldinho shone very bright but he was an appaling professional for around 9 years(everybody seems to forget this part) Didn’t exactly shake the earth in France for PSG even though his 10 min YouTube compilations look “nice”
He He! O.K. Puck, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia–Germany_relations- You did not write what this has to do with my list? You did not even answer me how they found on your list of the best: Edwards, Cantona, Savicevic, Weah and Rossi? Carlito, How many trophies won Roberto Baggio? 4 trophies. Two Serie A, one Italian Cup and one Cup UEFA. In these two winning league he played 45 games and scored 15 goals. Still, weird would be the best list without Roberto Baggio. In 6 Italian seasons, Dejan Savicevic had averaged 23 games and 5 goals in the average. I counted all the official matches (league, cup, Europe). Gheorghe Hagi - In Real he was not the "best", he did not even play in Barcelona. That is why he played in Brescia in power (93/94) in the lower Italian league. He won trophies with Steaua and Galatasaray. Robben was a great player. For my taste a bit too selfish and injury problems. Henry is on my list at 40th place. Of course I was delighted when Modric won all the awards for last season. Still, my "golden ball" for the season 17/18 won Salah. In the "ballon d or" was placed only at the 6th place. If Salah won a "golden ball," can someone say that he did not deserve it? In the first group of my favorite players I'm sure: Riquelme, Klinsmann, Waddle, Gerrard, Zola, Sammer, certainly Savicevic.And it does not have them on my list because there are some objective reasons for it in my court. Carlito, can I see your list? I can not claim that Laudrup's season 91/92 was better than Ronald's 96/97, Baggio 92/93, Rivaldo 98/99. In my opinion, it certainly was better than Stoichkov 91/92. Can you confident that Van Basten's season 87/88 was better than Gullit, Koeman, Maradona? Or Van Basten's season 91/92 of Laudrup? "Dutch footballer of the year press classification 1979-1994" - Van Basten - never among the first 30. Football is neither chess nor tennis. So the dose of subjectivity exists in everyone, and we all try to be objective. Puck, as for the lessons in history, i'm quite accidentally doing this, so we can exchange opinions on another channel if history and your sphere of interest. True, my English is a small problem for me, because my first foreign language is German. Greetings!
"Which authority declared laudrup the best ever player to not win the ballon D’Or"- I've seen many times on the net. I remember seeing this at WFHC. I went to see now, and it seems to have been deleted.