The best soccer player of all time according to the greatest legends of the sport

Nery Pumpido: Argentine league winner, Copa Libertadores, Intercontinental Cup (all in 1986)
Oscar Ruggeri: Argentine league winner, Copa Libertadores, Intercontinental Cup (all in 1986)
Hector Enrique: Argentine league winner, Copa Libertadores, Intercontinental Cup (all in 1986)
Burruchaga: 2nd in French league, foreign player of the year (all in 1986)
Valdano: 1st in Spanish league, UEFA Cup winner, foreign player of the year (all in 1986)

That's only for 1986 and at quite crucial positions on the field too (that is: not the full back positions). The goalkeeper, the central defender, the two assisting creative midfielders and the striker/forward. Of course, for whatever reason, Serie A players Passarella, Barbas, Diaz were left out.

Often forgotten is that players as Eusebio and Cruijff were deprived of their best two/three Ballon d'Or team mates in 1966 and 1974 (team mates who had clearly the best Ballon d'Or results but missed out in the WC due to poor form, injury or refusal to go). Also, in 1986 there wasn't a strong and powerful host that could retort to dirty tricks as eavesdropping opponents, accreditation swaps and such like (that was also not the situation in 2014 to be fair).

This is interesting with regards to fan support:
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/07/07-world-cup-governance-kaufmann

 

Fascinating, regardless of whether the discussed subject was true.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/world-cup-1966/

 

Barcelona added the element of innovation, establishing a new model that others strive for, which is what puts them ahead of most other clubs that found multiple success.

 

All of those players are nothing more than mediocre, particularly for Argentine standards. None of them were key players for their clubs in their trophies, for example the Uruguayan Gutierrez was considered the better center back to Ruggeri for River Plate during 86 and 87. In all their playing careers, Burruchaga and Valadano only looked anywhere near world class in WC86 thanks to Maradona.

Eusebio and especially Cruyff, by contrast, were surrounded by world class players regarded among the very top at their respective positions. A few of them are veritable all-time legends: Germano, Coluna, Hilario for Portugal, Krol, Neeskens, Resenbrink, Rep, Suurbier for the Netherlands.

 

How would you rank these guys from fastest to slowest:
Cruyff, Maradona, Messi

 

In the first half vs South Korea, the commentators were stating that Valdano was world class and could do more than what he was showing. I'm not an expert on Valdano, but I find it telling that English commentators would regard him as world class, as early as in the 1st half vs South Korea where they commented that "Valdano could do more."

As for Burruchaga, as a French league player, he is rated very highly by France Football (note: above Francescoli, Chris Waddle, Enzo Scifo, Ronaldinho, etc). He also won the foreign player of the year in 1986.

All in all, Argentina 1986 clearly wasn't a star studded team, but the term "mediocre" definitely is completely at odds with the sentiments of the commentators at WC 1986 (both Latin and European), with the sentiments of France Football, with the sentiments of La Liga, etc. On the basis of that, I'm willing to bet that you just readily ignore or disregard whatever doesn't click with your "set in stone" narrative of choice.

And again, and arguably this is the most important factor of them all when it comes to Mexico 1986 -- no team was truly a star studded team; France was clearly a lesser version of what they were in 1984, to the point that Platini retired just the following season; Brazil was arguably even worse (and more "aged") than France, with a version of Socrates that wasn't fit enough to finish a game without looking as though he should be subbed out (the commentators actually got that fairly early on), and with Zico carrying a significant injury; West Germany was quite unremarkable as far as German teams go; etc.

All in all, that's a big part of the reason as to why I don't buy the "Maradona carried a bunch of donkeys at Mexico'86!" myth, because if anything, Argentina 1986 was more or less as ordinary as the rest of the teams at WC 1986.

So Argentina didn't really needed to be carried in the first place, in my opinion. Without Maradona -- I still see Argentina beating a team (Belgium) that conceded 15 goals in 7 games, and I still see them earning a narrow win vs Uruguay.

In fact, I'd go as far as to argue that had Passarella and Maradona both played, that Argentina 1986 would've had the more impressive "on paper" team coming into the tournament. Platini was clearly on the decline, and retired just the following season. Brazil was evidently a declined version of what they were in 1982, on top of the fact that Zico was unfit to play. Argentina 1986 clearly had the best performer coming into the tournament; Zico was injured; Platini was past it; Laudrup was too young; Scifo was too young; Francescoli was invisible (not only when he played against Maradona, but against every opponent that he faced at WC 1986); Matthaus was 25 years old but still not really in his prime (he was more of a "late bloomer" than Maradona); etc.

But Maradona 1986 was, obviously, an absolutely timeless performance; the best WC performance to date in my opinion, by whatever the margin (albeit I feel Cruyff 1974 comes close). It's just that I don't think Argentina was any more "mediocre" than the rest of those teams, even if you take Maradona out of the equation.

 

@Pipiolo

First I want to emphasize that I don't disagree perse with everything you've said. For example, I can see the case that Maradona competed against more all-timers and more blossomed talents (as you said) competing on an 'equal' footing. Cristiano Ronaldo on the other hand with his often questioned skillset and technique (regardless of whether it's true - but you also said it yourself), his perceived attitude and ultimately an inferior environment/club hasn't a realistic chance (not to mention other clubs, and the players at those handful clubs). Also, I can see the point Maradona was able to do more on the back-foot as opposed to the racing car Messi, as you said a few times like here.
http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/messi-vs-football-records.1983902/page-28#post-27662415

So I'm not against everything perse and at some things also neutral.

Over his whole career, his individual accomplishments and in 1986 itself Ruggeri is certainly the bigger name. For example.
http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/sampoy86.html
http://static.goal.com/99400/99483_heroa.jpg

There's really no question that he is both in his entire career and in 1986 itself (not the least the World Cup) the bigger name. To say he was only 'world class' because of Maradona is quite a claim. Contrary to popular wisdom Maradona wasn't exactly a coach on the field, and his later life proves it.

1985-87 River Plate

http://imortaisdofutebol.com/2013/10/18/esquadrao-imortal-river-plate-1985-1987/

This is what El Grafico says:

http://www.elgrafico.com.ar/2008/06/25/C-1007-river-86.php?q=#DalePlay

So Ruggeri is mentioned there among the key stars unlike Gutierrez. Indeed, Alzamendi was probably the main star (looking at individual honors) but he was Uruguayan and would struggle to replace Valdano or Maradona anyway. Same for the ageing Alonso, who was older than Alzamendi. It's a choice of the national team manager to not wrangle all flair and billboard players into the same team. It's a choice to take some useful elements (a spine of the team; the GK, central defender, assisting midfielders) and then improve the flair department. Alzamendi didn't look the same world conquering player elsewhere either, so maybe the national team manager was entirely right in recognizing the proper job done by the 'framework' around him. Furthermore, players do not only receive 'confidence' from Maradona, but also by achieving remarkable club successes.

Gallego meanwhile, who was getting older too, would equally struggle to replace Batista. Batista was younger, more defensively secure at that position, and 8th in the 'South American player of the Year' poll of 1985. 'El Grafico' ratings for 1985-86 are not available but in 1986-87 they are great. He's also in the 'South America team of the Year' in 1986, 1988 and 1989. And then considering the tournament was played on the American continent... (at a 'neutral' host).

Burruchaga was 7th in the 1984 South American player of the year poll, for a relatively unheralded club team. There are even more as Giusti (Independiente) who made the 1987 South America team of the year.

It wasn't enough to overpower the opposition but that was not necessary either, and they rode their luck in a few ways.

Of course all excellent players but let's take a look at the Ballon d'Or prior to the tournaments.

Germano: 4 points (two votes) in 1961. Position: 17th.
Coluna (who was really getting past his peak in 1966): 1 point (1 vote) in 1961; 1 point (1 vote) in 1963; 2 points (1 vote) in 1965. Positions: 35th, 21th, 17th.
Krol: 0 points
Neeskens: 1 point (1 vote) in 1972. Position: 18th
Rensenbrink: 0 points
Rep: 0 points
Suurbier: 0 points

What I say is that things are taken too easily for granted. In any case it's often downplayed how well the 1986 team was set up to let Maradona shine, and not let him do too much of the 'dirty'/grunting work (and actually also the playmaking/passing work).

 

Lots of half-truths, if not outright lies, in this post that it's not even worth answering as it's an obvious troll for conflict. In any event, Platini, Tigana and Rocheteau all were 31 at WC86, still in their prime even if right on the upper boundary of it. Giresse was indeed past his best at 33 but had a strong tournament, though a lesser one than he had given at WC82. Bossis was 30, Bats and Battiston 29, Genghini 28, Fernandez and Stopyra 25, Amoros and Bellone 24, plus a young Papin of 22. This was overall a better performing France than the one from WC82, and Platini himself gave a great performance, obviously overshadowed by Maradona.

As for Brazil, it was indeed a lesser team than the one of WC82 but not by much, the same philosophy of passing attractive football espoused by Santana was in play. Socrates, at 32 was at the end of his prime but he was a player who never relied in speed even in his playing youth so a few months above his best was not going to affect him, and he showed it with a great performance throughout. Junior, at 31 was still a top player, he would in fact play with much success in Serie A for a few more years after the WC. Then add Edinho, giving arguably the best center back performance for Brazil in WC history, and paired up with a young and promising Julio Cesar, who would become a Juventus legend, plus of course Careca at his best - he would later be overshadowed by Romario and Ronaldo, but at the time he was the best Brazilian forward to emerge since Pele and Tostao. Alemao was also class, and young players like Branco, Muller, Carlos Gallo and Paulo Silas gave the team an edge. The only "mirage" was Josimar, who appeared to be headed for greatness but would have a mediocre career after his impressive tournament. On paper, this team matches up even with the WC winners of 94, but with better overall play due to better attacking midfielders.

WC86 is seen as a sequel, a very good one, to WC82, with Italy/Argentina and Poland/Belgium switching places. It featured a very strong Spain team that was built on the Euro84 runner-ups plus the "Quinta del Buitre" generation. A young, dangerous Danish side featuring its greatest collection of players in one side: Laudrup, Elkjaer, Olsen, Molby, Arnesen, Lerby, and the veteran iconic figure Simonsen. An USSR playing, as the erstwhile poster @Krokko once put it, "champagne football". A team shrouded in mystery during the Iron Curtain years, with a goalkeeper for the legends in Dasayev - the best keeper of the decade, plus Bellanov, Blokhin, Zavarov, Protasov, Rats. The future runner-ups at Euro88, only bested by a great Dutch side in the final. Uruguay, the dominant NT in the Copa Americas of the 80s, back after a twelve-year absence, with what was regarded as its greatest generation since the 50s: Francescoli, Paz, Aguilera, Alzamendi, Gutierrez, Pereyra, Da Silva, Santin, Alvez. Things didn't quite work out for them overall, but they showed their best against the two giants they played: West Germany, 1-1 with the Germans equalizing four minutes from the end of the match, and against Argentina, in a tough, evenly matched 1-0 loss that sent them out. Finally, West Germany, a side that had only kept some players from the runner ups of WC82 due to the debacle at Euro84, plus featuring a new generation of players that would be the core of the team to win WC90 and go far in Euros 88 and 92. While the team never quite played the expansive football that the players on the squad would imply, a side featuring veterans Rummenigge, Briegel, Stielike, Forster, Schumacher, Hoeness, Allofs plus Matthaus, Littbarski, Magath, Voller, Brehme, Berthold, Augenthaler, and Thon is always going to be powerful. Then there were smaller teams with dark horse potential in hosts Mexico, Belgium, Paraguay, Portugal and Morocco.

I would say WC86 and WC98 are the last two WCs were the level of play remained constantly high throughout the tournament, WC14 came close but unfortunately there was a drop from the quarterfinals on.

 

In regards to Gutierrez, he was in the South American team of the year for both 86 and 87, whereas Ruggieri only made it once in 86. Ruggieri would make it again in 91, but that was long after WC86 and more due to Argentina winning CA91 than anything else. Cucciuffo (RIP) making it for 86 just shows that this voting is very dependent on international success, no offense to Cucciuffo but he would have no business in an Asian team of the tournament even back then.

http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/sam-toy.html

Overall, you are making an argument based on form rather than on class. Sure, Batista was playing really well during 85 - 88 at Argentinos Jrs, but his time at River Plate is rather forgettable. Same for Ruggieri at Real Madrid. Burruchaga never really captured the headlines as a player, perhaps he had a couple of strong seasons in Ligue 1 but he was never regarded like Paz, Cabanas, Uribe - who were themselves sidekicks to the star player of their respective NTs. That voting that you show does nothing to change the general appreciation that these players are legendary, you can look at how Zidane or Forlan did in this voting prior to WCs 06 and 10 respectively, it means little to the kind of performance that these players can give when fully focused.

Sure, Bilardo built a team to get the best out of Maradona, that's what he was supposed to do. And Maradona is not the only player in WC history to have had a team built around him, he is just the one who took his performance to another level of dominance and artistry.

 

i would say over five yards or short distances, messi comes out first. over distance, i would put maradona over messi, perhaps cruyff over messi as well over further distances

 

Not sure if serious.

 

Because, surprise, Ruggeri only played 18 games in the 1986-87 season. That ruled him out for that season recognition.

That would not matter. Form wins you short tournaments, class does not.

Which recognitions did they receive? France Football etc. was already mentioned.

 

No he wasn't, but more so than Pelé for instance. I agree there was 'artistry' but some people pretend as if he was doing amazing tricks or had a (effective) long pass every game while he really did not. They make the Guernica painting even a bit more brighter. In terms of dominance it depends on which games.

 

But it disproves your point that Ruggeri was rated higher.

In terms or class versus form, Kempes, Rossi, Socrates, Zidane have shown how far class matters in this tournament. I would also argue that a tournament which was more dependent on form would not have captured the imagination of fans as the WC did.

Romero, Paz, etc. received many recognitions in their respective leagues, including season XI, etc.

 

Maradona's and Bilardo's chief objective was to win the tournament. Within that aim, Maradona gave brushstrokes of genius as long as it didn't subvert the team's chances. For contrast, see Ortega in WC 02, Ronaldo in WC 06, C Ronaldo in WC 10.

In terms of dominance, Maradona was the best player in every match Argentina played. Only Francescoli came close to a challenge in their round of 16 encounter but even there Maradona was in a different orbit to everyone else.

 

Outright lies by France Football, La Liga, and the actual commentators (both European and Latin) at Mexico'86?

Honestly, I'd rather take their words, than yours. You accuse me of trolling when my post was reasonable, and then your counter argument was actual trolling, in the form of the "Platini was in his prime at Mexico'86" statement. I will try to respond to the rest of your post later on, but for now, I will just say; I think it's reasonable to assume that the majority of non-casual football fans, would not hesitate before agreeing or admitting that Platini was in his prime at Euro'84, but no longer really in his prime by Mexico'86, with him retiring just the following season (1986-87).

I wouldn't say that "prime Maradona" played at Italia'90; he was 29 years old and should've been in the form of his life, but his drug abuse and general "larger than life" lifestyle, clearly took a toll on his physique -- plus the injury that completely took out his physique. For similar reasons, I also wouldn't describe Platini at Mexico'86 (at 31 years of age, plus carrying a slight injury if I'm not mistaken) as "prime" Platini. I mean, Platini retired when he was 31 years old. And Platini was already 31 years old at Mexico'86. So I find if difficult to believe that Platini was truly in his prime still, at Mexico'86.

I'd like to hear the opinions of other posters on Platini at Mexico'86, though.

 

So Platini's and Maradona's prime lasted all of four weeks according to you?

A player's prime is usually considered from turning 24 until 32, for a total of about eight and a half years. Of course, there will always be exceptions in either direction: Best, Tostao, Ronaldinho younger than that and DiStefano, Romario, Giggs beyond it. Platini was 31 years 2 months old during Mexico 86, and there is no indication he was outside of his prime already. If anything, his performance validates that he was still world class very much at that moment.

 

Dude, Platini retired in 1987, at 31 years of age, and clearly past his best; Platini was already 31 years old at WC 1986. I'm not sure what part of that fits into your "lasted all four weeks" counter argument.

Was Maradona with his injury at WC 1990, in his "prime" form? Or is it closer to the truth to admit that Maradona (Italia'90 version) was a mere shadow of what he was at Mexico'86?

Would it be accurate to say that "prime Maradona" was outplayed by Gheorghe Hagi? Or that "prime Maradona" was invisible in the Final vs West Germany?

Platini was evidently past his prime in the 1986-87 season, and retired at 31 years of age (the same age he was at Mexico'86).

There's a difference between Platini being "world class" at Mexico'86, and Platini being in his "prime" form. Maradona was world class at Italia'90, but it's obvious that Maradona Italia'90 version doesn't come close to Maradona'86. And I feel it's exactly the same case, when you compare Platini Euro'84 version with Platini'86.

In any case, I'd like to hear the opinions of other posters.

 

*crickets*

 

I'll try to look for more info on Platini at mexico'86 later on, if I find the time. But for now, just looking at Platini's wikipedia page, it reads similar to what one would expect to read about a 31 year old player who would retire at 31 years of age. Said age might be prime time for a lot of players, but that clearly wasn't the case with Platini. Actually, it also wasn't the case with Maradona. So out of the "big three" of the 1980s, two of them declined early in their careers; still world class at 31 years of age of course, but the decline was clear once they were 30+ years old.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico '86
Suffering from groin pain and playing under injection, Platini was not in peak physical condition for the 1986 World Cup in Mexico. Nonetheless he contributed two important goals. The first contributed to their 2–0 defeat of defending champions Italy at the Olimpico Stadium in Mexico City. The second came during the quarter-final match against Brazil in Guadalajara. After Careca scored for Brazil, Platini scored the equalizer, his 41st on his 31st birthday, which sent the game into a penalty shoot-out. France won 4–3, with Platini infamously sending his over the bar. This goal was to be the last of his international career. After losing a second World Cup semi-final in a row to West Germany in Guadalajara, France had to settle for third place. Platini did not take part in the 1982 or 1986 World Cup third-place matches.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A 31 year old playing under injection and playing through groin pain. To say that that version of Platini was "prime Platini," is similar to arguing that "prime Maradona" did nothing vs West Germany at Italia'90. I just don't consider that an accurate opinion or argument.

On Socrates -- opinions are divided indeed. European commentators often commented on how Socrates was noticeably slower, and lazier; in fact, the criticism of Socrates can even be heard on one of Argentina's games. But clearly, other people saw it differently,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1986, Socrates again was instrumental for Brazil in their attempt of winning the World Cup, but France and Platini won on penalties in the quarterfinal after a wonderful match. Socrates missed one of the penalties in the shoot-out. He was the only player of the survivors of the 1982 team who really reached the same level, but it wasn’t enough to take them through. He scored more than a goal every third game in average for Brazil, which is excellent for a midfielder and added two more to his account in the Mexico World Cup.

http://www.planetworldcup.com/LEGENDS/socrates.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But what a majority of fans seem to agree on (even the Socrates fan above), was that the "survivors of the 1982 team" clearly were a level or two below what they did at Spain'82. Added to the fact that Zico was unfit to play, as he readily admits himself.

To be fair, that great Dutch side -- did not qualified for Mexico'86, and then flopped at Italia'90. So as great as they might've been, they certainly weren't consistent.

Argentina wasted three clear chances vs Uruguay. I don't think the 1-0 reflected what truly happened on the pitch. I thought Argentina clearly and soundly outclassed Uruguay, but Valdano missed a clear header, Maradona missed an easy goal (if I remember correctly), and there was another bad miss after a great run by Maradona (can't remember who missed that one). Argentina deserved to win by at least a 2 goal margin.

Uruguay disappointed at both Mexico'86 and Italia'90. And Francescoli was a massive flop at both tournaments. Honestly, I think Colombia'90 played better football than either of said two versions of Uruguay (at least in terms of World Cup games).

But Rummenigge was essentially just a name at Mexico'86, in that, it's well established that after his famous injury he never came close to his glory days. In the Final at Mexico'86, the commentators repeatedly stated that "Rummenigge is not even a shadow of himself these days."

And Lothar Matthaus was not in his prime at the time (or at least, when fans talk about Matthaus' prime, they rarely mention Mexico'86 as a reference).

Of course Mexico'86 was a blast, it featured the best WC performance to date; it featured Santana's Brazil (a declined version of it but still entertaining to watch); etc. But personally, I strongly believe that Platini was past it (and playing injured); that Zico was unfit to play; that Laudrup was too young to really challenge a player like Maradona; that Francescoli was a massive disappointment (and was even called a "traitor" by Uruguay's coach, legend says); that Socrates even at his best was no match for a player of Maradona's category; that Germany was arguably unremarkable by German standards; that Brazil was a lesser version of the team that was eliminated by Italy four years earlier; etc.

I think Maradona played on a "level playing field." In my opinion, Maradona didn't played for a team that was any more mediocre than the rest of the teams.

 

Your opinion and I completely disagree. Rest assured you have not done anything that makes me re-think the tournament.

 

Fair enough. I mean, it's not like I particularly care what your opinion is anyways.

 

The assistant manager of Belgium in 1986 (Sablon) brought the difference between Maradona and the rest at that tournament to a tiny thing: he could control the ball while it still bounces up, while almost all others only could when it reaches maximum height or already goes down. That gives him a fraction of a second above the fractions he already has. I thought it is a good and respectful remark. At the same time, he doesn't buy into the tale that Maradona played for 'small' teams and mentioned it was played at a neutral host.

I agree with the small teams thing. Maradona was playing for 'Goliath'. Far smaller teams were winning the UEFA Cup (note: markedly less so at the CWC, and then at EC it was the exception to see winners with league attendances below 25000: Nottingham Forest and Ajax). Sampdoria (1990-91) and Verona (1984-85) were arguably smaller teams too by all dimensions as wealth and attendances (Sampdoria had the 7th highest budget or so). Finally, while Maradona has reasons to complain for the 1990 tournament in Italy (but shouldn't forget his USSR handball), Argentina is not 'David'. Together with Brazil and Germany (except 1998-2002) they've always been a part of the steering FIFA directorate since the early 1960s - many more years than Italy, France and others in fact. Personally I think that is not irrelevant when it's about 'David' vs 'Goliath'.

 

General speed; Cruyff, Messi, Maradona
Speed with the ball; Messi, Maradona, Cruyff

In both instances it appears very marginal, though I'm sure as the distance increases, Cruyff would be the fastest.