So let's try and close out the preliminary selections: The Amateur Era (Before 1888) Arthur Kinnaird W. N. Cobbold Nick Ross Charles Campbell Jimmy Forrest The Early League Era (From 1888 to 1904, when FIFA was founded) Steve Bloomer G.O. Smith John Goodall Ernest Needham James Cowan The Early International Era (From 1904 to 1920) Vivian Woodward Imre Schlosser Sam Hardy Jose Piendibene Bobby Walker Are those selections that everyone can support? By holding back Meredith and Crompton we can use them for that first year 1920. I think that is the type of thing that somebody might well have done that first year From this point on though I think we ignore "future" performances and only look backwards.
Sounds good to me, the only suggestion I would make is maybe having Hardy as the 1920 rep who is almost an honorary career achievement type with Meredith, as unlike Crompton he was capped for and England and won the FA Cup, so like Meredith he has some relevant achievements for the year, where Crompton is just retiring. Either way your choices look good and I am ready to move on to 1920.
I'm happy with the proposals, and equally so with Tom's suggestion if others want to go that way. I'm not going to be around too much for the next week or so, but should be able to drop in as and when I can.
For 1920 I could see a top 5 being Hardy Meredith Romano Swartenbroeks These 4 it seems like everyone can agree on. The fifth could be a Spaniard (Pichichi, Belauste, Sesúmaga), Czech (Pesek), a hungarian (Orth, Braun) or another Brit (Morris, Pennington)
I think the 5th really needs to be a West Brom player, unless we go with another from the Olympics. They dominated the strongest domestic competition, scoring more than any team before, winning a higher percentage of games and with the best points per game ratio of any team in the 20th century so far.
He also scored vs Scotland so it makes sense to me. I am sure at the time everyone thought he would be great going forward as oppose to a one season wonder. I am also ok with three brits for this year, as I do not see any reason why astute football observers would have evidence for the continent and South America catching up.
Trying to keep things moving here, I will post whta seems to be the consensus thus far so we can move on tho the next year. The Amateur Era (Before 1888) Arthur Kinnaird W. N. Cobbold Nick Ross Charles Campbell Jimmy Forrest The Early League Era (From 1888 to 1904, when FIFA was founded) Steve Bloomer G.O. Smith John Goodall Ernest Needham James Cowan The Early International Era (From 1904 to 1919) Vivian Woodward Imre Schlosser Bob Crompton Jose Piendibene Bobby Walker 1920 Fred Morris Sam Hardy Billy Meredith Angel Romano Armand Swartenbroeks For 1921 I have some possible candidates. First is Karel Pesek. 1920 was probably a breakthrough year for him with the excellent performance in the Olympics and it feels like this is the year that solidified his reputations as the top continental player and Sparta Prague as the top continental team. Prague played a series of friendlies against other top continental side and continued there multi year unbeaten run. They beat unbeated German Champions Nuremberg 5-2 and Spanish Champions Barcelona in Barcelona 3-2. They also beat a top British side Celtic 2-1 and 2-0 in consecutive games. György Orth is another excellent candidate this season. MTK won its sixth consecutive title and had the reputation of the one of the top continental sides Orth was also the leagues top scorer for the second consecutive season. For Hungary he played 3 times in 1921 scoring 4 goals. In Austria Richard Kuthan and Josef Uridil had great seasons. They both won the league with Rapid, Uridil was top scorer. For the national team they both had excellent runs, Kuthan played 6 times scoring 8 goals, including a braces in a 4-1 win over Orth's Hungary, Uridil played 4 times and scored 4 goals. I would say the star in South America this season both came from Argentina, who won the South American Championship with a perfect 3-0-0 record and did not allow a single goal. The stars were Julio Libonatti who scored in every round and goalkeeper Americo Tresorie. On the British side the top English player was likely Bob Kelly, who had scored a brace vs Scotland in 1920 and now led Burnley to the league title. Kelly was also noted as one of England's better players vs Scotland in 1921 although the result was disappointing. In the big picture the top British players were probably acknowledged as Scots this season. They won all three games of the Home Championship, including an impressive 3-0 win over England. The stars of the game for Scotland were Alan Morton (left wing), Jimmy McMullan (left half), and Andy Cunningham (left inside forward), who formed a great trio on the left hand side. Morton was singled out as the clear star and had a goal and an assist.Wilson also had a goal and an assist but he is often noted as being outplayed by the English center half George Wilson. Cunningham and Wilson were the stars of the victory over defending champions Wales, McMullan was noted as the best of the Scottish halves although the group as a whole under performed. On the domestic side Morton and Rangers won the league in dominating fashion, ten points ahead of the chasers, and McMullan's Park Thistle won the Scottish Cup, although he did not play in the final vs Rangers. I am unsure on which Scot would make it this year. I expected Wilson going in, but I do not know anything about his domestic performance and the match reports were not as kind to him as I would have thought, also I know we are not supposed to look forward but next season when he is top scorer in England seems likely. After reading the England vs Scotland match report I would Morton might be the right pick but he did not play in the other two internationals and was still very early in his career. Cunningham might be the best bet as he was excellent for Rangers (46 games and 27 goals in all competitions, teams top scorer) and stood out in the Scotland's match reports. http://www.londonhearts.com/scores/images/1921/1921040903.htm http://www.londonhearts.com/scores/images/1921/1921040904.htm I would go with this: 1) Pesek 2) Tresorie 3) Orth 4) Kelly 5) A Scot, probably Cunningham but not sure.
Although he only turned professional the year before, having previously been with amateur Queen's Park, Alan Morton was 28 in 1921 and by some way the best Scottish player.
Do you feel Kelly would definitely take a place over the likes of Friedenreich or Konrad Tom? I think you downgraded Friedenreich a bit compared to your 23 player shortlist thread now? Or maybe, despite the sympathy vote for not being allowed to play in the South American Championship, you feel the criteria doesn't suit him so much? Just thought I'd be helpful in asking the question, more so you and others can double-check your ideas, and less a case of me disagreeing when I don't really know enough to do so. I suppose Morton and Friedenreich/Konrad taking the final places might look a bit more familiar in terms of legendary players to us now, but I certainly don't have any issue with little known players getting slots if it seems a realistic proposition - that's partly why the exercise is being done especially when the criteria are considered I think. Obviously once choices have been made though, it's hard/impossible to revise them as we move through the years so thought I'd ask this sort of thing before we have moved on. As we discussed before there isn't the factor of saving players for better years (Friedenreich or anyone else) with this method as back in real-time we wouldn't know that any better years would occur for sure.
Obviously, although the British slant of the Wisden cricket selections should be erased for this exercise, it is the case that at that time the British game was still prominent though. Maybe players like Orth, Friedenreich etc being legends is partly to do with them being the first superstars in their country. But they still might have been better and regarded as such by the period we are discussing compared to most individual British players of that time (I think this was discussed by Tom, peter etc on another thread before actually - with focus on Schlosser I seem to recall who obviously has taken a slot for the period ending in 1919 or 1920)?
I do think it's hard when going back so far (and it can even be the opposite to what I suggested - 'better' performances by some British stars, but fitting the criteria less....). I thought I'd put an F for Friedenreich and K for Konrad in brackets alongside criteria they might meet (or might not) for comparison purposes. Like I said though, more as a checking exercise and not because I suggested them lol (especially as generally I prefer to be footage based in analysis and that's as far as I know impossible for Konrad and possibly for Friedenreich too if talking purely about 1921 - anyway clearly it's the written word which takes precedence for this era).
I also wonder whether it would be a nice idea to make profiles for each selection including a sentence or two about each player individually, as well as possibly a yearly summary? Possibly on a separate thread? They could even be written in the present tense, as if produced at the end of each year? comme did very well with profiles on his Greatest X threads and it added to the viewability well I think. Others could offer contributions where needed/helpful in terms of player summaries for the years concerned though (with the opening selections being a bit more retrospective to cover those pre-award periods).
That was my plan, to collate it all together, maybe even to turn it into an ebook, but it is just a question of time. I think it would be good to capture it centrally at a minimum.
I think I probably overrated Friedenreich a little bit for this year previously. His accomplishments are limited to a Brazilian State League. In my mind I am still including players like Kelly over Friedenreich or Konrad because at this point I still see no reason why the British would not be considered vastly superior to other football. Before WWI they knew they were, and since football restarted after WWI they have no reason to think that would change. As the decade wears on and the English keep getting beat by not just the Scots but Wales as well, and Uruguay shows up in 1924 and shows their football has reached a new level, I then think the dogma of British/English football dominance dissipates. I guess this is a matter of perspective, are we trying to simulate voting as it would happen, or look back with hindsight and say, you the English still probably thought they were the best in the early 1920s be we don't think that is the case and will vote accordingly. Also @comme, I don't want to keep going back to earlier votes to much but I just realizes Walter Arnott somehow did not make it in the first era, was this intentional?
Thanks for the thoughts Tom - personally I was assuming a real-time perspective but as informed as possible (possibly more accurate than opinions of the time) and as with your thread probably a level of understanding/viewing that wouldn't have been achievable and would be more like modern day. But maybe that's not how others were thinking of it. In reality our level of viewing and understanding is not as good as that of those covering each individual nation I suppose anyway, but we are attempting to tie everything together. Looking back through some early 90's Shoot editions I noticed how confident some British managers/players/pundits were of taking multiple trophies when re-entering Europe in that decade on a similar basis (some comments made after Man United did win the CWC though) so maybe there's some distant parallel to that. I guess selection of the most impressive players would not be completely over-ruled by circumstances anyway - as it wasn't with the Ballon d'Or etc.
I suppose another way of looking at it is that I would assume we'd be replicating more of an International Jury/Panel. Although of course Wisden itself was not like that and was based on impact on the British game too. Not to suggest discounting the pre-eminence of the British game though. Maybe there is a similar issue in the 1930's too, or early 1950's even?
@Tom Stevens - I would think for this exercise to be legit we should consider our knowledge now. British football is no longer solely dominant after the early 20s, at the very least Uruguay, Argentina, Italy, Austria and Hungary have caught up to them and the selections should reflect that, whatever Wisden may have thought at the time.
One thing I would suggest is that while internationally teams had certainly caught up with England, it was still the strongest domestic league simply due to the sheer number of long standing professional teams giving little drop off in standard from the top teams compared to elsewhere.
It is tempting to look at the 1912 Olympics and conclude that nations' relative strengths were much the same by default in 1920. But a lot changed in that time. In 1912 England's amateurs (admittedly with Woodward and league topscorer Walden) thrashed a full-strength Hungary 7-0. The Hungarians then defeated both Germany and Austria. However, largely unnoticed, a number of British coaches, mostly ex-players, were making their way to continental Europe. Jacky Robertson, ex-Scotland, went out to Vienna in 1911 then spent a couple of years with MTK in Budapest before handing over to Robert Holmes, who was succeeded in turn by the gifted Irishman Jimmy Hogan. Hogan had himself already spent two years coaching in Vienna. In Germany, John Cameron (whose book we have looked at) had been managing Dresdner since 1907. Fred Spiksley was with Munich 1860 then Nuremberg, whose dominance in the early 1920s owed much to his earlier work. Steve Bloomer coached Brittania Berlin. Fred Pentland, Sam Wolstenholme and John Brearley were also out there. All were interned when war broke out but encouraged by their captors to carry on with the football regardless. Jake Madden had been managing Slavia Prague since 1905 and would do so until 1930. Another Scot, Johnny Dick, arrived in 1912 and was in charge of the outstanding “Iron Sparta” team between 1919 and 1923. The British game was not as isolated from the rest of Europe as the English and Scottish FAs intended it to be. Three of the four strongest continental European clubs in 1920, Sparta Prague, MTK and Nuremberg, were coached, or had been coached, by the British. The fourth, Barcelona, had stolen a march when Spain remained untouched by the war. South American football was able to develop even more rapidly uninterrupted. Meanwhile English football had shut down for four years, longer than anywhere else. When it kicked off again there was no support from the middle classes and, according to Ivan Sharpe, no coaching. The Scottish league had carried on throughout, which would give Scotland an advantage over England in the 1920s. So would the English selectors' bizarre decision to pick their best player, Charlie Buchan, only once against the Scots. When choosing players of the year in the 1920s, I think it is legitimate to spread the net wide.
I was thinking 1920 could be a bit of a different case to 1921, being the opening year, and with both Meredith and Hardy having a career element in their selections I guess, not dissimilar to how it would be for Giggs in 2007 or 2009 and Cafu in 2004 or 2005 although I/we might suggest earlier inclusions for them and I guess Meredith and probably Hardy would get them too if we'd been doing year by year selections from the start of football history (and West Brom too, standing out for reasons lanman described). I don't know, but it might seem to me Meredith and Piendibene would be somewhat interchangeable in terms of pre-selection or being in the 1920 batch itself. Plus the players I picked out for 1921 for example didn't have quite the same case in 1920 (Konrad may have been as good but the 'story' doesn't seem the same in the Austrian Cup; Friedenreich wasn't so prolific). I do think maybe for both of them and others that although we're not picking out purely 'best' players and there's no requirement really for previous excellence, perhaps it would still be a bonus factor - a great standing and respect/admiration for a player making it more likely he'd get included?
I wanted to have Arnott in but I think Peter made some good arguments the other way round. I am happy either way.