A list of all time great players, and the pantheon of greatest ever

Discussion in 'The Beautiful Game' started by Tom Stevens, Mar 27, 2020.

  1. PDG1978

    PDG1978 Member+

    Mar 8, 2009
    Club:
    Nottingham Forest FC
    Before anynone points it out btw I'm aware that Chapuisat was the UEFA Golden Player for Switzerland!

    My point was meant to be more about Savicevic's standing in Europe and Yugoslavia (keeping in mind he's actually a Montenegrin not a Serb). Switzerland doesn't really have the same history of producing great players as Yugoslavia of course.
     
  2. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    Doesn't even matter. You are also giving way more ATG designations to the 'Golden Generation' than the ones who won euro88 for instance.

    And how does Totti meet your own criteria? Take a look at his continental and national team record. How does Emerson meet the criteria?
     
  3. Tom Stevens

    Tom Stevens Member+

    Dec 12, 2012
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    I personally was on the borderline for a number of players making the pantheon from the past three eras (mid 90s, late 90s early 00s, and mid 00s) some made it some did not.

    The pantheon players I feel sure about are for the past three eras are Buffon, Zidane, Roberto Carlos, Nedved, Figo, and Maldini.

    The players I included but am not 100% sure on: Stoichkov, Schmeichel, Desailly, Bergkamp, Thurman, and Nesta.

    These are players I closely considered and did not include : Romario, Laudrup, Klinsmann, Baggio, Cafu, Cannavaro, Kahn, Vieira, Raul, Rivaldo, Ronaldo, Keane, Pirlo, Shevchenko, Puyol, Ronaldinho, and Henry.

    I will also address the other players you mentioned in Seedorf, Terry, Ballack, Cech, Carvalho, and Gerrard.

    I will go through my thoughts on the five criteria for each player and address the areas of uncertainty I have, maybe with some assistance this can be worked out.

    Again the criteria.

    1) Longevity

    They must have at least 10 seasons of significant positive contribution. This disqualifies a number of players who place highly in many all time great lists in my analysis. For example: Van Basten, Garrincha, Best, and Ronaldinho.

    2) Dominant Run

    They need to have a near continuous run of four to five seasons where they are dominant and performing at a level that qualifies them as the best or one of the best in the world at their position. This disqualifies players listed high on all time great players lists in my analysis. For example Adolfo Pedernera, Stanley Matthews, Fritz Walter, Romario, and Fabio Cannavaro.

    3) Peak level approaches best player in the world

    The player needs to at his peak be considered the best player in the world or closely approaching that level. This criteria is relaxed a bit for non-attacking players. For example in the modern Ballon d'Or era, a goalkeeper or central defender finishing around 5-8 in voting would be enough, but if an attacking player only reaches fifth that would be insufficient in my eyes. Their are exceptions here especially in relation to Ballon d'Or voting which is a good guide in many cases but not all. This is one of the more difficult categories to judge for older players. This is the category this disqualifies the most all time great players from reaching the pantheon. This disqualifies players listed high on all time great players lists in my analysis. For example Angel Labruna, Nils Liedholm, Danny Blanchflower, Francisco Gento, Gaetano Scirea, Jurgen Kohler, Cafu, and Ryan Giggs

    4) Dominant at all levels

    This is similar to the complete career criteria for all time great designation but more strict. They need to be great domestically, in continental competitions, and with the national team. This does not mean they cannot have a bad world cup, but they must on whole still have a great national team career. The previous example of Jimmy Johnstone passing the complete career criteria despite a weak national team career on the strength of his European Cup career will not pass this level. All levels must be great no exception. This disqualifies players listed high on all time great players lists in my analysis, for example Bobby Moore.

    5) Career must be free of all other major flaws

    This is a catch all for any other major flaws that bother me about a players career that are not quantified in the previous four categories. For example Sandor Kocsis inexplicably not being able to get playing time at Barcelona or Alain Giresse failing to earn any caps in the first two thirds of his career.


    Buffon (Still Solid)

    1): Far surpasses the 10 years required, I could probably make a case for 15 years/seasons of significant positive contribution.

    2): 03-06 has a dominant CL and a dominant WC, multiple domestic titles, and two high Ballon d'Or finishes. This could be expanded probably.

    3): I think 2006 easily qualifies based on my standards for a goalkeeper, even without 2006 he might have been close enough in 2003.

    4): Great domestically and great with the national team both beyond a doubt. He never won the European Cup but he has great performances in that competition so I see no issues here.

    5): I personally do not see any issues


    Zidane (Still Solid)

    1): I think 96, 97, 98, 00, 01, 02 ,03, 04, 05, 06 works here.

    2): I think you can go with 97-03 while skipping an off season in 99 and have a 6 of 7 year dominate run.

    3): He has multiple seasons that qualify and in general was seen as one of the few players seriously considered the best in the world far a significant amount of time.

    4): Great domestic record, excellent record in the CL, legendary with the national team.

    5): Some point to the idea that he never put together dominant club seasons with both EC and domestic success in one season, others also point to the idea that he did not win as many domestic titles during his runs with big teams as the team would in later or earlier times. I personally do not find either of these arguments persuasive or see them as major flaws.


    Roberto Carlos (Still Solid)

    1): I think 96-05 works, with potentially more.

    2): From 97-07 he wins ESM team of the year 7 of 8 season, has two strong world cups winning one, wins three league titles and three European Cups.

    3): I think 97 and 02 both qualify at minimum.

    4): Great domestic, national team, and CL.

    5): I do not see any possible issues.


    Nedved (Still Solid)

    1): I think 96-06 are all strong.

    2): From 99-04 wins league title with two different teams, multiple strong runs in Europe, and a great Euro. During this whole time he is considered one of the best players in the world

    3): 03 clearly qualifies.

    4): Great domestic record, in the CL/Europe strong despite some disappointing results in 05 and 06, national team is strong with multiple strong Euros. Disappointing to a degree in the WC but playing with the Czechs I think his level of achievement is appropriate, was so close to having a trophy in 04.

    5): The only argument against him with any merit in my mind is is the failure to make/perform in the WC. Playing with the Czechs I do not see this as an issue. On a whole he he is great for the national team over a long period of time.


    Figo (Still Solid)

    1): I think 96-06 are all strong at minimum. Maybe you could argue 02 is a down year but you could argue for 95 or 07 and he is still over 10.

    2): 97-01 seems very strong.

    3): 00 and 01 at minimum qualify.

    4): Great domestic record, great in European competition, great for national team.

    5): I do not see any possible issues.


    Maldini (Still Solid)

    1): Huge longevity, no need to go into details.

    2): 92-96, you could probably make a case this runs all the way back to 88.

    3): 94 qualifies.

    4): Great domestic record, great in European competition, great for national team.

    5): I do not see any possible issues.


    Stoichkov (Wavering Significantly)

    1):
    This is likely the sticking point. I feel like 89-96 which is eight seasons. I think the national team performance in 95-96 (8 goals in 9 games) in qualifying and Euro 96 makes up for a weaker domestic season. Again 94/95 might be weaker domestically but excellent internationally and some famous CL games. In 88/89 he has a strong CWC and plays 12 times for the national team. 89/90 he wins European Golden boot. By my standards for significant positive contribution I think these 8 all are okay. Then making a case for 87/88 and 96/97 is much more difficult. What information do we have on his performance in 96/97? He is part of successful WCQ. In 87/88 he wins the domestic double which does not mean a whole lot. He is also part of the national team but they do not accomplish anything. I am now leaning towards the idea that I can't make a good case for 10 seasons.

    2): 91 to 95 works.

    3):
    92 and 94 qualify.

    4):
    Great domestic record, great in European competition, great for national team. I think it all checks out here.

    5):
    Longevity is the only issue I really see.


    Schmeichel (One question but I think he is okay)

    1): Maybe some issues here, would like input. So I think it is okay to take all eight seasons at Man U as good, even though his form may not have been uniformly as good in the later time I think it all counts as what I would define significant positive contribution. That is eight seasons. I think 1991 is solid, playing in Denmark and making the UEFA Cup semifinal and successfully qualifying for Euro 1992. Finding another season before 1991 requires either good achievement in Europe which I do not see, or good achievement with the national team. He plays in Euro 88 but I do not think he is particularly good. I think 88/89 might work, he plays 12 times for Denmark only allowing 6 goals and WC qualifying is on track to this point. Is 99-00 an option? He helps successfully qualify in Euro 00 but the results are poor in the tournament itself. He wins the league with Sporting CP. I think these are the other two viable options for the 10th season.

    2): 92-96, maybe expanded to 91-99.

    3): 92 qualifies.

    4): Domestic and national team record are unimpeachable. Man U under performed during much of his time in the CL, but he is part of the 99 winners and has the good run in 1991. I would say this all checks out.

    5): I do not see any possible issues.


    Desailly (Some Grey Areas but I am okay with it at this point)

    1): If you take 93-03 he has 11 seasons that all seem to check out. Even is he loses one because of some kind of weaker season he will still be okay for 10.

    2): 93-98, Dominant for club and country, could extend to 00.

    3): This is a little in the grey area. In 94 he is 9th in Ballon d'Or despite not playing in the WC, only behind Litmanen for non WC players. 11th in 95 with 1 first place vote. 96 he is 8th with another first place vote. 10th in 98. 96 is right on the line for what I find acceptable for a defender.

    4): I think he has credentials on all fronts

    5): There is the peak issue discussed before. Outside of that I am curious about his time at Chelsea. No PFA team of the year but makes the team of the decade? Anyone have any thoughts on the quality of his time with Chelsea?


    Bergkamp (Some Grey Area but I am okay with it)

    1): Solid here, you could make an argument for 91-04 with maybe only 95 and 01 missing.

    2): I think 91-94 and 96-99 are both qualifying dominant runs.

    3): This is a little in the grey area. As an attacking player I really want to see the player pushing for best in the world. In 92 he is third, but a relatively distant third. In 93 he is a clear second. I also disagree with the voting in 98 and thought on the whole he was top three. I think 93 qualifies.

    4): Domestically and with the national team the resume is excellent. In European competitions he delivers two UEFA Cups. In the CL/EC he has some good moments but no defining tournament. I think on the whole this is still good.

    5): I think the EC/CL issue and peak are both acceptable in my eyes.


    Thurman (One small question but I think he is okay)

    1): I think 96 to 06 works well for 11 seasons.

    2): I think 97-03 qualifies.

    3): I think 98 qualifies finishing 7th as a defender.

    4): Successful on all levels.

    5): Everything looks good to me.


    Nesta (One small question but I think he is okay)

    1)
    : 97 to 06 is a solid 10, plus 2011.

    2): I think 98-04 qualifies.

    3): I think in 2000 winning the league, being one of the best players at the Euro and finishing 5th in the Balon d'Or qualifies solidly for a defender.

    4): Successful on all levels.

    5): He got hurt during or before every World Cup he played in, and they won in 06 without him. I am not sure how I feel about this.


    Romario (Still Out)

    1): 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 97, 98, 00, and 01 probably all work so no issues here in my eyes.

    2): I really do not see it. Before 93 I do not think he was seen as a world class dominant player. He was not a starter in the national team and was good in the Dutch league but that only goes so far at this point in history. 93 and 94 are solid. But then I do not see a case for him being dominant on a relevant level in 95 or 96. I do not see a way to make a dominant 4-5 season run.

    3): Qualifies in 94

    4): Qualifies on all levels.

    5): The lack of caps for a long periods and no dominant run rule him out for me.


    Laudrup (Still out unless more information is discovered)

    1): 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, and 98 make a solid 11

    2): I think 91-95 qualifies

    3): 85, 92, and 95 are all close, but not close enough if I am following Ballon d'Or voting. I think 92 still has a chance to qualifying if there is an explanation for the voting in that season. I have heard the idea he was "punished" for skipping Euro 92 in the voting. What does this mean? Is there evidence that this happened? Stoichkov did not play in Euro 92 either but crushed Laudrup in the 92 vote. Why is this discrepancy so large?

    4): I think he is solid here, domestic, European, and international achievement.

    5): There is the peak issue and the Juventus issue. How many of these seasons were really poor? I think 86 was solid, won the league, well rated, some moments in Europe. 87 and 88 look pretty barren. What about 88/89 (one paper looks better for Juventus and Denmark)? Only two "lost seasons" seems more palatable than three. Also national team performances seem to dry up around this time post 86.


    Klinsmann (Enough questions that I am still holding him out, but open to more discussion)

    1): 88-97 all seem solid for 10 seasons.

    2): 94-96 definitely qualify as three dominant seasons. I am not sure if he makes a four season run. Maybe 92/93? Goalscoring record is okay in France but no real achievements. Good scoring record for Germany in 92/93. But he does not receive a single Ballon d'Or vote in 93. I am not sure if he is perceived as dominant or world class a this point?

    3): 95 qualifies according to Ballon d'Or voting but as I said before I do not understand it. I personally do not perceive him ever of a player considered the best in the world.

    4): His club level overall is a bit puzzling. Lacks trophies. Not particularly good with Inter. Went to Monaco where he again appears to okay but not elevating the team. At Tottenham is appreciated in voting but again no real achievement. Final years with Bayern seem okay. He has no signature dominating moment for a club team that I would associate with a player among the very best ever in the pantheon.

    5): The issues with him are detailed above. Nothing seems outright disqualifying but he is in the grey area almost in every category.


    Baggio (To many issues, not in)

    1): 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 98, 01 seem like a solid eight seasons. Maybe 96 and 99 also qualify or another year from the 2000s?

    2): 93 and 94 works as dominant seasons. I think 92 probably works as well but 0 votes for Ballon d'Or. Outside of that 91 is seen as disappointing on club and national team levels. He falls off quick in 95-97. He at max as a three year run as a dominating player maybe less.

    3): Yes.

    4): His club career leaves something to be desired. To many seasons where he is in and out of the team.

    5): Lacks a dominant run. Has too many seasons where he fails to hold a starting spot on multiple teams in what should still be near prime years.


    Cafu (One clear flaw, out)

    1): Solid here.

    2): I think 98 to 02 qualifies

    3): I don't think this works. When compared to Roberto Carlos he basically gets no Ballon d'Or votes or ESM Team of the year votes. The only Ballon d'Or votes he ever gets are 2 in 2002 for 15th place.

    4): I think he is strong for both club and country.

    5): I just do not think the peak is there.


    Cannavaro (One clear flaw, out unless I can gather more information)

    1): Solid here. 97-07.

    2): I do not think this part works. 05 and 06 are definitely good as dominant seasons. I would like more information on his time at Inter but from what I know this was not a successful time for him. Then after 06 he goes to Real where I think he is okay in 07 before declining? Was he still good in 08? So maybe a three year run? Maybe there is a dominant/world class run at Parma, maybe somewhere in 97 to 02? I am open to this if there is evidence, but from what I gather he was a good but not dominant player during his Parma days..

    3): This is where most defenders fall short but he passes hear obviously.

    4): I think he qualifies here.

    5): The lack of a dominant run is the issue.


    Kahn (One major issue, out)

    1): I think he is okay here with 97 to 06, but some of those late years he declines, maybe 94 could come into play.

    2): 99-02 works well. CL and national team greatness.

    3): Solid here in 01 and 02.

    4): I think he qualifies here.

    5): My main issue is the longevity and more specifically his limited time as a starter in the national team. He is only the starter from 99-04, one world cup cycle. This is short especially for a keeper. The players he is pushed out by are good but not all timers. Kahn to me is similar to someone like Zenga, great for a shorter run, but is a level below some of the top keepers he is often placed with. All time great, but not pantheon.


    Vieira (One major issue, out)

    1): 97 to 06 is a solid 10

    2): 00-06 works.

    3): A little short here. Two votes in 02 and two votes in 06. 15th and 14th place.

    4): I think he qualifies here. Maybe a little short in the CL.

    5): The career is solid outside of the of the peak.


    Raul (One major issue, out)

    1): Solid here 96-04 plus 08 and 09.

    2): 99-03 works.

    3): 01 qualifies.

    4): I do not think he has the national team career of a pantheon player. Lots of opportunities but no great performances. Lost his chance in 02 when he started well. Similar flaw to what keeps Daglish out in my eyes.

    5): Only real flaw covered above.


    Rivaldo (One major issue, out)

    1): He barely makes 7, no real path to 10 strong seasons.

    2): 98-02 works.

    3): 99 qualifies

    4): Dominant at all levels, just not for long enough.

    5): Disappears to the wilderness far to early after things do not work out at Milan.


    Ronaldo (One major issue, out, open to more information)

    1): 95, 97, 98, 03, 04, 05 are a solid six. I can justify including 99 and 02 because the abbreviated seasons are paired with strong international performances. That makes 8 seasons. It will be very hard to make two more seasons. I am not sure 06 qualifies. 96 maybe but it is very abbreviated. 94?
    I just do not see a way to 10 strong seasons. I am open to more information here.

    2): 95-99 makes 4 of 5 seasons. 02-05 also probably works.

    3): yes.

    4): I think so. Some cite the lack of CL dominance but he has moments there and other good performances in Europe so this is not a bg issue for me.

    5): No others than noted.


    Keane (I am on the fence, no obvious reasons to exclude, might add him.)

    1): No issues here, probably 12 seasons.

    2): I think 99-01 definitely works, then add 02 to make 4 I think is fair.

    3): I think this might be okay. In 99 he is 6th Balon d'Or, 12 votes including one first place for a non attacking player. Also achieved this while missing the CL final makes it more impressive.

    4): I think so. Not super dominant with the national team but he is part of a very successful time for Ireland qualifying for 3 WCs. He was especially great in 01, if he had not sat out in 02 he might be an obviously pantheon player as that team had potential and he was playing great with them. As weird as 02 was they could have made the final if he was there I believe.

    5): No others than noted.


    Pirlo (A few grey areas but no obvious excluding issues, unsure)

    1): 03-08 and 12-14 make a solid 9 seasons. I am not sure where to get one more. I think 09-11 are somewhat lost seasons, but maybe 2010 is enough? Maybe 2000?

    2): 03 to 07 works.

    3): In the grey area with borderline finishes in 06 and 07. Probably good enough.

    4): Yes

    5): No others than noted.


    Shevchenko (A few flaws, probably still out)

    1): 98 to 06 gives him only 9 seasons, and giving 03 might be generous. Do not see another season.

    2): 98-01 works

    3): yes

    4): National team career not good enough for a pantheon player.

    5): No others than noted.


    Puyol (Two issues, out)

    1): 02-10 gives him solid 9 seasons, not sure which season would make 10.

    2): 05-10 works

    3): No, best finishes are 11th in 2010 and 17th in 2006. A little bit short.

    4): Yes

    5): No others than noted.


    Ronaldinho (One issue, still out)

    1): 02-07 is a solid six (although I am not sure about 03). Maybe add 99 and 2010 to get to 8. Maybe add 2013 to get to 9. I am not sure about 10, and to get to nine I feel like I am already pushing it.

    2): 02-06 works for 4 of 5.

    3): Yes

    4): Yes

    5): No others than noted.


    Henry (One issue that is a bit of a grey area, unsure)

    1): 98, 00-06, and 08-09 makes a solid ten seasons. Maybe 97 as well?

    2): 02-06 works.

    3): Yes

    4): National team career is a little iffy. More below

    5) Career must be free of all other major flaws: In the big picture his national team career is okay. Good at Euro 2000, tons of caps and goals scored. But he fails to deliver any big performances during his prime when he should be the best player in the world. He is so passive in 02, 04, 06, and 08. He never tries to take over the game. You watch those tournaments and you would not think he is one of the few greatest players ever. Especially with the support and great players around him and multiple chances to make an impact it is disappointing.


    Seedorf (Two significant flaws, out)

    1) Longevity: Yes, significantly more than 10.

    2) Dominant Run: 03 to 07 works

    3) Peak level approaches best player in the world: He is short here, as far as I can tell 07 and 97 are his best chances?

    4) Dominant at all levels: National team career is not level of a pantheon player. He is never really locked into his position with total ownership. In and out of the team for big tournaments.

    5) Career must be free of all other major flaws: Only those stated above.


    Terry (One significant flaw, out)

    1) Longevity: 04-12 plus 15 makes 10 seasons.

    2) Dominant Run: 05-10 works

    3) Peak level approaches best player in the world: Closest is tenth place in 05, a little short in my view. Also just do think he was ever thought of in a "best player in the world" type of way.

    4) Dominant at all levels: Yes. Although England under performed I think his individual performances were good enough.

    5) Career must be free of all other major flaws: Only those stated above.


    Ballack (A number of issues, none totally damning but I am unsure of multiple criteria)

    1) Longevity: 01-06 is solid for six seasons. I am not sure bout his time at Chelsea. He always seemed like the odd man out, it seemed like to me in some way the team took a small step back by shoehorning him into lineups. If you counted all four of his Chelsea seasons that would make 10, but I am very unsure about doing this. He does have a good Euro 08 to help out the partial 07/08 season.

    2) Dominant Run: 02-06 works.

    3) Peak level approaches best player in the world: I think 02 is close, 5th place with the third most first place votes. Right on the edge.

    4) Dominant at all levels: Struggled to make an impact in the CL in Bayern.

    5) Career must be free of all other major flaws: Only those stated above.


    Cech (multiple flaws, out)

    1) Longevity: 04-14 minus 07 works.

    2) Dominant Run: This is a little tough, 05 and 06 for sure are dominant. After the injury he seems merely very good, not dominant again.

    3) Peak level approaches best player in the world: No, 14th in 05 is best finish.

    4) Dominant at all levels: Yes, although achievement in the national team is in a relatively short time.

    5) Career must be free of all other major flaws: Only those stated above.


    Carvalho (One major issue, other minor issues, out)

    1) Longevity: 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 11. Maybe a few more work but I do not see a path to ten seasons

    2) Dominant Run: 04-07 works

    3) Peak level approaches best player in the world: 9th in 05 is right on the edge.

    4) Dominant at all levels: Yes

    5) Career must be free of all other major flaws: Only those stated above.


    Gerrard (One major flaw, out)

    1) Longevity: yes, 01 to 10 plus 14.

    2) Dominant Run: 05 to 09 works

    3) Peak level approaches best player in the world: I think 05 qualifies.

    4) Dominant at all levels: National team career is not good enough. He is on a very talented team and while he should be leading it, his inability to fit in holds it back. Fails in 06, 08, 10.

    5) Career must be free of all other major flaws: Only those stated above.
     
    RamyBt, Perú FC, carlito86 and 2 others repped this.
  4. Tom Stevens

    Tom Stevens Member+

    Dec 12, 2012
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    The 88 generation has all their talent collect in a few players. The golden generation has more ATG, but the 88 groups has 3, nearly 4, pantheon players. The golden generation has none.
     
  5. Qindarka

    Qindarka Member

    Nov 24, 2006
    Malaysia
    I'm guessing Lampard misses out for the same reason as Gerrard, the lack of international performances. Or do you consider him to have other drawbacks?
     
  6. PDG1978

    PDG1978 Member+

    Mar 8, 2009
    Club:
    Nottingham Forest FC
    Not to try to really push for him as a pantheon player as I know it might not be a clear cut case and like I've said this is Tom's project not mine, but I would say that Cafu is widely accepted to have been the best or one of the best in his position (even at the time). For Ballon d'Or not a lot of right backs tended to get votes at all of course, and for ESM it was often the case that 3 man defences were being picked and suchlike too (not resembling a real time with a right back necessarily - increasingly stacked towards forward players I suppose actually).
     
  7. PDG1978

    PDG1978 Member+

    Mar 8, 2009
    Club:
    Nottingham Forest FC
    Since Tom has him failing criteria 3 rather than 2 maybe it's a moot point anyway though!

    I do think Roberto Carlos probably caught the eye of more voters with certain attacking moments, and was at one time a famous name plus ended up playing for a high profile team. So maybe it was always more likely he'd tally up more votes?
     
  8. PDG1978

    PDG1978 Member+

    Mar 8, 2009
    Club:
    Nottingham Forest FC
    There is a lot to read there overall anyway! I might need to come back to it even, but am just picking out a few points where I can be helpful (or unhelpful if it muddies the waters at all lol?). I've given it a rep for all the work and thought put into it anyway.

    I've not been meaning to pick on Stoichkov so much really (other players like Chapuisat I perhaps questioned to a lesser extent but it's always in essence to state the case of other players in relation to these players, not to trash them in itself). For example, personally I'd feel Klinsmann was as good a player or better at peak compared to Stoichkov too (but it's personal view based on assessment of the attributes etc). I do understand why Tom prefers to step back and let the awards make the decisions a bit more, assuming it reflects consensus (although at times things can be determined on small details of course, and team success/luck etc) though. And in terms of those two it could be Klinsmann's peak/s was/were a bit more short lived even, although his longevity in terms of performances at a late age was superior. Stoichkov was better in 96/97 than in 95/96 I tend to think, but was somewhat peripheral still I think (playing a bit more of a supportive role down the left mainly? - getting a few assists I believe though) and for example was removed during the Copa Del Rey final (or introduced as sub - I forget now).

    For M.Laudrup in 88/89, Vegan's ratings thread can be useful because I remember he was finally rated in and around Maradona (although it wasn't Maradona's best season) and among the best trequartista type players I think that season. He did miss a few games here and there though I think didn't he?
     
    Tom Stevens repped this.
  9. Tom Stevens

    Tom Stevens Member+

    Dec 12, 2012
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    when you look at his career as a whole it has the same strengths and weaknesses as Gerard.
     
  10. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    #260 PuckVanHeel, Jun 1, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2020
    I really don't think this is quite right, even though I see the idea those four stick out and stand clearly above the rest. You don't win European Cups or multiple UEFA Cups as (clear) starting player for nothing (with the three foreigner rule in place, in case of e.g. Winter).

    Leaving euro88 aside, I think for 1995 to 2005 (or thereabouts) it's easy to see we had a few of the more successful Champions League players (starters) and a few of the more successful goalscorers as well. Maybe it didn't always reflect in the awards (Ballon d'Or less so than ESM) but still. In ESM it is better reflected, relative to their own position.

    Your above overview looks pretty fine and solid for the most part. There are some minor things but nothing too outrageous and bizarre. The one I disagree the strongest with is that Petr Cech has "multiple flaws". I don't think this really holds at closer scrutiny. If you like I can explain this.

    Maybe Ariaga can feel it's not always applied even handed (that's hard to do), the explanation and description for almost all the cases looks on point.

    You've been above (with merit) critical on the high Klinsmann finish in '95 but I guess there are some more out there. Would like to see an answer for my Totti question.
     
  11. PDG1978

    PDG1978 Member+

    Mar 8, 2009
    Club:
    Nottingham Forest FC
    I think Cech was probably affected by the injury he sustained in that collision, for a while after he came back, both from a practical and psychological viewpoint maybe (understandably). He was a big part of the CL win in 2012 though wasn't he, and in great form again around that time I think?

    Maybe it's hard for any goalies to actually be the best performers in the world, and/or be rewarded as such in awards. But I guess it makes sense to limit the number deemed to be pantheon players (not that I have checked how many Tom has included), and require a status beyond that which goalies normally get.
     
  12. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    #262 PuckVanHeel, Jun 1, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2020
    To start with your second paragraph: yes it's true his Ballon d'Or positions aren't great. But - for example - in ESM selections he is very good and not miles away from the top. He has been in the ESM team of the year twice, the same as Buffon. Casillas, for a club likelier to get selected, has only two monthly selections more, Neuer one more.

    Yes, he was in great form around that time. His save percentage in the 2012-13 season was the highest of all goalkeepers in top five leagues (77%). For a Chelsea team that was likely past their best. His performance in the 2012 Final should count for something, but more important, I just don't think the "multiple flaws" is right. Even for his national team he has a great clean sheets and goals conceded ratio.

    I think he's one of the best of the last three decades, and has also not the longevity problem of Casillas, Kahn, even Schmeichel although his last two-and-a-half years were below standard. In 2016-17 he was still comfortably below his expected goals record (13 conceded, 17 expected in matches vs the top six).
     
    PDG1978 repped this.
  13. PDG1978

    PDG1978 Member+

    Mar 8, 2009
    Club:
    Nottingham Forest FC
    Just in one quick post (because I don't want to unnecessarily divert Tom's thread) I can mention his interview on Radio Five Live recently that you might find interesting, in terms of who his goalkeeping idols were (he said he had no heroes as such but used to study various goalkeepers who he could learn from): he mentioned Schmeichel, Kahn, young Buffon at Parma, and Van der Sar in his Ajax days with particular mention of his footballing qualities I think (although I could be getting mixed up with a post of yours on here recently - I'm not sure to what extent Cech talked about that now but I think he mentioned it and do feel sure he did mention Van der Sar anyway). I think he mentioned Casillas too actually, similarly to Buffon making an impact as a youngster in high level games, which gave Cech belief about doing the same thing as a relative youngster himself.
     
  14. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    I do not quite agree on Shevchenko either.

    I think if you look before the 1998 year, his record against various strong teams looks good. He's scoring there against Bayern, Newcastle, PSV and Barcelona in competitive matches. Although he became a steady scorer later on, with the team set up that way, it's noticeable he had that match winning ability from an early age (relative to matches played). This is also true for domestic matches, although Dynamo Kiev had a virtual monopoly there.

    His awards are maybe sometimes a bit too 'automatic', with 2003 as the most glaring example where he gets awards by default without performing (quite clearly, not even in 'big matches'). But he is of course not the only player where that's the case.

    With regards to national team career, I remember a memorable match at euro 2012 when he was way past his prime. And during his prime years he has nevertheless his competitive goals against peak Croatia (1997), Germany, Spain, Italy and England (2007). It's a solid/good record in competitive games, qualification games.

    He only qualified twice for a tournament (2006, 2012 as host). He might have done better, but at the same time, which other Ukrainian player managed to play for title contending teams in big leagues? He's pretty much the only one?
     
  15. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    Yes, I listened to it now and your memory is completely right!
     
    PDG1978 repped this.
  16. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    You've given only four all-time great designations to the 1988 generation. To the English 'Golden Generation' you have given eight. Is this right? I just don't think so.

    This number of eight is even two more than the players who won the 1990 World Cup for Germany for instance.

    The Portuguese 'Golden Generation' has three in; a generation that actually performed at international level and with a few winning CLs and UEFA Cups for different teams (I still think it's a better one as the crop that won euro 2016 after a somewhat easy route).

    Those four for '88 is also lower than the team that won the World Cup in 1986 for Argentina; which of course once again serves to indicate Cruijff and not Maradona is the real underdog figure in history, the real overachiever going against the tides. Maradona, with the corporate media and the masses on his side, and a 'license to cheat' (with political backing higher up, until 1990) in his career.


    For instance, how is it possible that Van Breukelen falls outside this all-time great bracket while Campbell is in (two ESM team of the month selections, once nominated for Ballon d'Or with no votes)? You are evidently just following the calls of some usual suspects here. Van Breukelen actually was universally rated among the best European goalkeepers of his time, at least in Europe, for a prolonged period. He has also the high profile moments in high profile matches (penalty saves).

    Here we see the power of the echo chambers, the double handicaps, and the power of controlling the media (and if it doesn't resonate internationally, there is still the domestic stuff to fall back to). In the same way Jordan Henderson, Raheem Sterling gets elevated above various (big game) players of their own team.

    What a miracle then that typically we've good results against England:
    https://www.voetbalstats.nl/listlandnedxi.php?landid=15

    We also see a two-way street here; if a team like England doesn't do well internationally (in friendlies and competitively) then the public, sponsors, shoe sellers and media switch off a bit, with likewise softening narratives on that the league is the highest level of the game, less influenced by luck of the Champions League etcetera. If they then do well, the narrative changes with the money makers on board ("friendlies against rivals are not friendlies"). The relevant players always win.

    So these circles decide which levels and sports are important or not. If they're switched off, it is not part of the pinnacle of the sport, it is not the highest level or not relevant. Hence, FIFA, UEFA but also the European Commission (which explicitly said the media and sponsors don't want to see a Czech vs Greece final) have a vested interest to play a bit with the seeding.


    Should this be spelled out? For example Nistelrooij, Makaay, Kluivert were all among the most succesful CL scorers (players with 25+ CL goals are not too common anyway). All those also did it in the second group stage and knock-out stages, unlike e.g. Rivaldo.
    Similarly, the likes of VdS and Seedorf were among the most successful CL players with likewise ESM selections in their position (#2 behind Buffon; #2 behind Xavi as central midfielder respectively, ahead of great(er) player as Modric, Pirlo, Keane etc.).
     
  17. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    Here a video:



    I don't exactly know whether he should be #1 or #5 (I had Buffon #1, VdS #2, Neuer #3 since 1994) but he's somewhere there.
     
    Tom Stevens repped this.
  18. Tom Stevens

    Tom Stevens Member+

    Dec 12, 2012
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    As to the Cafu case, I think the case with defenders for the pantheon, which is usually dependent on them having a high enough peak, in my view correlates closely with the idea of them transcending position. Cafu was seen as the best right back in the world. Scirea was seen as among the best defenders in the world. Neither graduated beyond that. They are all time great players, but for me not pantheon players. Their contemporaries Baresi and RC bot got to a point where a large group of people not only decided they were the best defenders in the world, but were seriously considering them among the best players in the world period. I think that the top 3 Ballon d'Or voting reflects this idea. This also happened with players like Facchetti and Figeuroa etc.
     
    PDG1978 repped this.
  19. PDG1978

    PDG1978 Member+

    Mar 8, 2009
    Club:
    Nottingham Forest FC
    Yeah, I can see your logic and how you've done things there. I suppose on that basis there would need to be some sort of 'fair play' element introduced to the calculations for pantheon to reverse either of those comparisons lol (and as much as I approve of fair play, I don't say there should be and anyway there is not in the criteria you already set).

    I guess Baresi would be rated over Scirea by a majority yeah, although at certain moments maybe not (not by the Italian coach in 1982 of course, but that's not when Baresi achieved the Ballon d'Or votes obviously).

    That holds up in things like this (the World Soccer panel's 'Greatest XI' voting) too, but the Cafu/R.Carlos one not, though firstly I suppose Maldini is more of a shoe-in at left back nowadays in such votes than any right back would be, and secondly it wouldn't be obvious what part peak level played in the decisions to pick a player. Maybe this particular kind of exercise favours Cafu therefore, in contrast to the Ballon d'Or voting and suchlike when maybe he'd have needed to show up with more spectacular goals, or just more goals in general, for example:
    https://www.worldsoccer.com/features/the-greatest-xi-how-the-panel-voted-341427
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Soccer_(magazine)#Greatest_XI_of_All_Time
     
  20. Tom Stevens

    Tom Stevens Member+

    Dec 12, 2012
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    ATG Criteria

    1) Was the player a 'difference maker" or "game winner"?

    The is a designation that is relatively subjective, and most players I analyzed passed this criteria, as most players with lots of achievement and reputation were difference makers. I included this criteria to weed out a group of players that have great longevity and lots of achievements, but were not the primary reason why their teams were excelling. These players are often very competent/good at what they do, and have done it for a long time, but other teams managers are not staying up the night before a game figuring out how to deal with them. Some examples of players I analyzed who passed the other two criteria but failed this one, players similar to those I described above are Jaroslav Burgr, Armand Penverne, Mario Zagallo, Sandor Matari, Wolfgang Weber, Terry Butcher, Roberto Donadoni, and Manuel Sanchis. All of these players were very good at their job on the pitch, had great longevity, and were on great teams that achieved great things , but in my opinion were not the reason or engine of the teams success. You may disagree with some of the examples above (and I hope to hear all of those disagreements in later posts showing my results as a way to help fine tune the list) but I hope they help illustrate what I am trying to get at.

    2) Did the player sustain greatness?

    I also kept this category relatively general but I looked at it in two ways. First a player needed at least 7-8 season of play with significant positive contribution. Second the player needed to have roughly three great seasons. This category is trying to weed out players who did not play for very long at a high level or players who had one or two great season then fell back to a lower level. Examples of players who passed the other two criteria but failed this one are Alex Jackson, Raich Carter, Oleh Kuznetsov, and Jari Litmanen.

    3) Did the player a a complete career and high cumulative achievement?

    This first part of this is two eliminate players who only excelled in one area, for example only were great domestically but not internationally, or players who only excelled for the national team but not the club team. The real key here is players need to have been great at an international level, that can be with a club team or national team. So a player like Jimmy Johnstone who does not necessarily have an all time great players national team career compensated by having an exceptional career in the European Cup. He proved himself repeatedly on a broader stage. Players who passed other criteria but failed this one are Jimmy McGrory, Orvar Bergmark, Waldo, Ademir da Guia, and Miroslav Klose.


    Totti's Case

    1) I think this is clear, he was the catalyst for the success his teams had. Multiple time domestic player of the year. Top 5 Ballon d'Or finish in 2001

    2) I also think this is clear. He was player of great longevity.

    3) I think this is the crux of his candidacy. I think he has obviously proved himself at the domestic level. I also think it is worth mentioning that the Italian league at this point in time has a large collection of international players. Do a degree the big European league at this point in time are an international proving ground. But despite that I think players still need to prove themselves in what is traditionally the international level, with either the club or national team.

    Totti's record in the CL/Europe. Early in his career he plays quite a few UEFA Cup games, never making it past the QF and I do not see any real wins of consequence. He assists the only goals in ties vs Leeds in 98 and Newcastle in 99, but again these cup runs go no where, and when the defense does not allow a single goal over two legs it seems most of the credit should go to the defense.

    Most importantly to the CL. He plays in eight competitions where he is present most of the competition (01/02, 02/03, 04/05, 06/07, 07/08, 08/09, 10/11, and 14/15).

    I think the 01/02 run has some merit despite not making it out of the second group stage. He scores in both legs vs Real Madrid in the first group stage. In the second group stage they have a very difficult group shared with Liverpool and Barcelona. They finish even on points with Barcelona but fail to advance. Totti has an assist in a 3-0 win vs Barcelona. Overall a respectable run that counts for something but obviously not ground breaking.

    02/03 similar story, fail to make it from the second group stage. First group he assists the only goal in a 1-0 win at Real Madrid to advance to the second group. In the second group They finish last in a group that contains Valencia, Ajax, and Arsenal which is obviously disappointing. On an individual level Totti has one strong game at Valencia with 2 goals and 1 assist.

    In 04/05 Roma bomb out of the first group failing to win a single game.

    In 06/07 they make the QF. He scores three times in the group stage. In the round of 16 they defeat a good Lyon team, Totti scores and assists the only two goals of the tie in a 2-0 win in France. This is one of his better moments. They get famously crushed by Man U in the QF.

    07/08 they make it out of the group stage. In the last 16 they beat Real Madrid, one of Roma's more famous victories. Totti misses the QF where they lose to Man U again. Theoretically there was potential for a better run here.

    08/09 lose to Arsenal in last 16. Nothing of major importance in the group.

    10/11 they lose to Shakhtar in the last 16 in very disappointing fashion.

    14/15 they do not make it out of the group.

    On the whole this is clearly below the level of an all time great player. A few good performances in the round of 16 is all you have to show for this many opportunities is not enough.

    This will come down to the international careers merit. Other players like Johnstone or Del Piero have made the ATG list with weak national team careers but great with the club at the international level, this can go the other way where a player is weak for the club internationally but is strong enough with the national team that he has proved himself at a broader level than domestic.

    I think one impressive thing about his national team career is he never allows Del Peiro back into the team in a meaningful way, this to me indicates some level of performance. He has a strong tournament at Euro 2000.

    He was poor at the 2002 WC.

    He gets himself banned at Euro 2004.

    In 2006 WC he is hurt but I think has an important performance still. This performance is probably overrated and underrated to a degree. I don't think he deserved to make the WC all star team, but I have heard a number of people say he should not have even played with the injury and held the team back. I think his performance contributed to winning the WC but in an obvious supporting role, far less important than Cannavaro, Pirlo, or Buffon. Retiring at this point also hurts him to a degree, as there seems like he had enough good form to possibly make more of an impact. This also makes his lack of CL success more disappointing as this is his main focus from this point on.

    I think it is a good national team career, but not a great one. Probably not enough to make up for a lackluster CL career. He probably should be reconsidered.
     
    PuckVanHeel repped this.
  21. Tom Stevens

    Tom Stevens Member+

    Dec 12, 2012
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    I would ask you what are Cafu's signature moments, games, or tournaments? I think the lack of these lead to his perception in Ballon d'Or voting. And it is not just that he is receiving less votes the RC. He basically is receiving no votes. It is like he is not even considered in that frame of thinking, who is the best player in the world?.

    He is an all time great player, who was a fixture for a number of very good teams, especially Brazil. He made a positive impact in many games. But what important games did he personally swing? Even compared to a player like Amoros, does he have a moment like Amoros vs Brazil in 86 where every one watch says, wow he is completely dominating his entire side of the pitch in a very highly leveraged game?
     
  22. PDG1978

    PDG1978 Member+

    Mar 8, 2009
    Club:
    Nottingham Forest FC
    I'd have to think about that one, but don't get me wrong I'm not arguing with you about not putting Cafu in. My last post was just a reply of acknowledgment and a summary of some thoughts/perspectives.
     
    Tom Stevens repped this.
  23. Tom Stevens

    Tom Stevens Member+

    Dec 12, 2012
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    I found the WS voting for full back very interesting, not sure what to make of it but there is a lot there I would not have expected. Seems to be some recency bias for sure. Other things like Carlos Alberto ahead of N. Santos and D. Santos I never really understand. Also is you are going to have Krol as a FB that is way too low in my eyes.

    I would just think it is interesting to know more about Cafu's biggest games/moments if there is such information readily available.
     
  24. Tom Stevens

    Tom Stevens Member+

    Dec 12, 2012
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    I'm reading back through your posts and looking at the 88 group again and I think Van Breukelen is the one that I probably sold short. He seems to fit the criteria.
     
  25. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    #275 PuckVanHeel, Jun 2, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2020
    Thanks, for the most part I think it's correct and was wondering how it stacks up by your own criteria. I think this answers that.

    One remark on this part though: one of these two goals against Real Madrid was a penalty, and although he was part of the build-up, it wasn't won by himself. 86 of his ~310 career goals are penalties (similar remarks can be made about Baggio, Zico and Maradona although I think they won it a bit more often by themselves).

    In general I can find myself in your overview but these penalties are a tricky thing you overlook I guess.


    Yes and no. Del Piero had between 2000 and 2006 a few good spells for his club (2002-03 in particular) but not long enough to make a steady claim. He was a starter at euro 2004. It was as much down to Del Piero his on and off form (2005-2006 he got benched for his club, despite being the emblem) as Totti his displays.

    In the end it should be noted Del Piero has three times as many goals as Totti for the Azurri, and both have only three goals each at the major tournaments (Belgium, Romania, plus a penalty against Australia for Totti; Sweden, Mexico and Germany for Del Piero). It's almost like it was right Del Piero played for the bigger club and their productivity for the Azzurri match up to it.


    He had a strong final, but it's not so certain the other games were strong. The statistics and ratings are not positive for him until the final. At hindsight it received an upgrade, maybe that's correct.


    I think he was okay until the quarter final against Ukraine, although very prematurely taken off against Ghana and USA (and was very late sub against Australia, where he he kicks in the penalty won by Grosso). He was one of the worst players on the pitch against Germany and France - by far the two best opponents they played - but obviously far from fit. It's a tournament I think you cannot use for or against him; it's not a negative thing either.


    Yes, and when he was top 5 in the Ballon d'Or for instance he had only 13 goals (4 penalties) and 6 assists for the club level in the league (3 goals, with 1 penalty, and 0 assists in the five Coppa Italia and UEFA Cup matches). In a more or less free role. So once again, awards are occasionally a bit flawed.

    I (almost) always felt Totti was a very good player, at times great in his own league against strong teams, but Del Piero a step ahead (of course for a much more powerful club but he had for example a fine goal in the 1997 CL final against Dortmund in Munich, and the WC2006 semi final - thus not always necessarily within his comfort zone).

    He also played a bit too long:
    https://www.calciomercato.com/en/news/was-spalletti-right-to-drop-francesco-totti-127202



    edit: explained more about this here:

    https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/f...he-last-25-years.2103831/page-9#post-38041049

    https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/f...he-last-25-years.2103831/page-9#post-38041259
     

Share This Page