Sure, that's why. Ok. Then why not having reservations about Schmeichel and Zoff as well? Of the kind : what did Zoff exactly between '68 and '82? In '70 he was not the gk, in '72 and '76 Italy was not on the map at Euros. In '74-78,he was "not fantastic", conceding an intriguing number of goals from long-range distance (can see why the opponents were taking their chance from far, but can't see much renowed keepers who looked so constantly so unefficient at stopping this type of shots). Then there's the Euro '80 in Italy, where he was "ok good", it seems, during a very "defensive-minded" tournament, just like other keepers were too. Then it's '82. How great really was Schmeichel in the second half of the 90's? My peculiar perception of mine maybe (re : Matthews over Figo), is that Chilavert was better than him at this time. In '99, I'm not sure about who was the best keeper in the World (Kahn perhaps) but having Schmeichel topping all the individual awards regarding the keepers at the end of that year was exaggerating (very much) what was his true level of the time, imo. So it seems we kind of agree on this (still, maybe I'm wrong but I have the impression that when talking about longevity, many times it goes from '68 to '82 for Zoff and from '92 to '99 for Schmeichel, if not before '92). Because of course, as an addition, Schmeichel was already quite known while playing for Bronby, but he was with his club quite like in the same situation as Neuer in the German team today, especially like against Holland lately... despite his brilliant efforts, he could not save everything/ make miracles. Btw, Neuer became the german keeper in 2010 playing for Schalke (CL Q/F and S/F) so I think he has already as much "real great years" as Zoff and Schmeichel. If not more, because before his injury, he was steady enough (no need to enumarate the mistakes he probably made during that span, thay all made some). As for Banks, he was considered one of the best ever while making his career. Zoff too, during his time was highly considered. Zoff has always said and still says that Banks was better than him and it must be what he sincerely thinks, no doubt (btw, I'd have Banks 1 place ahead of Zoff personaly, someting like that). In the trio Banks, Maïer, Zoff, I think that Banks and Maïer were the most talented. Zoff being less spectacular (in general) doesn't automatically mean that he was more of the "reassuring type" who excels at the basics/ had better positioning etc. Maïer, Barthez... gave confidence in their own style btw (yes Barthez, believe it or not). Banks too. Now, here are my reservations btw about Banks-Maïer-Zoff : is that they were the keepers who were the most in view during the Pelé-Cruijff era when TV was developping. If they were truly the best at their own time (what I think is true, at least always amongst the best), their legend has been like firmly settled due to this context. It's not only Banks (although I understand what you mean about him... but it's just that we don't care about the B.O rankings here anyway, especially for keepers). Then, goalkeeping has considerably evolved with time and I can see why some people prefer a Shilton over a Banks for example. Moreover, Shilton has had a way different club career in this precise case (Banks has '66-68, a bit before, and the '70 first round). As for Casillas, I think I have explained my "reservations" enough, perhaps did it recently even. So I can imagine what they are, as for others. It's not necessarily exciting to make the inventory of what would be negative points regarding a player but it would be curious that some of them have none, like immune. / About Basten v Müller, when Basten received his first Ballon d'Or, France Football said that he was a great striker, not better but not lesser than Eusébio or Gerd Müller, thus insisted on the fact that their award was like building a lineage and that the glory once received was like eternal (I guess that it was the message); that the modernity can't erase all the greatness of the greats of the past (and that's what we have in mind to the max when playing at making AT rankings ofc). That being, this statement, while being not ridiculous (just a bit grandiloquent perhaps) could give rise to smile barely one year or two later imo. Of course Müller was rated high during his career, but as a specialist of what he was doing, no more. Of course he could some other things than just putting it in the back of the nets but this is not what made him a Ballon d'or. Also, if Bayern and Germany owes him much, he was lucky enough to play for these teams as well. I mean if you put a prime Papin or a prime Lineker (for the WC more) instead of him in this context, at this time, why they could not have the same numbers? Meanwhile a Van Basten was so unique technically but also tactically (let's stress it). He's one of the best strikers ever but also one of the few of these if not the only one who can be also compared with conductors like Di Stéfano, Cruijff... this to a certain extent, sure, but still. And he was big. He was the player of his time (the 'numbers 10' era as the dominant players was over, post WC '86-1992). Yet, that's three different players in style and abilities (with Eusébio) and this is precisely where we can see a difference finally, and can start to have a preference. Imo, the ratings by season are interesting in order to have an overall overview, it's usefull tool and that can be a good starting point to make our own researches also. But as it is + how we read it, even all of that remains subjective and remains most of all to be weighed and understood in the light of other elements. So that is with other elements that each people will choose. Thus I don't believe in this theory that point A could compensate for point B etc. It's just the weigh you/ anybody decides to put into different things and wich ones. if A compensates B, it's just because that you/ somebody have/ has decided that they weigh the same load. It corresponds to no existing realities outside of your/ our perception of it, as you said yourself talking precisely about "perception" etc. I know you know as you said "somewhat balance the longevity point" but still. You say that "there's no magical formula" and still make use of one as an argument, that's what I notice. "Short formula", ok well... but it's still a formula. About this : I mean all of them that I put in bold : Even though the comparisions and even the debate are not completely forbidden with Puskas and Cristiano Ronaldo, I will leave them aside . Eusébio too. PS : I know that Krol neutralized KHR, once.
So this is why I think a 'honorable mention' (the top sixty players) is still appropriate for his lowest scoring season 1990-91. 1) He was the lone attacker up front this season, without clear wingers to help him, and of course that influences the scoring numbers and grades (if you're judged as a striker; facing sweeper systems). However, no player had more than 15 non-penalty goals in the league (Skuhravy of Genoa; the league was on 2.2 goals per game) and all those above MvB were part of a duo or a trident. 2) MvB had 8 non-penalty goals in the league, but there is also the small matter of this 'own goal'. On top of this, all those three penalties were won by himself (fouled here and here; involved with a flick here); and he had around 10 assists with his foot or the head in the league too. Some of those were really high quality (this and this for example). 3) He was still the club topscorer in the league and club topscorer in all competitions for the runner-up (and cup semi finalist) of the single strongest league in the world. Some (but not all) awards also recognized him: in the XI for Onze Mondial and 5th in World Player of the Year. 4) He was with Baresi the most used player of Milan in the league (across all competitions Rijkaard), despite the disagreements with Sacchi. Famously he'd ask for Capello as new coach, which was at hindsight the right move. 5) He played very well in the first round European Cup tie against Bruges (#4 in country coefficients), where he assisted the only goal of the tie. Then he was suspended for the Marseille tie, where Milan lost. This is another observation: if he was available, he always played in a continental final between 1986 and 1993. 6) He played very well in the Intercontinental Cup match, unquestionably. This was for Milan and South America a big match (= not like partying Liverpool in 1981). 7) Also look what Milan did without him (with the 'stars' usually playing and national team players as Massaro, Simone and if necessary Gullit as alternatives). 6 wins, 7 draws and 1 loss (16 goals for, 9 against) was significantly below the rest of the season with him in the team (18W, 10D, 7L - 46 for, 19 against). Something like this is really no coincidence (compare to team-mates). In losses it didn't make a real difference, in the capacity to win games it clearly did. 8) Although he was 7/33 times graded with a 5 or lower by Gazzetta in the league, he was also 6 times graded with a 7 or higher. That is only two times less as Vialli of champions Sampdoria, who played with a duo (Mancini) or trident. Vialli is effectively the best striker in this regard. 9) For the national team he scored 8 goals in 7 games in 1990-91. Some would say: 5 goals against Malta - but the point here is that it didn't happen since (despite the break-up of Europe). It were high quality goals anyway and he had also two assists in the same match. If we also include World Cup qualifiers: only Hans Krankl is ahead of him then, who once scored 6 goals. After 45 national team games Van Basten had 23 goals for his national team (two penalties, and involved in that too). In the last 13 games he scored only once, which is related to the integration of players as Bergkamp. Great long ball assist here. Taking all that into account, I'd still have him among the best 50 players for 1990-91 or so (= honorable mention). The game is not only about goals. It is also about skill and influence on your team. Some people have argued Van Nistelrooij did better as lone attacker up front (still impacted his number of goals though, and ability to stand out). That's fine. edit: I take a pause now for a few days.
One remaining question: you do not rate VDS as a goalkeeper? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFFHS_World's_Best_Goalkeeper As asked before (seeing your names in bold): what are really KHR his marquee games? What did he do in the later stages of KO football in particular for club or country? Also shown before: like Keegan he never was particularly highly rated, not at the end of the 1980s too... only recently we see some revisionism on the internet and the corpprate media (he has remained a visible figure ofc). Either way, what are his marquee games? What are signs of his influence and impact? Back in a few days...
Could you Explain this statement please Compared with Cruyff and di Stefano tactically? they were free role players as were the very best players in history Even Eusebio (his prime) was more of a free role(had more responsibility on the pitch as van Basten) If his 66 stats are anything to go by he could put on both an impressive offensive and defensive performance and was adept also at creating chances Could carry the ball long distance with his pace and dribble (he could be a 1 man army in big games something romario, van Basten, R9 was not) I read somewhere puck said van Basten could play as part of a 3 man midfield and wore a 6 for ajax There is no source or footage for this(that I've seen) Still technically van Basten was most likely the best in his position during 87-92 the best European 9 for sure Compared to Cruyff he is not just behind but in fact far behind (he'd be the first to admit this btw) One thing to bear in mind Van Basten a number 9 for the duration of his career took 50~ penalties and scored 0.61 non penalty goals in his career Cruyff as a forward/midfield general scored 400 non penalty goals in his career 0.56 non penalty that is very close It may sound funny but Cruyff is actually underrated as a historical goalscorer He is more prolific then Thierry Henry, zlatan ibrahimovic (in non penalty gpg),Andriy Shevchenko To put Cruyff as a 9(like in his early years) would be to waste his talent But if he was no doubt he could score 500-700 career goals
Here's the complete quote : The common point is that things turned around them and that themselves were very mobile and decision makers. In gross, they were playmakers. Then regarding MvB it's more about the last tier of the pitch but even the entire opponent's half/ since the centre circle for sure when JC and ADS it's more a bit everywhere. MvB was arguably not a playmaker as ADS and JC for sure (who themselves were very unique kind of playmakers compared to the ''classical playmaker'') but building the plays was part of his game, the team was organized around him, he organized it, so for all of that he was a tactical leader of his team; as good on "build attacks" than on "counter-attacks", in the game with or without the ball etc., that's what I mean. About Eusébio, I think that the word "free-role" fits better indeed. Wich doesn't mean that he was brainless of course since it's a responsability to have this freedom, but you know what I mean. ADS, JC were called "a team on their own"/ a "tactical plan on their own", things like that... and MVB was it in a good mesure too, I think (voilà that's it, that's what I meant). There's always a part of improvisation for sure, but it's "prepared improvisation", a range of solutions for each problems that are well and deeply integrated... Cruijff must have said that. Well, there are a good number of very good posts and threads about this already so no need to go further + above all, I guess that I have explained what you have asked about in particular. At least, I hope that what I meant is clearer now.
Do you have data or footage for this Especially the claims for orchestrating counter attacks And especially building plays from the centre pitch???? If that were the case Marco van Basten would be a forward/ trequartista and not a conventional striker There is a marked difference between saying MVB would drop deeper than ian Rush, hugo sanchez or Gary Lineker to pick up the ball And effectively claiming he was ferenc puskas 2.0
I don't believe in tiers amongst the best goalkeepers in history of wich he belongs for sure (nice intro) but while playing a draft game for example, I'd think about picking Van der Sar only as one of the very last solutions, assured that he'd please the voters enough btw. That being, surely I'd pick Chilavert (personal preference. Also, I completely leave aside the pre-60s goalkeepers). I like goalkeepers who have a psychological influence on their team, like participating at transcending their teammates and I don't have this impression with Van der Sar. In general, if they manage to create that confidence, is that they have outstanding qualities of goalkeepers at first so imo, they have the whole package (maybe with one thing at wich they're less good, eventually). I still have in me that big impression that VdS made in '95. Also (but to a lesser extent personally) the brilliant career ending he had, then as a leader exactly. In between, I have never felt that he could be the one about who we could say : "he's a boss", first, and "yes it's him the best Gk in the world". Not "killer"/ "intimidator" enough imo. More "nervous"/ "browbeaten" in big NT matches, globally, imo. But maybe I'm influenced by what I read in France Foot on this one. I tend to agree anyway. They were putting the accent on his '98 tournament in particular, saying that it shown on his face in the tunnel and during the hymns that he was sick to play against Brazil, in the semi-finals. I don't know if it's true that it was visible that much, but I get the idea. Thus, the iffhs rankings match completely with my impression, on this one. Which doesn't mean that they and I are right, but yes in this case it looks logical for me : not having him as #1 for any specific year but having him in the "last 25 years" top-5 or something like that, made in in 2011). It looks logical because he was one of the best during his time with remarkable debuts and ending, while being up there, well, globally, in the middle of it. That being, I think he had/ has a case in 2008 against Buffon and Casillas as it's the whole team that suddenly crumbled against Russia, in the quarter-finals, and that probably he could not do anything to that (the second Russian goal doesn't speak in his favor though but well, it starts with the individual level of defending on the crosser of the ball, even before surely... and the third is deflected). Well his wiki page sums-up things well. About his playing style though, I'd add that he's not remembered for he went ahead of the strikers much and that many times he chose to dive as late as possible but that it could be too late. Not great in one-on-one situations imho. On the other hand, he was great against shots from outside the box or from mid-range all the same. Agree with the other things that are said on his page ofc when it comes to pk's and his skills ball at his feet plus tactical skills. Less about how he would have "excelled" at handling crosses (or is that I just don't remember about this, it's possible). And again, dubious about his calmness/ serenity. An asset that perhaps he had by the end of his career but before, that's not my impression. I see him most of all as an introvert, who by the end of his career asserted more himself as if hungry as never before, as becoming deeply conscious that he was playing his last games. As animated by an instinct of survival like never before, by the end. When he caused Ortega's expulsion in '98, VdS did not look that serene at the start of the scene, when he stands above Ortega and I think that's why the Argentine just kicked him. At the end of scene, Vds is on the floor and Ortega is out. About Rummenigge, I think that he particpated greatly to define what would be the modern striker in his own time and also that the phenomenon "Cristiano Ronaldo" made remember KHR as being more than anybody else the one who would have been the prototype for the Portuguese scoring winger. So a new angle of view appeared perhaps, it's true. Cristiano Ronaldo is still playing, the CR mania is still on, so yes I agree that it can have to do with a recent rereading. Between the two there was MvB though, who already could be compared to KHR at times I think, given that they played on the whole front of the attack, this with that power and that range of abilities. During a while, Rummenigge banged goals just like Cristiano Ronaldo (a shorter time for sure) and well, we can't know, but playing in the UCL era, he would have had certainly more chances to score goals against prestigious opponents and why not in the last-4. He still won the Euro and played two World Cup finals. Also, after watching the game 10 times, my rage against "Sevilla '82" and himself has ceased so I have learned to appreciate more the player since some years.
This is my first evaluation for both: Zinedine Zidane 1995-96 Honorable Mention (24 years old) 1996-97 Top 23, 3rd (podium) (25 years old) 1997-98 Top 23, 2nd (podium) (26 years old) 1998-99 I'm not sure 1999-00 Top 23, 1st (podium) (28 years old) 2000-01 Top 23, 3rd (podium) (29 years old) 2001-02 Top 23, 1st (podium) (30 years old) 2002-03 Top 23, 3rd (podium) (31 years old) 2003-04 Top 23 (32 years old) 2005-06 Top 23 (34 years old) His short formula for me would be: 8+1 (1stx2 + 2nd + 3rdx3) Eusébio 1961-62 Top 23 (20 years old) 1962-63 Top 23, 4th (contender) (21 years old) 1963-64 Top 23, 4th (contender) (22 years old) 1964-65 Top 23, 2nd (podium) (23 years old) 1965-66 Top 23, 1st (podium) (24 years old) 1966-67 Top 23 (25 years old) 1967-68 Top 23, 3rd (podium) (26 years old) 1969-70 Honorable Mention (28 years old) 1972-73 Honorable Mention (31 years old) His short formula for me would be: 7+2 (1st + 2nd + 3rd + 4thx2) Then, the truth is that some details should be noted. Zidane's explosion began at age 25 and Eusébio rather lived that explosion until 26 or so. Not only are they different players by style of play and role, but also different in terms of their periods at the top. I must also say I do believe that in this kind of look Zidane looks somewhat favored because, while certainly the many criticism about his irregularity I think they have a certain background, I think in 1996-97, 1999-00, 2000-02 and 2002-03 he achieved high considerations because there were no other many players so bright that they could overcome their brushstrokes of brilliance on all fronts and 2005-06 basically for the World Cup, which is perhaps an "easy" scenario than that of Eusébio fighting in 1964-65 in front a espectacular Pelé or in 1965-66 in front a round case like world champion Charlton's. I think in general terms Eusébio reached a more spectacular peak of performance, but I also think that is more noticeable his early decline, even having exploded almost having started his career in Portugal. I suppose that it is not a difference that I can remark a lot and Eusébio could be ahead if we focus in his very prime, maybe?, while Zidane was a kind of talismanic player for a very successful French generation.
Alessandro del Piero was the highest rated juve player in serie A The best player of the champions league Is this disputed by anybody? Pre 1998 world cup final Zidane wasn't even a ballon dor contender In 1998 There was R9 and then the rest (a group of players Zidane hadn't separated himself from) The propaganda machine went into overdrive after the final and Zidanes face projected on the arc de triomphe as the symbol of Frances new integrated generation. There is no case for Zidane as a superior club player to Dennis Bergkamp in 97/98 This is a open and shut case @Perú FC please reconsider I disagree also with the 01/02 Zizou took a while to integrate even Steve mc manamanns recollection was Zidane was unimpressive in the first semester of the season Second half was great and of course capped by a great CL KO performance his injury also stopped him from being inflated at WC 2002 Was Zidane really better league performer as Robert Pires in 01/02?
10/10 marks for historical revisionism Rummenigge never banged goals like CR Not even for a short while Not even for one 'prime' season CR scored more goals in the champions league quarter finals than KHR scored total goals in his European cup career!!!!! Forget about super team edge or 'it was a different time' argument CR 07/08 at 22 years old scored more than KHR ever did Doing so for a lower scoring team In a higher rated league Older posters have this incessant need for some reason to suggest they've 'seen it before' KHR wasnt tactically,technically or statistically comparable to Cristiano Ronaldo
Among those who are encouraged to make such broad rankings I think they will understand how it is that no matter what criteria is taken, in the end one ends up feeling more or at least on par with dissatisfaction with those who can not name that with those who are not named. To be honest, I feel that Bergkamp is in a fair position, even considering that under this type of analysis he's the 4th best player among those of the entire decade of the 1990's (just behind Maldini, Baggio and Laudrup). Since the 1990's those who have caused me the most dissatisfaction for not being able to strain them comfortably are: Stoichkov, Giggs, Hagi (a strange case of a higher level than the prominence of his career, I think), Litmanen (unfortunately affected by injuries), Del Piero, Thuram, Nedved, Nesta (I must value him much higher than some probably, I've really debated about him and Scirea), Shevchenko, Totti, Lampard, Pirlo, van der Sar, Robben and/or Neuer.
Why do you think Thuram is usually perceived so clearly ahead of Bossis? Wouldn't there be a room for Patrice Évra? It seems me a bit strange.
Yeah @PDG1978 use to talk about him a lot and I thought he was exaggerating. I guess believing is seeing
https://thesefootballtimes.co/2019/...-and-statistically-brilliant-goalscorer-ever/ Amongst the many amazing statistics racked up by pre war legend peyroteo is one that has gone a bit under the radar. Fernando peyroteo,one single player scored 64 goals against Benfica That is literally an impossible statistic That is to say around 20% of his total goals for sporting Lisbon came against one of the biggest clubs in Portuguese football history
I can't resist the temptation to respond to this nonsense again. He is not in a 'fair' position given your penchant for longevity in other cases. Personally I named Roberto Baggio the player of the 1990s because of his peak form for club and country and symbolic value (thanks to aggressive marketing by IMG) - I prefer a five years window - but how can there be a debate for longevity? With the longevity factor, what is it for incredible nonsense to place Baggio 21st and Bergkamp 49? Another good example of what I mean... Let's also not pretend Bergkamp had no effective skill. See this pass, or this skill, or this sublime skill (12:55) against Manchester United. Games for a major club: 730+ for Bergkamp vs less than 330 for Baggio Games at a major tournament: 25 for Bergkamp, 16 for Baggio Continental finals: 6 for Bergkamp, 3 for Baggio (3 wins vs 1 win) Major honors: 13 for Bergkamp, 4 for Baggio Minor honors: 5 for Bergkamp, 0 for Baggio National team semi finals: 3 for Bergkamp, 2 for Baggio (with one final) Goals and assists against elite teams at major tournaments: 6 for Bergkamp, 2 for Baggio Domestic player of the year honors: 3 for Bergkamp, 1 for Baggio (Bergkamp also PFA shortlisted for 1999 by the way, topped OPTA Index for the attackers; player of the month material as late as 2004) Ballon d'Or: proportionally, with changing voter pools, Bergkamp wins clearly (both 6 times nominated) ESM votes: 18 vs 11 in favor of Bergkamp Career goals: 300+ for Bergkamp (less than 25 penalties), less than 320 goals for Baggio (113+ penalties) Major topscorer honors: 5 for Bergkamp, 1 for Baggio Assists: Bergkamp probably ahead; also in Serie A (Bergkamp 9 seasons with 10+ assists, Baggio three seasons). Bergkamp has only very few set piece assists (source: Aaron Nielsen) and about as many pre-assists in his Premier League career. Influence and impact on teams: Bergkamp miles better, more influential. For Baggio the win percentage is higher without him, for Bergkamp (also in Serie A) it is the opposite. That at - on average - for bigger teams. Champions League man of the match candidate: at least 10+ games for The Iceman versus 2 at best for Baggio. Both first got to play there when they were 29 years old. Etcetera.... This amounts to 27 places difference between the players? Yes I know Baggio gets regularly placed ahead, but that's the whole point: rarely do I see cases where the Dutch get placed higher than the 'media consensus'. Yet, guys like you happily downgrade 'my guys' with the weapon of longevity in hand. The deck is stacked against us, on the field and off it. There is a handicap and time lag at the time itself, and then the downgrade machines many years later. I'd have Henry ahead, then Baggio, then Bergkamp close behind.
Goals at major tournaments: 10 goals vs 8 goals for the ponytail (including 2 penalties, not won by himself) Goals in Champions League and UEFA Cup: 29 vs 22 goals (difference increases enormously when factoring in penalties) For the "Serie A was better" argument.
Not the best video quality but the first video is a good start. The first couple of scenes are from this match (2005-06 against Fulham), the long pass at the very end against Chelsea (assist slightly later).
His goalscoring shouldn't be compared to Cruijff or vice versa - it should be compared next to his contemporaries. For example the highly rated Klinsmann (from the same year of birth) who is at 36 Serie A goals in 103 matches (0.35) All-time ratio of the 100 most prolific players in Serie A history: Ordered on year of debut: UEFA's website on Friday recalls the top scorers in European competition. Cristiano Ronaldo, who arrived against Schalke on 78 goals, broke another record and topped the list of top scorers but does not appear in the list of players with the best goal average per game. In the list of players with the best average in the Champions League and the European Championship, other Portuguese appear: José Águas in fifth, with 18 goals in 22 games (0.82 average); and Eusebius in eighth, with 47 goals in 63 games (0.75). Gerd Muller, with 34 goals in 35 matches (0.97) leads, while Messi comes in sixth, with 75 goals on 94 occasions (0.80). Scorers with the best average goals per game in Champions and European Cup: 0.97: Gerd Müller (Bayern Munich) - 34 goals in 35 games 0.86: José Altafini (Milan and Juventus) - 24/28 0.85: Ferenc Puskás (Budapest Honvéd and Real Madrid) - 35/41 0.84: Alfredo Di Stefano (Real Madrid) - 49/58 0.82: José Águas (Benfica) - 18/22 0.80: Lionel Messi (Barcelona) - 75/94 0.76: Jean-Pierre Papin (Marseille and Milan) - 28/37 0.75: Eusebius (Benfica) - 47/63 0.74: Ruud van Nistelrooy (PSV, Man. United and Real Madrid) - 60/81 0.68: Marco van Basten (Ajax and Milan) - 19/28 There are no Portuguese top scorers in all club competitions in Europe, there are no Portuguese leaders, but Radamel Falcao has 38 goals in 42 games (0.90). Best average players in European club competitions: 0.90: Radamel Falcao (FC Porto and At. Madrid) - 38 goals in 42 matches 0.87: Gerd Müller (Bayern Munich) - 62/71 0.86: Stéphane Guivarc'h (Auxerre, Rennes and Newcastle) - 24/28 0.82: Ivan Mráz (Bratislava, Sparta Prague and Dukla Prague) - 18/22 0.86: Ferenc Puskás (Budapest Honvéd and Real Madrid) - 37/43 0.83: Alfredo Di Stefano (Real Madrid) - 50/60 0.81: Jupp Heynckes (Borussia Mönchengladbach) - 45/55 0.80: Kees Kist (AZ Alkmaar and PSG) - 20/25 0.80: Denis Law (Manchester United) - 20/25 0.80: Kevin Hector (Derby County) - 16/20 https://www.lux.iol.pt/competicoes-...do-tem-mais-golos-mas-nao-entra-nestas-listas You can have a debate about penalties if you like (I already showed almost all of them of the 1990-91 and 1991-92 season were created by himself), the 'challenger' Giuseppe Signori has 44 Serie A penalties as well (24 penalties for MvB - Baresi and others also took them) - but that's besides the point. National team goalscorers in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Goals per appearance: 0,784 Bajevic 0,764 Romário 0,722 Zico 0,718 Batistuta 0,711 Fischer 0,688 Cruyff 0,648 Šuker 0,600 Lineker 0,592 Caszely 0,569 Platini 0,567 J. Bosman 0,556 Papin 0,553 Roberto Dinamite, Brolin 0,551 Elkjær 0,548 Türkyilmaz 0,539 Streich 0,531 Knup 0,525 Szarmach, Răducioiu 0,522 Völler 0,520 Bebeto 0,493 Krankl, Zamorano 0,490 Bonev 0,489 Luque 0,483 Careca, Dahlin 0,482 R. Baggio 0,477 Georgescu 0,476 Shearer 0,474 Kh. Rummenigge 0,468 Bergkamp 0,465 Kempes 0,463 Polster 0,457 Nyilasi 0,455 R. Díaz, Victorino 0,452 Bettega 0,450 Lato 0,446 Stoichkov 0,435 Klinsmann, Platt 0,423 Deyna 0,420 Protasov 0,417 Vandenbergh, Rossi 0,414 Van Basten 0,413 Rubén Sosa 0,412 G. Balint 0,410 Altobelli 0,407 Morena 0,406 Romero, Iordănescu Also here you can of course have a debate about penalties: excluding Baggio his 7 penalties MvB moves ahead of Baggio (Zico has 13+ penalties). As mentioned, if we exclude the last 13 caps (when other players got integrated, explained here), then his ratio is 0.51 goals per game. I'd argue ADS was more of an all-action player still (in games he showed that). JC played some matches clearly as a defender, in a more compartmentalized role. Then he wasn't a midfielder/forward who also defended if needed, but a defender who also attacked. ADS was more Gerrard (= all action, free role); JC more like Yaya Toure (played as center back; holding midfielder albeit not as disciplined as Busquets) in this particular aspect.
From this comment I see no reason why someone could rank Baggio ahead of Bergkamp, in fact they looked like they don't deserve to be nominated in the same sentence. Either way, the approach you use seems to be the same, hit then blow. You did the same by throwing Ronaldinho down while you suggested in every way how Robben was superior, to finish by saying that Ronaldinho was perhaps better. (like wtf?) I wish finally, after your notes, you would argue why you have Henry and Baggio a little ahead of Bergkamp.
Because I consistently prefer a five years window to make a judgement (or the number of years they're a match winner). That changes the picture for both Baggio and Ronaldinho. Baggio had arguably the higher tournament peak, the slightly higher continental peak (for club), the higher peak in the league (the single best league in the world between 1988 and 1998). I have been very clear about that.
OK for the previous posts + Metin Oktay (Galatasaray) has 16/20 like Kevin Hector too, from the 1300 cards of records of matches and goals in European Cups that I have collected/ created in addition to the ones from rsssf. (Others have about equal ratios or even better but playing mainly if not only in the Fairs Cup, like Lojacono and Manfredini of Roma from the ones in this case that I have checked) For Guivarc'h they count the intertoto, otherwise he has 7/10 in total, like Tanju Colak. Also Pedrag Pasic.
Iniesta represents a curious case for me. Among Spanish speakers I usually notice that he is even better valued than I usually do, but among English speakers he's much less. I haven't found many midpoints from my perspective. Before developing it, these are my first evaluations on Laudrup, Xavi and Iniesta, 3 on which I have sometimes changing ideas: Michael Laudrup 1983 Honorable Mention (19 years old) 1985-86 Top 23 (22 years old) 1990-91 Top 23 (27 years old) 1991-92 Top 23, 2nd (podium) (28 years old) 1992-93 Top 23, 2nd (podium) (29 years old) 1993-94 Honorable Mention (30 years old) 1994-95 Top 23, 4th (contender) (31 years old) 1997-98 Honorable Mention (34 years old) His short formula for me would be: 5+3 (2ndx2 + 4th) For Xavi and Iniesta I had to project some things because, as I mentioned, I have not completed my own analysis since 1999. Xavi 1999-00 Honorable Mention (20 years old) 2001-02 Honorable Mention (22 years old) 2003-04 Honorable Mention (24 years old) 2004-05 Top 23 (25 years old) 2006-07 Honorable Mention, but I'm not sure (27 years old) 2007-08 Top 23, 4th/5th/6th (probably contender) (28 years old) 2008-09 Top 23, 2nd (podium) (29 years old) 2009-10 Top 23, 2nd (podium) (30 years old) 2010-11 Top 23, 3rd (podium) (31 years old) 2011-12 Top 23, 4th/5th/6th (probably contender) (32 years old) 2012-13 Honorable Mention (33 years old) His probable short formula for me would be: 6+5 (2ndx2 + 3rd + 4th/5th/6thx2) Andrés Iniesta 2006-07 Honorable Mention (23 years old) 2007-08 Top 23 (24 years old) 2008-09 Top 23, 3rd (podium) (25 years old) 2009-10 Top 23 (26 years old) 2010-11 Top 23, 3rd/4th (podium/contender) (27 years old) 2011-12 Top 23, 3rd (podium) (28 years old) 2012-13 Top 23 (29 years old) 2013-14 Honorable Mention (30 years old) 2014-15 Honorable Mention (31 years old) 2015-16 Top 23 (32 years old) 2016-17 I'm not sure 2017-18 Honorable Mention (34 years old) His probable short formula would be: 7+4 (3rdx2/3 + 4thx0/1) In general terms I think the first thing that stands out is the greater consistency of the Spaniards over the Danish, largely due to the complicated takeoff that Laudrup took in the 1980's, despite how recognized his talent was since his Brondby days (difficult seasons in Italy). What I think I can highlight is if I had to choose a single better version from these 3 I would choose the one of Laudrup in 1991-92 (if he had participated and had been a star player in the European Championship I probably would have selected him 1st ahead of van Basten), so I could understand how Laudrup could be positioned ahead focusing on his best short period, but even in that sense I can't tell a very palpable difference. Obviously there are certain complications in the direct comparison of their abilities because they are 3 players with certain similarities, but not exactly with the same major role or style of play embedded in the same system. If we can concentrate on the production of only Laudrup and Iniesta based on goals+assists, the Danish wins, it's true, however, as I have already mentioned in previous discussions I think that those are statistics that fail to reflect the importance of some enorme virtues (not only about Iniesta, who I think made about 140 assists for Barcelona and reached 22 in 2012-13) in the control of the ball, the balance of his body in protection (I don't have detailed statistics about it, but I find it impressive how very few times he could lost the possession under pressure), creativity, intelligence and mental speed in the passes not prior to the goal, all absolutely effective for the success of his teams, especially in what the "Tiki Taka" high stage meant for a team that I think may reached one of the greatest expressions in history. How he was valued in the Ballon d'Or voting does not have any influenced on my criteria (it does not adapt in terms of times and I think that the product of a votation does not reflect a standardized criterion, a vital point for such complex comparisons) and I think it's possible to notice that due to the 2009-10 season (which includes the World Cup) is not one of his highest seasons in my evaluation (affected by some injuries that somewhat reduce his continuity in Spain). Finally, I feel that the point about the legacy is very subjective. He will certainly be remembered as part of a triumvirate along with Xavi and Lionel Messi, but, at least for now, I think that it rather hurts him by giving him a kind of secondary role to the size of the Argentine star or subject him to a kind of merit sharing with Xavi that I know is easy to interpret like that, but I think it doesn't make much sense for individual comparison (their consecutive positions in my posible ranking have not been premeditated due to their society, but they certainly seem to be in the same ratio from my perspective, even considering the periods in which they did not coincide). As I think Laudrup is probably one of the 3 best European players of the 1990's, I'd say that Xavi and Iniesta have been the best outfield European players of the last 15 years, just behind Cristiano Ronaldo.