http://xtralegend.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-national-legends-selection-paper.html I had an idea to create the researched paper for all-time national squad (International Legendary Museum) but just manage to finish now. This paper is to clarify about the methodology particularly minimum requirement for selection. As usual, the discussion part has been written particularly the table specified number of experts and related sources in each nation/regional groups. In the last year, there are many contributions about source of poll survey by nations to the blog although those ratings are not always applied to the selection.
My all-time Argentina squad: 1-Roberto Ayala 2-Amadeo Carrizo 3-Alfredo DiStefano 4-Ubaldo Fillol 5-Enrique Garcia 6-Angel Labruna 7-Felix Loustau 8-Silvio Marzolini 9-Lionel Messi 10-Diego Maradona 11-Jose Manuel Moreno 12-Luis Monti 13-Raimundo Orsi 14-Daniel Passarella 15-Adolfo Pedernera 16-Roberto Perfumo 17-Carlos Peucelle 18-Fernando Redondo 19-Antonio Roma 20-Nestor Rossi 21-Jose Salomon 22-Antonio Sastre 23-Omar Sivori 24-Norberto Yacono 25-Javier Zanetti
The World Record and Statistics has been just updated for the individual goalscorer part as following items ; http://xtrahistory.blogspot.com/2014/04/Record-Statistics.html 1. The most prolific scorers of all-time (C.Ronaldo is now at 6th, Messi at 8th, only 1 goal behind the 7th Eusebio). It should be predictable that Messi would be most possible at 6th when his career end as Gerd Muller remains ahead of him around 160 goals. 2. Previously, I just made a list of all-time highest scorer in a single season separated club and national team but I've recently made all competitions list. 3. The list of highest international scorer in a single season (Int.Country + Int.Club) has been updated with additional permission for seasonal year to calendar year consideration. The 30 goals C.Ronaldo made during the 2016 - 2017 season conveniently allows him to become the first place.
My football history work was temporarily taken a break for my TOEIC test. Finally I obtain score 835 (410, 425). I really love to have been practicing my English so I aim to get at least 900 in the future. Recently I just return to work on “World XI of the year” in 1930 – 1940 and 1947 to present. http://xtrahistory.blogspot.com/2013/01/All-Time-World-XI.html (Please see in the bottom area of this post). It now only presents as a list not create formation graphic yet as the further comments and discussion should let to following revisions. The foundation of this list is derived from “Positional Annual best player” which has seven positional categories. http://xtraimmortal.blogspot.com/2013/12/Annual-Best-Player.html Due to tactical reason and level of candidates, the annual winner in positional annual best player is not always guaranteed the place in World XI. For instance, the target striker and wingers is not always applied if use 2 forwards or apply 5-3-2 formation, respectively. Note that any tactic that existed in any era is selected for the best player potential. The selection in pre-Ballon’Dor era is the most subjective as there was no continental players ranking at that time, I try to select the accustomed name who was a regular starter of the successful team at first. I’m looking forward to seeing your comments to make a further improvement of the list. Thanks.
Should Paolo Maldini have more than just one selection? I would include Dani Alves instead of Philippe Lahm who is not such a great player. Also, Ubaldo Fillol over the second selection for Dino Zoff and Jean Marie Pfaff over Harold Schumacher.
I'm not sure why you see Maldini is named only once since I actually name him 7 times in all-time World XI. I guess you see in all-time era world XI not annual world XI ? Please just scroll down more. The annual list is available in the bottom area.
I meant for the five-year eras, Maldini should make the left-back position for both halves of the 90s. Roberto Carlos can still take the first half of the 00s.
Maldini is better in the 1995 - 1996 and 1998 - 1999 season when R.Carlos is much better in the remainder of 3 seasons. This is partially resulted from thier team achievement that allow players to have more opportunity to play well in bigger matches. Real Madrid and Brazil is far more successful than Milan and Italy.
Brazil was not more successful defensively than Italy. For example, Italy only gave in 3 goals in 5 matches at WC98 including shutting down France, Brazil gave up 10 goals in 7 matches and were burnt by France.
Sorry to dig this up after years but it came to my attention some points since Zico and his contemporaries are being discussed recently in another thread. First, Zico's inability to be present at the final stages of the CA was due to his lack of discipline, with his red card in Buenos Aires, which ultimately is a failure. In addition, his inability to feature in any major final is also due to the inability to be a game-changer in KO rounds. Second, it's virtually impossible to draw conclusions that he reached higher levels of phenomenon-class in a career than Platini and Garrincha. One performed in different leagues and the other was from another time. Such comparisons would only make sense if they competed in the same leagues simultaneously. Furthermore, in major events, Zico doesn't have a dominant tournament like Platini in 1984 or Garrincha in 1962. And some of his accomplishments (Copa Libertadores 1981) is surrounded by controversy. Others like the National Championship in 1980 was awarded based on a bizarre system. Third, if there was a consistency in Zico it was his inability to perform at a high level vs the top European national sides, especially in major tournaments. Finally, I think you put too much stock into what he accomplished in the state region league, a competition that fielded mostly second and third rate sides. I don't think that argument can be used to compare to other top players in different leagues.
So you seems to determine quality of full-back in only defensive quality that is strange as they mainly support offensively. Brazil always won the very high percentage of ball possession, that means most R.Carlos's contributions to his team is offense not defense.
Don't mention it since the topic of Zico is one of the most controversial cases and my rating to him has long been criticized to overrate as he was not successful in overall major international tournament. Domestically, in 1983 – 1984 season which Zico played for Udinese, he obtained average seasonal rating at 7.08, is one of the highest ratings ever in Series A although that season is his best year according to related awards while Platini obtained only 6.53. Although we haven’t know how much it is accurate but it is a rating between players in the same position, same league and same season and that means similar criteria was implemented. Definitely player performance cannot be compared directly but the performance level against the standard of competition, team condition and many other factors could be an outcome to identify legend status. Different era means different tactics and trends and it has its own difficulty to play against. Campeonato Carioca is not an exception also. I'm taking about aptitude. Even Platini was advantageous to have played in higher standard more often, it also cannot guarantee he would be more remarkable than Zico in lower standard of Carioca competition.
It's controversial because he's generally ranked as a top 20 player of all-time on the back of mostly his achievements in a state regional level. Was he much better than Reinaldo, the other main domestic star of his generation ? And what reasonable foundations are there that Brazilian domestic football was the best in the continent ? A country that consisted of mostly illiterate players that couldn't read or write. How do you expect them to be prepared to mark and shutdown the best offensive talents if they can't read? Top clubs aside, tactically it was very primitive at the state level. In regards to Platini, he played against first division sides for the majority of his career. He spent 5 seasons in Italy in a top trained league (one of the strongest in the world). You just can't compare that to Zico's bulk of state league matches against virtually amateur squads. Many of those teams that Zico faced wouldn't even have been allowed to play in any top first rate professional league. Even in the Brazilian National Championship there was serious flaws in the system. A team could end up winning the title without facing every first division opponent by the process of elimination of others in different groups. This wasn't the case in a top European, Metropolitan Argentinian or Primera División Uruguayan league, where everyone played everyone. Fair enough about Zico and Platini in the 1983-84 season. But the rest of their careers is disjointed due to what I've mentioned. But what was the standard of competition ? The best sides he usually faced were Vasco da Gama, Fluminense and Botafogo. The rest of the squads were minnows, that wouldn't even make a second division league in a top flight competition in Europe. A player should be judged on the competition and should beat the best in order to be the best, but the best rarely existed in his comfort zone. The greatest goalkeeper in Brazil during the 1970s was Leao, but he was playing mostly in other regions far from Rio de Janeiro. Zico wasn't scoring against Leao quality type goalkeepers on a weekly basis, but moreso against obscure goalkeepers and defenders that are unknown. You can't be the best candidate in the world on the premise of beating on Sao Cristovao, Bangu, Volta Redonda, Olaria, Serrano, Maduriera, Campo Grande, Goytacaz, Bonsucesso, Niteroi, Portuguesa, etc.... Those sides in the 1980s wouldn't even make it to Serie C in Italian football.
That season is not Zico best season according to related awards so his peak in early 1980s could be also phenomenon. I become agreeable that I should limit highest class against standard of competition. In this example, Carioca standard in that era might be maximized at supreme world-class in case Zico did not prove in national championship phenomenally. In 1979, he played only 8 games in national competition that I rate him in world-class so his regional league performance should be limited as well. I have made some adjustments but he seems to be down in 2-3 ranking but he is still in top 10 best ever for sure.
Actually I argue that both qualities should be gauged, ultimately full-backs are considered part of the defensive stance of a team. Roberto Carlos' bad decisions on defense cost Brazil several goals, notably against Denmark and France in WC98.
Are you a meth head or just a complete asshole? What kind of insult is that to hurl at Brazil? So what you're saying is that no Brazilian player could ever be considered great until the 1990s. The one season that they compete directly Zico wins but somehow you have figured out that in all others in different situations he would lose. So also Zizinho, Didi, Garrincha, Gerson, Jairzinho, Bebeto, Romario are all garbage according to you? Just a detail: Zico did rip Argentina a new one at a certain tournament.
Correct, 80 through 84 are all phenomenal seasons. 81 and 83 could have won Balon D'Or if he was eligible.
I must be an asshole because I tell it as it is. There is a state league and a National Championship. The state leagues consist of many semiprofessional club sides that are not first division calibre. The National Championship had a mix of semiprofessional sides with first division top sides across the entire country. And Zico didn't win anything against Platini, that's Dearman's view which I'm not going to argue. The other seasons are incomparable due to Zico facing a large chunk of second, third and fourth rate quality opponents. Platini faced first division well trained and seasoned professionals. There is simply no comparison. He didn't rip anything that wasn't already broken. That Argentinian side was as soft as cotten tissue and half eliminated at that point. They were defeated in 3 out of 5 games conceding 7 goals, with opposing attackers breaching through their defense as if they were an amateur side. Most of the goals they conceded in that tournament Fillol was left alone on an island to defend for himself. He has no chance in 1983 and in 1981 it's too tight to make a call.
Except that you're wrong. So what you're saying is that there is not one single Brazilian player who can be considered great until the 90s. Apparently Zico did beat Platini in something: overall season rating. That's the only full season they have in common, and Zico comes out on top. You know somehow that Zico would not win any other, yet he just so happens to win the one full season in common. Argentina looks poor in retrospect because Brazil, and Zico, made them look that way. Brazil also beat Scotland and USSR that tournament, two very strong sides of whom much was expected, with Zico owning their defenses. Many years are too tight in competition but a call still has to be made. That Zico would have no chance in 83 is solely your opinion, @Dearman evidently disagrees and so do I.
Wrong about what? That the state leagues consisted of mostly semiprofessional sides? Or that the majority of Brazilian players couldn't read or write? Or that Zico's scoring and performances took a massive hit when he faced top European National teams ? No, what I'm saying is that you can't compare the level of a state competition to a first division top flight league. He won in some newspapers and lost in others, which had more reputation like Guerin Sportivo and Gazetta dello Sport. (Courtesy of PuckVanHeel) http://www.calciomio.fr/archive/tot...-notes-de-la-gazzetta-dello-sport_217342.html http://football-ratings.blogspot.pe/2014/05/memory-lane-serie-198384.html?m=1 Scotland wasn't a strong side and Zico didn't own them at all. Against the Soviets he was shutdown and could never score against a world class goalkeeper like Dasaev. Against the Scots he scored a great free kick but other than that he was nothing special. Argentina looks poor because they lost 3 out of 5 matches and their defense was as soft as cotton kettle tissue. Dearman goes by who he thinks should win but not by who really would have won, which is a common error in many of the years he has listed.
As Vegan comment, it is fair to rate performance of Zico in 1979 regional league down and I also adjust some score in Platini performance in 1984 Series A, effecting on their ranking with alternating Platini and Zico between 7th and 9th. I think 9th of Zico should not be at least underrated. Zico career profile is similar to Puskas who is more consistent but in lower peak, superbly in domestic and regional international performance but lack of great profile in major international tournament.
Vegan10 said: ↑ Wrong about what? That the state leagues consisted of mostly semiprofessional sides? Or that the majority of Brazilian players couldn't read or write? /QUOTE] Both. Vegan10 said: ↑ Or that Zico's scoring and performances took a massive hit when he faced top European National teams ? Not sure what you consider a "top" European NT, but Zico had great matches against Sweden, England, Scotland, Poland over the course of his career. Vegan10 said: ↑ No, what I'm saying is that you can't compare the level of a state competition to a first division top flight league. Which would mean that no Brazilian player before the 90s can be rated at world class level. A ridiculous notion. Vegan10 said: ↑ He won in some newspapers and lost in others, which had more reputation like Guerin Sportivo and Gazetta dello Sport. (Courtesy of PuckVanHeel) http://www.calciomio.fr/archive/tot...-notes-de-la-gazzetta-dello-sport_217342.html http://football-ratings.blogspot.pe/2014/05/memory-lane-serie-198384.html?m=1 Incorrect, Zico wins Serie A Player of the Year for Guerin Sportivo, and is also rated higher by Corriere dello Sport. That first link provided is rubbish, and I advise you look to the Italians, not the French, about Serie A. Their word is the one that matters for their league. You do realize that for all your uproar, the difference between Platini and Zico in the second link amounts to all of three percent. And this is a season when Zico loses the last month to injury and turns 31, the last year of his prime as a footballer. Vegan10 said: ↑ Scotland wasn't a strong side and Zico didn't own them at all. Against the Soviets he was shutdown and could never score against a world class goalkeeper like Dasaev. Against the Scots he scored a great free kick but other than that he was nothing special. Argentina looks poor because they lost 3 out of 5 matches and their defense was as soft as cotton kettle tissue. The spine of that Scotland team were winning big with Liverpool, they went with justified expectations of a semifinal run, instead Brazil destroyed them and Zico had their way with them, including that superb goal. Zico scored on Ubaldo Fillol, Roberto Rojas, Joao Leite, etc. Vegan10 said: ↑ Dearman goes by who he thinks should win but not by who really would have won, which is a common error in many of the years he has listed. Actually, his mathematical standardization of players' performances means he goes by who correctly should have won the yearly award. That's the entire point of the project.
He was never great against those sides. The games are available to view and judge for yourself. No, because the National Championship was very competitive towards the elimination rounds (although still not well balanced like a top European league) with the top sides in the country. Also, if Brazilian players demonstrated their class for the NT against other top nations then it's sufficient enough to judge them based on that. But the state leagues were of primitive quality and too much disparity between the top sides with the rest. Scotland was a second rate European quality side that entered the WC thanks to one of the weakest qualifying groups, with Northern Ireland, Portugal, Israel and Sweden. They couldn't even beat Portugal and Northern Ireland home and away and still qualified thanks to their wins against Israel and Sweden. Dearman has acknowledged the flaws in comparing players like Zico with his state leagues with others that competed in professional first rate division competitions. It's not the same a state regional tournament that consisted of 4 first division sides and the remaining 12 or so participants that were amateur quality type cannon fodder. It can't be compared with 16 Serie A professionally well trained clubs in a top flight league. It's like saying Serie A in Italy has 4 top sides and the remaining squads are worse than Serie C or D quality. It's ridiculous and the disparity is alarming. Dearman understands this but I still see that you don't.
That you assess that Zico didn't do anything against Argentina shows your poor criteria level. He destroyed Scotland as well. So if the national championship is your metric, let's look at how Zico did in them. He won four Brasileiro's to six Cariocas, was leading scorer of the national three times and of the Libertadores once to seven times for the state league. He has the accomplishments on the national championship to be considered best in the world for several of those years. There were only thirteen European NTs at WC82 out of over forty, so I'm not sure how you rate Scotland as second rate having qualified to the tournament and being in the top third for the continent. They also had important players based at both Liverpool and Manchester United. @Dearman understands which is why Zico still ranks in the top ten of all-time. Whether he is actually #7 or #9 is irrelevant, you are completely out of line denigrating his status on an arbitrary argument that holds no weight upon close scrutiny.
How did he destroy Scotland ? He scored from the free kick, which is an advantage in football, but in open play he was well contained by the Scottish defense. If your definition is scoring a goal from the free kick as destroying an opponent but being virtually anonymous the rest of the match, then you are too generous. He won officially 3 since the other one was never considered official by CBF and is historically disputed. Furthermore, he only was top scorer twice (1980 and 1982) a feat equaled or bettered by Roberto Dinamite and Darío in his generation. In addition, his goal scoring ratio dropped significantly from nearly 0.90 in the state league to 0.58 in the National Championship up until 1983. As for the Libertadores in 1981, he didn't have to face Argentinian or Uruguayan teams, clubs that usually dominated that competition. Furthermore, Flamengo were favored by an incredibly controversial referee in a playoff match that sent off 5 Atlético-MG players, plus their manager, and the game had to be stopped with only 6 players. Aftward the game was awarded arbitrarily to Flamengo. In addition, the finalists that faced Flamengo were novices at this level, Cobreloa of Chile. The following year Flamengo were eliminated by Peñarol. Zico is a champion but he's never truly beaten championship legendary players that are generally considered top 50 of all-time on his way to a major title. Probably his most famous triumph coming against an indifferent and lackluster Liverpool in 1981, which to this day is dubious how they approached that match. It holds all the weight since he spent most of his career beating on teams that wouldn't even be allowed to compete in Serie C in a top flight league. Furthermore, he was virtually non-existent vs the full strength top national sides, particularly European darkhorses and contenders. In conclusion, Zico is overrated in an historical context outside the confines of his country. The reality is that the difference between him or Reinaldo was marginal in Brazil.