I want to ask the following questions: Which was more important to their team? What was puskas better at? What was di stefano better at? If puskas won world cup 1954 (or if its ever proved germany cheated) would be he ranked better than di stefano? (not accusing the germans btw) Thanks
Depends on the era and the team. Generally most would say Di Stefano because Puskas played in his prime at a machine. But the fate of an Hungary without a fully fit Puskas is known to everyone. There are also stories of Honved losing games without him. Quick foot movements, shooting, creativity, instinct, playing with his back towards goal. Running, tackling, heading, (long range) passing, intercepting, leading, work-rate, field-coverage, adaptation (it seems). Di Stefano seems also better in performing long dribbles while Puskas is superior in close spaces and very quicky, short bursts. It doesn't matter because everyone saw who the best team was in the tournament, who was the captain and their talisman and how a combination of circumstances were thwarting their chances. Losing a game can always happen, against a third-division club, against amateurs and also against 'cheaters'.
Very good post. I'd like to add that Di Stéfano was more important for Real Madrid obviously. Puskás was 31 years old, overweight and hasn't played for three years when he's gone to Spain, but despite that he still managed to amaze.
Here is something funny and interesting to know. In my native language the root of the name Puskas (Pushka) means riffle. And a riffle he was based on his goalscoring.
The funny thing is, you had strikers and second-strikers in Hungary who were outscoring him. But what eventually convinced me was the fate of Honved and Hungary when he wasn't fully fit or absent.
Here's Raymond Kopa's point of view about Di Stefano and Puskas. It's obviously interesting since he played with both in Real Madrid. He was originally asked about the greatest players ever. Here's his answer : "Three stick out immediately – Pelé, Alfredo Di Stéfano and Ferenc Puskás. Pelé because he is Pelé; Alfredo because he is a great friend – joking; and Puskás because he has always been my hero. To celebrate our league title, Reims went to see England v Hungary at Wembley in 1953. I was dazzled by Puskás. He had an incredible shot and at 35 metres from goal he was an immediate threat. He was 31 when he arrived in Madrid and overweight but still top scorer in four Ligas."
These are the Hungary matches without Puskas that were played between his debut and unwanted 'retirement': Date - opponent - venue - result 20/08/1947 Albania Hungary 3-0 Balkan IX 17/08/1947 Bulgaria Hungary 9-0 Balkan IX 23/05/1948 Albania Albania 0-0 Balkan X 03/10/1948 Austria Hungary 2-1 Fr 19/09/1948 Poland Poland 6-2 Balkan X 04/10/1953 Bulgaria Bulgaria 1-1 Fr 30/06/1954 Uruguay Switzerland 4-2aet WORLD Sf 27/06/1954 Brazil Switzerland 4-2 WORLD Qf 14/11/1954 Austria Hungary 4-1 Fr 20/05/1956 Czech'vakia Hungary 2-4 Int Cup VI
In term of pure talent with respect to their position: there is no clear difference between Puskas and Di stefano. However, since Di stefano had the 'X factor" in playmaking and ability to operate deep in midfield, so mod often he was ranked higher and naturally so Compare the two was like compare Ronaldo and Zico (Puskas/Ronaldo vs Stefano/Zico)
From all the clips ive seen puskas looked a more accurate passer, and basically alround better in terms of technique and poise. I just cant see how di stefano is better, apart from maybe tactically?
agree with you as I said "no clear difference" between them. However, most European fans did watch them both together at Real and would (UNFAIRLY) favor Di Stefano over Puskas (older and passed his best there)
I think isn't a fair comparison. Since Puskas wasn't a striker as we know nowadays. Some people can bring arguments to classify him as a striker or second forward or forward (in a Pyramid way). I roughly said that 50% people would classify him as a striker. Instead nobody denied that Ronaldo was. And about Di Stefano, in almost half of his career he was a clear CF, from 1945 to 1952 (River, Huracan, Millonarios), in those years, players like Moreno, Pedernera were the playmakers and Di Stefano mostly wait for assists. Instead Zico, i don't remember him playing regurlarly as a CF.
[Do you mean "striker" = central forward or "striker" = an "out-&-out"- or "predator"-type of striker here, mate? ]
Hey Roy, nice to see you back!!! I'll hope you're good Well, i'd said that South Americans fans don't make so many differences amongt those types of #9. I think that Puskas era, was one of few in history, when many teams played with a no clear striker, in the Gerd Muller style (who is the most common). So back in previous post, i think Ronaldo can be easily related to #9 than Puskas
From all the #9 terms, i'm sure he wasn't a Predator type of striker Something i like to know is Puskas role in his Hungary league days? His clubs used to play also with a deep-lying CF, like Hidegkuti?
If what I read is true it was Hidegkuti's club MTK Budapest who first started playing a deep-lying centre-forward but initially it was usually Palotas with Hidegkuti as an inside-forward I think. Palotas did also play in the role for Hungary. It'd be interesting to know if Honved and also Hungary played with a traditional centre-forward with Puskas and Kocsis as inside-forwards prior to 1952 or in the case of Honved after that too. Also, to know whether Deak was an inside-forward or centre-forward.
I lent his autobiography from the library. From what I remembered is that Kocsis played further towards goal than Puskas, Kocsis was noted for his heading ability. Puskas had in the Hungarian NT, I thought, even a somewhat more elaborate role than for Honved. In the NT he had the freedom to roam around between the most advanced 'midfielders' (though not entirely dropping into midfield), the wingers and the most advanced position on the pitch (i.e. the centre-foward position). Perhaps it was because the NT had even more good goalscorers than Kocsis and Puskas so his qualities were utilized where it was most needed.
[IK that one of the reasons why both Hungarian club sides & the NT of the period tended not to line-up w/"Drake-mould" No.9-type centre-forwards is because they had a tendency not to produce especially dominant or effective ones (or at least they felt that way)...]
Yeah, i was thinking something like that. In fact i always thought that Puskas had similar role to Pele, and sometime ago i figured out by other posters that Puskas was the more advanced forward, especially in his Real Madrid days. In the Magycal Magyars i though it was something unusual, because nor Kocsis nor Puskas were orthodox CF type, like Ted Drake for example. I think they cut into box w/passes, like jogo-bonito style. Roy doesn't said explicity, but i thought that Hungarian teams prefer technical CFs and produced more.
Don't know if I've properly understood mr. Roy. Anyway, I think I understand why Puskas his role for the NT was more elaborate than for Honved. The main difference was the 'centre-forward' (although some observers have said that Hidegkuti was in modern terms an 'attacking midfielder', not a striker or Bergkamp-esque player in the hole). For Honved Palotas provided this role and for the NT Hidegkuti did this. The difference was that Palotas "lacked a shot" (according to Kocsic) and Hidegkuti had a shot but was a 30+ year old converted winger, hence he lacked the dynamism and stamina. So this explains, for a part I think, why Puskas had a slightly different role in the NT too.