Following Gregoriak's threads on Best of Europe and Best of South America, I try here to choose the world best XI at each decade.
Are you really trying to be taken seriously ? I mean in some teams you have up to 5 strikers and 1 attacking midfielder.
My main issue, at first glance, is the composition of you midfields. In the 60's you have Rivera and Charlton (furthest back), in the 90's you have Baggio, Bergkamp and Zidane (furthest back) and in the 00's you have Ronaldinho, Zidane, Nedved and Beckham (furthest back). The most important thing in these XI's is to create a team that would function and therefore contain balance. Having someone to win the ball in midfield in part of that. I have some other issues, namely player selection, but that is more down to personal choice than anything else. Still, full credit for putting all of your teams up for scrutiny. Hopefully we can generate some good discussion out of it. One thing I would ask is if you could briefly justify some of your teams. The discussion would be better if we were better able to understand your standpoint (that applies to anyone who is going to post their own teams). I'll throw some up later on this afternoon. I'm currently in the bath and waiting to watch the second half of the Liverpool/Everton FA Cup tie. No, I will not be posting pictures... EDIT: Following on from that I don't suppose anyone knows of any waterproof keyboards or mice that would make things easier when in the bath?
I really appreciate your comment and I'll try to answer as well as possible. I knew it would be confusing, but I didn't mean my team neither my criteria to be consensual (based on the thought that every unanimity is foolish). Besides a good discussion, I just wanted people tried to do their squads also, but not in a "mine is better", "mine is the right" sense. Said that, I can tell that when I pick names for a best XI, I try the best to make a balanced side (believe you or not...lol). But when it comes from the imaginary and dream fields, I have to admit that sometimes I can inevitably be biased. BTW, I might not be right, one of my criteria was to pick the player(s) that would never be left out and try to fit him (them) into the squad. Specifically, achievements and awards can be a good starting point. So, when I chose a midfield like my 00's, I thought that, in my best dreams, this formation could work. And you ask me: How? Well...my answer was on the past and old formations that history of football showed. For example: if Brazil'70 could fit 5 "nr.10s" in midfield and attack, only 1 'genuine' DM, 1 defender that was usually a DM, and this team played the best football ever, I questioned myself: why not? Another example? How could a team play apparently a 4-3-3 formation (in paper) but in fact have no formation identifiable, changing positions and confusing the opponent side (you know 'who' I'm talking about)? And besides that, stating a new revolution if football history! The most important: it worked! (although they didn't win any title...). And what is the common word that explain how could both of them be successfull? The answer is they both could ADAPT. You may argue that this 00's team would never beat any team of its generation, but that falls off of my imaginary field. P.S.: 1. ok...No pictures needed... 2. I think you should find more interesting things to do in the bath than chatting at BS...
First, here's a selection for Europe 1950 to 1959. I will follow up with one for South America and then I'll try to pick the best of both selections to form one European-South American selection for 1950-1959. -----11-Francisco GENTO---------9-Gunnar NORDAHL-------7-Stanley MATTHEWS -------------------10-Ferenc PUSKAS ------------8-Alfredo DI STÉFANO ---------------6-Danny BLANCHFLOWER------------4-Jozsef BOZSIK ---------3-Roger BYRNE------------5-Ernst OCWIRK--------2-Branko STANKOVIC -------------------------------------1-Lev YASHIN replacement players: Czibor (for Gento) Fontaine (for Nordahl) Rahn (for Matthews) Walter (for Puskas) Kopa (for Di Stéfano) Liedholm (for Blanchflower) Marche (for Byrne) Wright (for Ocwirk) Bergmark (for Stankovic) Beara (for Yashin)
------------11-JAIR-----------9-ADEMIR---------7-GARRINCHA ---------------------10-PELÉ ------------8-DIDÍ --------------6-Victor ANDRADE-------4-Nestor ROSSI -------3-Nilton SANTOS----5-Obdulio VARELA------2-Djalma SANTOS ---------------------------1-Amadeo CARRIZO replacement players: Canhoteiro (for Jair) Maschio (for Ademir) Julinho (for Garrincha) Schiaffino (for Pelé) Zizinho (for Didí) Santamaria (for Varela) Maspoli (for Carrizo)
The composite team of Europe and South America 1950 to 1959 now looks as follows: -------11-Francisco GENTO-------9-ADEMIR--------7-GARRINCHA ----------------10-Ferenc PUSKAS ---------8-Alfredo DI STÉFANO -----------------6-Victor ANDRADE-------4-Jozsef BOZSIK -------3-Nilton SANTOS------5-Ernst OCWIRK------2-Djalma SANTOS ------------------------------1-Lev YASHIN
Interesting team. I'd have John Charles at centre back instead of Ocwirk, and Tom Finney instead of Stanley Matthews.
Yes, the one provided above is pretty poor. Apart from Henry & Nesta I don't agree with any of the selections. Ronaldo was injured or overweight or both for about 90% of this decade.
Actually, when I picked the names for my selection, I did the same as you: I combined S. America and Europe selections for each decade. So, these are mine. Note: I admit that maybe some names were out of position, so here the formation is the WM. S. America: --------------Carrizo D. Santos---Santamaria---N. Santos -----O. Varela--------N. Rossi --------Didi----------Zizinho Garrincha----Di Stefano----Labruna Subs: Maspoli, Victor Andrade, Zito, Ademir, Leonel Sanchez. Europe: --------------Yashin ---Bergmark---Ocwirk---Wright -------Bozsik---------Netto ------Kubala----------Kopa Matthews---Di Stefano---Puskas Subs: Grosics, Stankovic, John Charles, Edwards, Rahn. Mine is the same I've posted, but now in a different formation. Combined: --------------Yashin D. Santos---Santamaria---N. Santos -----O. Varela--------N. Rossi --------Didi----------Kopa Garrincha----Di Stefano----Puskas
Europe 1960 to 1969: --11-George BEST----10-Florian ALBERT----9 EUSEBIO---7-Amando AMANCIO ----------------8-Robert CHARLTON------------6-Mario COLUNA -3-Giacinto FACCHETTI-4-K.H. SCHNELLINGER -5-Robert MOORE -2-T. BURGNICH -----------------------------------1-Gordon BANKS
South America 1960 to 1969: --11-Leonel SANCHEZ----10- PELÉ----9-Alberto SPENCER---7- GARRINCHA ------------------------8-GERSON------------6-ZITO -3-Silvio MARZOLINI-4-Raul SANCHEZ -5-Roberto PERFUMO -2-Luis EYZAGUIRRE ------------------------1-Ladislao MAZURKIEWICZ
Combination of Europe and South America 1960 to 1969: ----11-George BEST------10- PELÉ------9 EUSEBIO-----7- GARRINCHA ----------------8-Robert CHARLTON------------6-Mario COLUNA -3-Giacinto FACCHETTI-4-K.H. SCHNELLINGER -5-Robert MOORE -2-T. BURGNICH -----------------------------------1-Gordon BANKS
My South American (late) '60's WANNA-WATCH-ELEVEN --------------------------Ladislao Mazurkiewicz------------------------- Carlos Alberto---Roberto Perfumo---Hector Chumpitaz---Luis Ubiñas -------------------Pedro Rocha------------Gérson---------------------- Jairzinho------------------Pelé----------Tostão--------Roberto Rivellino ------------------------------------Vs.----------------------------------- -----------------"Gigi" Riva--------Eusébio---------"Georgie" Best--------- --------------Gianni Rivera-----Bobby Charlton-------Franz Beckenbauer-- Giancinto Facchetti----K.H. Schnellinger----Bobby Moore---Tarcisio Burgnich --------------------------------Gordon Banks--------------------------- My European (late) '60's WANNA-WATCH-ELEVEN
Hope Uamiranda forgives me, but I see a problem with 'decades'. Although they are periods handier to visualize, player's careers do go beyond that span, and generally they don't start playing right at their very beginning, so most actively participate of two, sometimes even three decades (the case of Pelé). It's obvious whoever tries to make their choices in this thread sometimes gets somewhat entangled with that problem. For instance: In order not to place Pelé in the 50's (although he actually boomed in 1958 & professionally played since 1956, being winner in 1957 of a Copa Rocca against Argentina, with 2 goals by him), UA was obliged to put him only in the 60's. He doesn’t use though the same criterion for Garrincha. Although his peak was in the 60’s (when he simply 'destroyed' the opponents in 62, its best Cup btw), he was obliged to also put him in the 50's, when of course he equally played an extraordinary Cup. It’s obvious I understand UA placed Garrincha also in the 50’s because his career started in 1953 (although he only really started being noticed, like Pelé, in the late 50's [1957], when Botafogo, his club, became the RJ champion of that year). D. Santos, Didi and N. Santos, who started playing even before 1950, & during the 50’s were already established as big stars – nonetheless had important participation in the 1962 title and in the clubs of the 60’s they defended. The same with Di Stéfano, Puskas, Santamaria, who (although beginning to play in the anterior decade, or even before) commanded the famous team of Real Madrid in the 60’s. For those reasons I think it'd be less limiting using periods of 20 years. 30-50, 50-70, 70-90, 90-10 and so on. Which, BTW, coincidently or not, IMO, happen to be the great periods of football – when great eras die and other are born.
See?... If we had a 20-year span instead of a decade, NapoliSupporter would certainly feel more comfortable about Ronaldo. Although the Fenômeno played the only World Cup he won in this decade.
Now, writing by myself... Ok...You're forgiven...rsrsrs That's true. I had that problem with Ronaldo (as you, Leeds and Napoli reported), who was doing well by the end of the 90's 'till the begginning of the 00's, and of course he was not the only...IMHO, when one tries to do a 'best XI' team, it's not more than purely speculation, once it inevitably passes through personal oppinion, and that wasn't, isn't and will never be consensual. BTW, which decade do you guys think I should have placed him? rsrsrs First of all, have you ever seen a baiano been obligated to do something??? We're too 'lazy' for that...rsrsrs. Ok, I've conceeded it once and I have no problem in admitting that maybe my teams do no fit perfectly in people's thought (and who am I to wish that!), but I didn't mean to be so rigidly criterious to do that. Of course there might be mistakes, of course I might lack information, and maybe I didn't spend time enough to make that selections, but I did it with (at least) the minimal knowledge and criterium required. Before choosing the players, I did a (at least minimal) research to acsertain if I was not too wrong and I also considered (yes, you're right) their ages, once I wanted to have an idea of when they were, if not at their best, a good influence on the game. But in any way I want my criteria to be unanimously consensual When I did this thread, I didn't mean to be unquestionable. Beyond that, I think in addition to criticizing a post (and by that, I don't mean not being criticized, please criticize me as much as you want, I appreciate!), it would be even more useful if we could see other user's teams also. That would enrich the discussion. The time gap of 20 years might be fair, as well as 5 years (as Gregoriak already did in another thread), but I had no further purpose by choosing 10 years (it's a merely period that has been used widely). Even though, IMO, whichever is the gap, we'd have the same 'problems'...
It doesn't really matter, you'll always have players careers that span your periods - for Germany, your extended periods hardly help at all, since most of our big early 70s generation already rose to fame in the 60s (Beckenbauer, Müller, Maier...), and obviously the World Cup winners '90 played both in the 80s and the 90s (Matthäus, Brehme, Klinsmann...).
UA, Far from me trying to disturb your thread, which is, by all means, outstanding and well devised. It just came to my mind though, that, as players careers generally encompass at least two decades (last as they may from 5-20 years), that could create difficulties in order to establish to which decade they really belonged. It's obvious that the '20-year period' would bring the same difficulties, but I think it's also fair to say that those difficulties would be cut by a half. Giving us BTW a more clear-cut vision of the different generations, and making it easier (& IMO + accurate) to select 'Best XI's. For instance, Zico started playing professional in the early 70's, & when he played the 78 WC and was champion for Flamengo in the late 70's he was already world famous, but he is often mentioned as a player of the 80's, what's obviously inexact. Maradona as well has a whole foot in the 70's and although his best image belongs to the 80's (having even played the 94 WC) he career wise would better fit in the '70-90' period. In the 20-year span, I repeat, the same difficulties will occur - but, let's concede - way less. If you sum up the history of football around those 6 players, I agree. But there are many more players in Germany and the world that won't fit that cronology ... It's undeniable that (due to many reasons: technical, historical etc) 30-50 was a recognizable period in the development of the game (the 1st 3 Cups + the war intermission), 50-70 another one (the Puskas-Pelé era), the 70-90 (the Cruyjff/Maradona era), the 90-10 another (the Ronaldo/Zidane era). As far as your 6 German players (or from other nationalities) belonging to the 60's & 70's, nothing hinders you from establishing as well a '60-80 period' just to fit them. Of course it'd be good if you could prove that's a more representative period than 70-90 (or 50-70) in the history of football (& then we'll have a whole new ball game). But, let it quiet: the thread topic is 'Decades Best XI'. Good for me, too.