Laudrup does not have any issues with accumulating ten strong seasons. It is just the idea of hacing a high enough peak as I stated earlier. I agree he probably was better domestically, but Stoichkov seems to be better rated in Europe and comes through in bigger moments with the national team in the WC in later stages which seems to push his profile higher. In the grand scheme of things I do not think their careers are that different. There has to be a line somewhere for who is in the pantheon and who is not and they sit slightly on either side of it to this point in my view. I think Stoichkov having the higher "peak" in his perception during this time is coming through in those higher profile games. Also you think about an issue like the 1994 EC final. Laudrup is dropped, which seems like a bad decision, but there is no way Cruyff is dropping Stoichkov, he is seen as the leader and tone setter for the team in a way Laudrup was not.
When I am looking at these accumulations of seasons needing 7 or 10 of them for different levels, I am including the whole thing national team and club. One can be subpar, but if a disappointing club season is paired with a great national team performance I think it is fair to say the player has still had a significant season that counts towards something.
I agree about that. The general perception was Stoichkov showed up in the advanced stages of European Cups whereas Laudrup had a disappointing 1992 final (and Romario in 1993-94 CL as well...). One other thing was though Stoichkov had a set of qualities virtually no other of that squad had. Laudrup his main strengths were, if not as good and magical as him, replaceable and interchangeable with others. There was virtually no second Stoichkov with his pace, directness, fury and goal threat (maybe Begeristain comes the closest, at a stretch). So for that, he just doesn't go on the bench if you can only field three foreigners. Or as Van Gaal said recently: "Jürgen Klopp put pressure directly with Liverpool in his early years, but he did that with players who were not suitable for that. After that, Klopp and, importantly, his bosses saw the light and realized that his players are at their best when they have a space, so he only let his team push around the center line. That's why he became so successful. I applied this with AZ ten years ago and called it 'provocative pressing' back then to the press. [...] Within his methodology Cruijff was more pragmatic than people think; he often lowered his team to create space for Stoichkov's speed, and applied variation within a game. Rightly so. " By the way, when the assistant and scout Bruins Slot suggested Stoichkov as a possible addition, the first reaction of the Barcelona board was skepticism about a Bulgarian player going to cut it. All of Laudrup, Stoichkov and Romario came relatively cheap (not Koeman though). Capello later said it was a mistake to not play Laudrup, and this was echoed by the Barcelona camp. This would mean however that you place Romario on the bench. Crucial was Barcelona had only three days rest (Milan a week), the grass was very long, dry and wobbly (Milan's wish) and it was also a rare occasion where the Dutch referee was at the last moment replaced by a more lenient English referee (Phil Don), which suited a Desailly way better. Both managers even said this explicitly before kick-off.
You're thinking of the early 90s, when Brazil had the likes of the two Ricardos. That was incidentally the time when Aldair was a reserve (he only played in 1994 because the Ricardos got injured). Even Marcio Santos was ahead of him in the pecking order. What I'm thinking of is the late 90s, when defense was considered Brazil's weakness. Also coincides with the time when Aldair was the defensive leader. Coincidence? In general I wouldn't mix up switching to defensive tactics with having exceptional defenders. It's not always the same thing (ask Holland 2010 or Argentina 1990/2018). As for Klinsmann 1995, it makes complete sense. Obviously the voters can't give the award to some reindeer who'd be better off on hockey skates. The PR-disaster would have been overwhelming.
Just to quickly come back on it: yeah I see the idea has been formed about Stoichkov coming through at key moments and perhaps contributing more in Europe (for Barcelona). I'm not sure though: did he play better than Laudrup in the 1992 Final? He was very poor in the 1994 Final, to be fair (I don't want to be unduly harsh but feel maybe it translates better to be decisive about it rather than sit on the fence more on this occasion!). The players talk of Laudrup as the genius of the team, although I know Stoichkov did get plenty of adulation among fans too. I don't think Aldair was top class in the 1998 WC but I do think he was in 1994. I think he should have been being picked as a first choice CB, and don't really understand why he initially wasn't (maybe because they wanted bigger, stronger players initially - the coach did I mean?).
Yeah, I did think about that and it's a different level of justifcation as for Savicevic having a 'great season' in say 93/94 or more likely 95/96. I can understand that but don't think Stoichkov was great in Euro 96 (and on that occasion he didn't carry his team further with his goals of course), and think he was more than disappointing in 95/96 (again not to be harsh but just so that I'm not being ambiguous). I remember that time quite well of course.
It can be a matter of fine lines and contributions from other players too (like Letchkov, particularly vs Germany...though to mention him I do understand how with Tom's criteria his career looks lacking indeed overall...even though Stoichkov's free-kick was also crucial vs Germany) when teams go far I think.
I see, both, Carlos Gamarra and Roberto Ayala with more pedigree and closer to tick all boxes than Aldair and Sensini. Concerning Batistuta, 1991 and 93 were other very good years for him, being instrumental in both Argentinas titles. Even he didn't appear in the FIFA WPotY I see him close to the top-5 or top-10 that make it.
Looking at the other players in the top 20, and knowing who voted (the South Americans itself), it says maybe something about how people estimated the Copa America in those years. Maybe we should look at how he played against Brazil and other top teams for fair estimation, who didn't send all their best players in 1991 (but still a very strong team), and in 1993 Brazil simply sent a B team out there.
Brazil sent to CA 1993 a team based on Sao Paulo + Palmeiras (both between the best brazilian teams in the last 30 years), the former world club champion and the other take over in Brazil years after. btw, I think is incorrect measure Copa America under european parameteers. Conmebol has 10 associations UEFA has 55, at least, the double top/2nd/3rd tiers countries. That's mean more quality teams (in names) playing the last instances. Even, Brazil or Argentina could split themselves into 2 or 3 teams with similar strenght (maybe Uruguay, too). A characteristic in Copa America/WCQ is that, everyone knows everyone and also the local environment when playing at home, makes things more complicated for top teams facing the "minnows".
Just curious if you could explain this a little more, as at this point I do not have them rated this way.
I have no doubt that Finland must be a difficult team to beat. Where you are wrong is in thinking that Peru or Paraguay or Ecuador are not. That's not true. As tough as qualifiers are now, the long road ensures that the top teams do end up at the top. Back in the eighties, the pressure was greater, one bad game, indeed one fluke goal, could leave you out. In 86 for example, it was much tougher for Argentina to qualify from South America (which they did in dramatic fashion with a late goal in Buenos Aires against Peru) than it was to win the Cup in Mexico. That is absurd. You can't apply today's refereeing standards to 1990. Back then they didn't give red cards for handballs. If they applied today's standards, then Cameroon would have gotten more red cards against Argentina than Holland and Portugal combined in the battle of Nurenberg. And perhaps Maradona would have made it to the final able to actually run if he was protected by the refs as top players are now. And BTW, the ref admitted that he made a mistake in giving Germany a penalty in the final, and said he could have given one to Argentina. And as far as making it from any qualifiers - Asian, European, South American, whatever - Argentina didn't have to, they were the world champions. Anyway, to get back on point, Valderrama is a tough one to rate. I do think he qualifies as World Class based on having seen him play often, but based specifically on Stevens' criteria maybe he doesn't. He stood out in South America throughout his career as a great, he was unquestionable a different player among what - unlike what you apparently think - I believe was a very good crop of players in South America, and even in Colombia at the time. He was largely responsible for getting Colombia to play jogo bonito, but it's true that the top results weren't there. And, like some other great South American players -Didi comes to mind- he couldn't quite adapt to Europe. I'm sure if the money was in South America and Europeans came over to play here, some all-time great Europeans might have a tough time adapting as well. Life is different, culture is different, the game is different. The more amazing thing really is that so many players do adapt so well to the different cultures.
I rate Gamarra as the top SA defender in those years, above Bermudez (Boca), Samuel (Boca), Còrdoba (San Lorenzo), C.Ayala (River) all of them starters in their NTs. And at least, at the level of european based R.Ayala, Aldair, Sensini, Montero. Some achievements: - CA ideal XI at 1997 and 1999. - All star team at WC 1998. - 5 times the SA XI of the year - 4 times Bola de Prata at Brasilerao - 2 times Paraguayan footballer of the year.
Apologies if my posting last night was a bit haphazard (I was thinking of logging off before several of the posts)! Also if it was a bit controversial in some way compared to my normal style - maybe it does suit this thread to try to show strong opinions though like I say. One thing I'm wondering now (I haven't checked this morning but thought of it last night) was whether Tom you had pasted a few names, including Letchkov's and Ivanov's, into the all-time great section (the one I was trying to get Savicevic in - not 'World class' which I think I typed but you knew what I meant I guess) erroneously instead of the 'considered' section, and that might have confused Ariaga on that, since you agreed in summary with those players careers it seemed. Anyway, maybe not a surprise I argue for the players I did obviously! I probably do feel that it's reasonable to question Savicevic (despite the longevity issues - to be fair unable to play at major tournaments with Yugoslavia 92-96 due to issues outside his influence of course though and he went into that period with a better NT than Stoichkov and a better reputation as a player too of course) not making all-time great while Stoichkov makes pantheon. It seems a big gap not consistent with the class of the players, but on the other hand I do see that the way Tom's criteria works it might not seem ridiculous all in all (not to say I now go along with it though, and their disparity of performance in the 1994 CL Final should count for something I guess, while overall Savicevic has a better record of excellent displays in semi-finals and finals of that competition). Likewise Stoichkov vs Laudrup, but I see also when using Ballon d'Or how that comes about - it seems like Laudrup was really punished for missing Euro 92 in the voting that year and/or the Spanish league at that time didn't quite hold so much sway as later with voters or wasn't watched so closely. I suppose it's difficult for me to accept in a way because I do think Laudrup made more of a mark and played in a higher quality league in the 80s, and was better in the later part of the 90s, and also feel he was a better player at peak level personally in terms of pure class. I don't want to ignore Stoichkov's abilities though which could show themselves to a high level too when he was on fire so to speak, as he had the speed and left foot finishing ability to make an effect on any game, and some decent skill on the dribble when he had momentum that helped him score some quality goals, including in qualifiers (Bulgaria vs Wales as an example off the top of my head). I think his overall contribution in 1994 in the CL was probably very good and I remember his ratings were above Romario's in that competition (maybe a bit above Laudrup's too? - they were posted on here somewhere I remember), although Laudrup also had his great CL games such as vs Dynamo Kiev in both 91/92 and 93/94, or the games vs Barcelona for Juventus IMO like I say (despite going out, as team-mates didn't convert his chances created and his assist to Platini wasn't enough in the end). Arguably in the 1992 Final, despite not being in scintillating form throughout it he did make the winning assist only for Stoichkov to miss it though (albeit hit the post with a close effort) - if that goes in then Laudrup's assist may have been famous in Barcelona for years, so I think it's fine margins in terms of the narrative of doing it in big games like I say. Another two big games Stoichkov didn't do something special in would be the 1994 WC semi-final, and actually the crucial qualifier in France too when Cantona did better in terms of end product and overall performance, and it was Kostadinov with the game changing goal in the end that sent Bulgaria to the World Cup. On the other hand when they got there Stoichkov did still contribute some crucial and impressive goals on their deep run obviously. On Aldair, I think we can't know how many times he'd be in the SA Team of the Year if he'd stayed in Brazil with Flamengo (and had the same continental competitions to play in as Gamarra). I do think in terms of overall skillset and capabilities he was better than both Ayala (who was quite slow, and maybe relied a bit more on physicality and fouls?) and Gamarra though myself (I might as well disagree with msioux75 while I am at it! - I don't often of course disagree with him). I've seen Aldair playing very well for Benfica also, with whom he went to the European Cup Final, and he was a Roma legend (making in effect their all-time team in a 2012 vote, at the start of their Hall of Fame project) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.S._Roma_Hall_of_Fame I think the video I posted on the draft thread recently (and to be fair @carlito86 had already posted it on the forum I remember) can help to show his all round qualities as both footballer in general and defender anyway. I don't pretend to have watched a huge amount of his games on the other hand, but I think if Tony Adams has the level at peak to make all-time great then the more rounded Aldair surely does too.
They were meant to do that. There was the explicit instruction to hand out red cards for illegaly denying clear goal-scoring opportunities. For this Bezsonov was red carded in the very same match, as was Ricardo Gomes in the round of 16 match.
I'm also not quite sure how you are choosing periods Tom, and it might be Date of Birth decides things pretty much (and obviously some players don't fit well in any period selected - I can see you are choosing to cut off periods approximately when 'new eras' can be deemed to have started in terms especially of predominant teams and players), but I'd probably have put Ryan Giggs in this period myself for example.
Different situations. Bezsonov was red carded for tackling and pulling down Cannigia from behind as Claudio had a clear path on goal, and that was usually a straight red. Gomes was red carded for pushing down and brutally kicking Basualdo near midfield, a frustration foul towards the end of the match more than anything to do with a scoring opportunity. Maradona committed a hand ball in the penalty area and it was indeed a break for Argentina that the ref didn't see it. If the ref had seen it, the way it was usually called at the time it would have been a penalty and maybe (depending on interpretation) a yellow card, not a red card. It was a reflective defensive action by Diego after a quick header, and while the ball was angled towards the goal, Goycoechea was behind Maradona in position to make the save. Argentina won by two goals. it was a break, but it's a stretch to conclude that they would not have won the match. So Ariaga is making an argument based on that one play that Argentina was so bad that they wouldn't have qualified to the WC from Europe or Asia, and therefore it follows that South America had no good players at the time, and it follows from it that Valderrama was not a good player. Never mind that Argentina made the final, getting past Brazil, Yugoslavia and Italy, and losing to Germany only on a dubious penalty. Even if Argentina had been as bad as Ariaga thinks, which obviously they were not, the fact would remain that Argentina as defending champion didn't even participate in the South American qualifiers, so it doesn't reflect on the quality of the players in the South America qualifiers and specifically the quality of Valderrama. How could it? His argument simply doesn't make sense.
I'm fine with disagree. I know Aldair made a very good career in Europe, and had its own merits to debate his inclusion here. It's just, for me, when looking both playing the same competitions or in close years I have no doubts that Gamarra was in the same level, if not better. Particularly, his clean interceptions, agility, strenght, reading of the game and air game. In some of them, not better than other SA contemporaries, but good enough in those skills for a top defender. Since, the evaluation is about a real impact, I expose his merits, of course, I know, it could be said he failed playing at Europe, but, playing in Brazil and for a strong Paraguayan NT he was a true star. Of course, those weren't among the top leagues not the top countries, but if a player starring in a 2nd tier league/country in Europe makes it, why not, Gamarra could be mentioned among Players considered.
My take on Burruchaga is that he was a solid player, important in midfield, had a very good career, two very productive World Cups, (probably his best match ever was at the best possible time, the 1986 final against Germany, and he even scored the winner). He was very good, the type you want on your team. But he never stood out as the best on his team, as a spectacular player, as a superstar. I don't think being solid, dependable and productive is enough to be called an all-time great.
Well now you're just twisting and misinterpreting everything I say, either because you can't respond to the actual points I was making, or through incompetent interpretations. 1. The point wasn't Finland was a difficult team to beat. The point was England are Germany are difficult teams to beat. The fourth team in that group was Rehhagel's Greece, BTW. Finland crushed them 5-1. The managers of the world could have taken a couple of tricks from our book of tactics. 2. OK, so Maradona wouldn't have been sent off. The point wasn't Argentina wouldn't have qualified because of a penalty. They wouldn't have qualified because they sucked at the time, and they couldn't get results even against Asian teams. 3. I'm sure Peru is a tough opponent. Meanwhile, however, future WC semi-finalists and Euro-champions Belgium and Netherlands had to fight it off for one spot. 4. Yes, there is more depth in SA now than there was in the 80s. Look at their players and results. You're seriously going to say with a straight face Ecuador and Venezuela haven't grown by leaps and bounds since the 80s? 5. I didn't say Valderrama was a failure in Europe because of a penalty. Valderrama failed in Europe because Valderrama failed in Europe. In two different leagues, mind you. Sucks for him if he couldn't adapt, but being able to adapt is a necessary ingredient for a great player as much as anything else.
Uruguay can send three different teams of similar strength? Really? Yes it are different situations but they all fall in the same bracket of DOGSO (denying goalscoring opportunity). That makes it a red. After the world cup it got formalised in the laws of the game, but it were already the instructions now. The referee himself said it was a red.