Ballon d'Or awards revisited by BigSoccer users

The XI below is from my own list. I first thought of putting a 4-3-3-, with a very clear defense, but seeing that there was an abundance of strikers in the first positions, I decided to use a 4-2-4. It pained me to have to give up Dzajic, but the rest were ahead of me in the standings and Riva was very good in the left winger position.

El XI que pongo a continuación procede de mi propia lista. Pensé primeramente en poner un 4-3-3-, con una defensa clarísima, pero al ver que abudaban los delanteros en los primeros puestos, he decidido emplear un 4-2-4. Me ha dolido tener que renunciar a Dzajic, pero el resto estaba por delante en la clasificación y Riva se manejada muy bien en la posición de extremo izquierdo.

XI IDEAL

Banks; Gemmell, Shesternev, Moore, Facchetti; Beckenbauer, Rivera; Best, Tostao, Pelé, Riva

 

Nice thread! I have a lot of respect for the contributors! An idea to take this discussion to the next level might be to give the players a grade from say 0 to 100. Some years such as '54 and '58 are more competitive than say '55. Then an average or a sum of the given grades could also give an insight on the level achieved throughout ones career. Finally, it would then be possible to have a more scientific and objective way to rank the greatest players of all time.

Right now if we assume all Ballon d'Ors have the same weight, some players, such as CR7, are either the second or the third best player of all time. And although, I am a Madrid fan I believe this cannot objectively be the case.

 

I had also put (for me) some annual coefficients that tried, as you propose, to differentiate the most competitive years or higher level or also assuming that as soccer progressed, the players also advanced. In short, I dedicated myself to complicate my life with very complicated formulas without the results leaving me satisfied, which is why I have decided to give the same score from 1 to 100, in any year. I am only studying the possibility of applying coefficients for each period as a serious possibility. It is something very difficult, because to establish which season was better than another is quite complicated. Although I am missing more than 50 seasons, I can anticipate the most basic final results and, as you say, Cristiano Ronaldo will almost certainly be on the podium. I, unlike you, prefer Barcelona, but I have to admit that Cristiano Ronaldo's performance and all his awards surpass that of the vast majority, if not all his predecessors. His goals, Ballon d'Ors, etc. are objective facts that are there and, although the play of Maradona, Cruyff or Pele may be more attractive to us, their achievements, in themselves important, are less than those of the Portuguese.

P.S. This is just my opinion. I do not intend to enter into any discussion in this regard, as it is a waste of time that goes nowhere.

Yo también había puesto (para mí) unos coeficientes anuales que trataba, como propones, diferenciar los años más competitivos o de mayor nivel o también suponiendo que a medida que el fútbol avanzaba, los jugadores también avanzaban. Total, que me dediqué a complicarme la vida con fórmulas muy complicadas sin que los resultados me dejaran satisfecho, razón por la cual he decidido dar la misma puntuación del 1 al 100, en cualquier año. Únicamente estoy estudiando como seria posibilidad, la de aplicar unos coeficientes por época. Es algo muy difícil, pues establecer qué temporada fue mejor que otra es bastante complicado. Aunque me faltan más de 50 temporadas, puedo adelantarme en lo más básico los resultados finales y, como bien dices, Cristiano Ronaldo va a estar en el pódium con casi total seguridad. Yo, a diferencia de ti, prefiero el Barcelona, pero he de reconocer que el rendimiento de Cristiano Ronaldo y todos sus galardones superan al de la inmensa mayoría, si no a todos sus predecesores. Sus goles, sus Balones de Oro, etc. son hechos objetivos que están ahí y, aunque el juego de Maradona, Cruyff o Pelé puede resultarnos más atractivos, sus logros, de por sí importantes, son menores que los del portugués.

P.D. Es solo mi opinión. No pienso entrar en discusión alguna en este aspecto, pues es una pérdida de tiempo que no llega a ningún sitio.

 

First, I would like to stress that when I was expressing my respect to the contributors, you are one of the people I had in mind. So again, respect for your work, and keep it up man!

If you mean by competitive years as in the opposition faced. I have seen this before, for example for Maradona during his year with Napoli where he had serious competition and he played with a lesser team than the opposition. If that is what you mean, I believe it is relevant but I would assess that that is also extremely hard to establish.

What I meant was more in the direction of giving the top players of a certain year a rating for that year or season. So like I said, I think that this would mean that for example years such as '58 or '62 the top three would have a higher average rating than say '67. I personally believe that whoever is ranked second in '58 and second in '62 would have a higher rating than the winner of '67. Further, to make give a more recent example I believe Messi 2012 would have a higher rating than say Messi 2019.

As a result I believe it would be possible to establish a less biased assessment of the rankings of the greatest players of all time.

As for taking into consideration the period of time. I long thought the same, but I do not believe it would be fair to the older generation. I think comparing players on the same level-playing field would be more fair to make a statement of how great a player was. Because nowadays we have we better knowledge of training techniques, nutrition etc. I think this leads to a bias of more modern players.

As for C Ronaldo, I appreciate it when someone tries to be as objective as possible! I guess the difference in opinion lies in the way we rate players, which as you said will probably not lead to a fruitful discussion.

 

Before I continue with standings for the votes received thus far for the 1960s (which I'll start tomorrow), I'll again confirm what my own votes (considering the 18 months but with more emphasis towards calendar year as with the 1950s) will be registered as:

(1959/)1960 - Ferenc Puskas, Pele, Luis Suarez Miramontes, Alfredo Di Stefano, Lev Yashin

(1960)/1961 - Pele, Luis Suarez Miramontes, Omar Sivori, Garrincha, Lev Yashin

(1961)/1962 - Pele, Garrincha, Josef Masopust, Gianni Rivera, Eusebio

(1962)/1963 - Pele, Gianni Rivera, Jimmy Greaves, Denis Law, Lev Yashin

(1963)/1964 - Pele, Denis Law, Jimmy Greaves, Luis Suarez Miramontes, Mario Corso

(1964)/1965 - Pele, Eusebio, Bobby Charlton, Giacinto Facchetti, Denis Law

(1965)/1966 - Eusebio, Bobby Charlton, Franz Beckenbauer, Pele, Florian Albert

(1966)/1967 - Bobby Charlton, Florian Albert, George Best, Johan Cruyff, Jimmy Johnstone

(1967)/1968 - George Best, Dragan Dzajic, Bobby Charlton, Gianni Rivera, Pele

(1968/)1969 - George Best, Gianni Rivera, Johan Cruyff, Pele, Tostao

 

Yes, I understand what you mean. In my computer I still have (I think... I hope so...), the attempts I made regarding what you suggest, in such a way that the subtotal, once a weighted sum of merits was applied, was multiplied by a correction coefficient, which was sometimes less than the unit and sometimes greater. How did I apply this corrector? According to the supposed "quality" - "level" - "performance" of the 10, 23 and 50 best in said subtotal in their historical career. And how did I interpret that throughout history some had more "quality", etc., etc., than others? Through the magnificent works that many of the colleagues of this forum did ranking the players by positions on the field. After a long time working in this way and looking carefully and as objectively as possible, I realized that the results of the coefficients I wanted to use to provide greater justice to the final product did not correspond to what I had imagined, so I changed strategy and compensatory formula, even changed the weightings by category. Now I am much more satisfied and, although this is just an entertainment, and there is no absolute truth, at this moment I think I am more satisfied and if you allow me, even less far from the judgment I had at each moment of each player at an individual level. However, I would be delighted if you would make your own order of the level of each season and the score corresponding to each position according to that level. Thank you very much for everything and best regards.

Sí, entiendo lo que quieres decir. En mi ordenador tengo aún (creo... espero que así sea...), los intentos que hice al respecto de lo que tú sugieres, de tal forma que el subtotal una vez aplicada una suma ponderada de méritos, era multiplicado por un coeficiente corrector, que a veces era menor que la unidad y otras mayor. ¿Cómo aplicaba dicho corrector? En función de la supuesta "calidad" - "nivel" - "rendimiento" de los 10, 23 y 50 mejores en dicho subtotal en su carrera histórica. ¿Y cómo interpreté que a lo largo de la historia unos tenían más "calidad", etc, etc, que otros? A través de los magníficos trabajos que muchos de los compañeros de este foro hicieron rankeando a los jugadores por posiciones en el campo. Tras mucho tiempo trabajando de esta forma y mirando con detenimiento y con la mayor objetividad posible, me di cuenta de que los resultados de los coeficientes que quería usar para ofrecer una mayor justicia al producto final no se correspondían a lo que yo hubiera imaginado, por lo que cambié de estrategia y de fórmula compensatoria, incluso cambié las ponderaciones por categoría. Ahora estoy mucho más satisfecho y, aunque esto solo es un entretenimiento, y no existe ninguna verdad absoluta, en este momento creo estar más satisfecho y si me permites, incluso menos lejos del juicio que se tenía en cada momento de cada jugador a nivel individual. No obstante, me encantaría si hicieras tu propio orden del nivel de cada temporada y la puntuación correspondiente a cada puesto en función a dicho nivel. Muchas gracias por todo y un saludo.

 

Hi mate - I realise you wrote down Muller's name twice for 1969, so do you want to confirm a 5th player to enter your vote (and perhaps clarify if Muller should be above or below Tostao too)?

Thanks.

I will be a few days before revealing the 1969 standings anyway I think.

 

1960 Ballon d'Or Revisited Big Soccer panel consensus

1 Ferenc Puskas (Hungary/Real Madrid) - 56
2 Luis Suarez Miramontes (Spain/Barcelona) - 46
3 Pele (Brazil/Santos) - 35
4 Lev Yashin (Soviet Union/Dynamo Moscow) - 15
5 Uwe Seeler (W.Germany/Hamburg) - 14
6 Alfredo Di Stefano (Spain*/Real Madrid) - 13
7 Omar Sivori (Argentina/Juventus) - 3
8 Garrincha (Brazil/Botafogo) - 1

* Di Stefano originally played for Argentina, and also played for Colombia.

Three votes have no 4th or 5th places awarded.

Puskas, in Golden Ball position currently, has taken half of the 1st place votes, and the remaining ones have been split, three each, between Suarez sitting in Silver Ball position, and Pele in Bronze Ball position.

 

1961 Ballon d'Or Revisited Big Soccer panel consensus

1 Pele (Brazil/Santos) - 70
2 Omar Sivori (Italy*/Juventus) - 44
3 Garrincha (Brazil/Botafogo) - 29
4 Luis Suarez Miramontes (Spain/Barcelona/Inter Milan) - 17
5 Johnny Haynes (England/Fulham) - 5
6 Alberto Spencer (Ecuador/Penarol) - 4
7 Danny Blanchflower (Northern Ireland/Tottenham Hotspur), Lev Yashin (Soviet Union/Dynamo Moscow) - 3
9 Ferenc Puskas (Spain**/Real Madrid) - 2
10 Alfredo Di Stefano (Spain***/Real Madrid), Uwe Seeler (W.Germany/Hamburg) - 1

* Sivori previously played for Argentina.

** Puskas previously played for Hungary.

*** Di Stefano originally played for Argentina, and also played for Colombia.

Four votes have no 4th or 5th places awarded, and another vote has no 5th place awarded.

Pele has eleven out of twelve 1st place votes, and a clear lead at the moment in the Golden Ball race, with Sivori having the other 1st place vote, and a significant lead in theory for a Silver Ball race on Garrincha, who is in Bronze Ball position.

 

1962 Ballon d'Or Revisited Big Soccer panel consensus

1 Garrincha (Brazil/Botafogo) - 65
2 Pele (Brazil/Santos) - 54
3 Josef Masopust (Czechoslovakia/Dukla Prague) - 33
4 Eusebio (Portugal/Benfica) - 12
5 Alberto Spencer (Ecuador/Penarol) - 4
6 Coutinho (Brazil/Santos), Gianni Rivera (Italy/AC Milan) - 3
8 Didi (Brazil/Botafogo/Sporting Cristal), Zito (Brazil/Santos) - 2
10 Karl-Heinz Schnellinger (W.Germany/Cologne) - 1

Four votes have no 4th or 5th places awarded (and one of those has two players tied for 1st place and allocated 5 points each which would be changed to 4.5 each potentially I suppose if 1st places became worth the original 5 points), and another vote has no 5th place awarded.

Garrincha has eight of the 1st place votes and is in a tied 1st place with Pele, who has the remaining three, also, and currently has the Golden Ball to Pele's Silver Ball based on votes in so far, while Masopust has more than half of the points those two haven't taken, in his Bronze Ball position.

 

Can you trust the veracity of a list that has ADS anywhere near Pele as a dominant historical player?

Pele was 19 years old in 1959
ADS at the top of his game since at least 1955(maybe even earlier)

How can a 19 year old challenge if not surpass the supposed most dominant player of the 1950s decade


The 1960s never even had the equivalents of peak puskas and di stefano
Pele at 19 years old was challenging ADS when ADS was literally better then any version of any 1960s player outside of Pele himself
So how can Pele not completely dominate his demonstrably inferior 1960s competitors?
Is the argument now that Pele peaked at 19 years old and declined thereafter
That would be completely ridiculous


Eusebio was arguably the best performer in the world during some years(1965,1966 and arguably also 1967/68 just look at the superhuman GPG that season if you have any doubts)
But he would never win the BD during most of those years due to the lack of exposure of his league,the EC finals he lost and Portugals terrible record in qualifying for major tournaments outside of 66


So that literally leaves Pele
A flash in the pan Garrincha can maybe challenge him in one single year
The key word here being maybe depending on how much worth you attach to a 7 game tournament
Its not even like Garrincha was clearly better in every single one of those 7 games either(refer to Pele vs Mexico before he got injured)



I have my suspicions about puskas and his complete destruction/annihilation of la liga
This was puskas in the early to mid 60s


This was Maradona in the mid 1990s playing in a supposed much lower standard of competition



Why didn't the football IQ and technical ability of diego Maradona compensate for his sub par athleticism during the mid 1990s in the same way it did for Puskas in the mid 1960s?

Was puskas that much better technically then Diego Maradona?

The ones like florian albert,Luis Suarez,Bobby charlton and George best of the 1960s are like Robben,Xavi,iniesta and Luis alberto Suarez of the 2010s

They could neither objectively challenge Messi 2009-2012

Nor could they challenge Messi 2014-2019


Those players respectfully cannot even sit at the same table as Pele(nor Messi for that matter)
Not over a 12 month period let alone a 18 month period

This has become a den of historical revisionism

 

1963 Ballon d'Or Revisited Big Soccer panel consensus

1 Pele (Brazil/Santos) - 72
2 Gianni Rivera (Italy/AC Milan) - 42
3 Jimmy Greaves (England/Tottenham Hotspur) - 26
4 Lev Yashin (Soviet Union/Dynamo Moscow) - 21
5 Eusebio (Portugal/Benfica) - 8
6 Denis Law (Scotland/Manchester United) - 5
7 Garrincha (Brazil/Botafogo) - 4
8 Amarildo (Brazil/Botafogo/AC Milan) - 3
9 Pepe (Brazil/Santos) - 1

Three votes have no 4th or 5th places awarded, and another vote has no 5th place awarded.

Pele becomes the second player, after Di Stefano in 1957, to have all of our twelve 1st place votes for one edition of this revisited Ballon d'Or, and so has a clear grasp on this Golden Ball at the moment. Rivera is in Silver Ball position, with nine of the 2nd place votes, while Greaves is the recipient of half of the 3rd place votes so far, which helps him into Bronze Ball position.

 

1964 Ballon d'Or Revisited Big Soccer panel consensus

1 Pele (Brazil/Santos) - 58
2 Luis Suarez Miramontes (Spain/Inter Milan) - 53
3 Denis Law (Scotland/Manchester United) - 42
4 Amancio Amaro (Spain/Real Madrid), Eusebio (Portugal/Benfica) - 9.5
6 Jimmy Greaves (England/Tottenham Hotspur), Uwe Seeler (W.Germany/Hamburg) - 3
8 Mario Corso (Italy/Inter Milan), Kurt Hamrin (Sweden/Fiorentina), Antonio Rattin (Argentina/Boca Juniors), Paul van Himst (Belgium/Anderlecht) - 1

Three votes have no 4th or 5th places awarded, and another vote has no 5th place awarded, and a joint 4th/5th place (resulting in a joint 4th/5th place in the overall table too currently).

Pele, in Golden Ball position, has six of the 1st place votes, Suarez in Silver Ball position five of them, and Law in Bronze Ball position has the other one.

 

1965 Ballon d'Or Revisited Big Soccer panel consensus

1 Pele (Brazil/Santos) - 68
2 Eusebio (Portugal/Benfica) - 52
3 Giacinto Facchetti (Italy/Inter Milan) - 27
4 Luis Suarez Miramontes (Spain/Inter Milan) - 21
5 Sandro Mazzola (Italy/Inter Milan) - 5
6 Bobby Charlton (England/Manchester United) - 4
7 Pedro Rocha (Uruguay/Penarol) - 3
8 Denis Law (Scotland/Manchester United) - 2

Three votes have no 4th or 5th places awarded, and another vote has no 5th place awarded.

Facchetti leads the Inter Milan contingent and currently is placed in Bronze Ball position, but is quite far behind the top two: Pele in Golden Ball position, with ten of the 1st place votes and placed 2nd the other two times, and Eusebio vice versa with two of the 1st place votes and placed 2nd the other ten times.

 

Europe XI 1968. Results of a poll by the Hungarian newspaper Nepsport, published on 31.12.1968



13 experts took part in the vote. Here is their list

 

This is the reason why I suggested a grading system. One could make a case of Pele only deserving 3 ballon d'ors '61, '63, '64. While I personally do not believe this is the case, it could be argued. But this does not say anything about Pele's abilities, who is in my opinion the second best player of all time and a very strong argument can be made for Pele being the best player of all time. It is just the case that during Pele's peak some players who in general terms are obviously not as good as Pele were really exceptional during that season.

Pele's performance in 1958 was unprecedented for a 17 year old (most of the season) player and never seen since. However, most experts of that time tend to give either Didi and Kopa the title of the best player of the WC. Besides that, Kopa won the EC I in that year and won the ballon d'or decisively. So a legit case could be made for those two players to be regarded as the player of that year (although I do think that Pele should win this year).

1959 is a similar story. Although Pele was truely great that year, 1959 was one of Di Stefano's best years. Di Stefano was the topscore of La Liga, won the La Liga and he was awarded the ballon d'or with some distance to number 2. Above all, I believe that a decisive factor for many people is that Di Stefano and Pele played that year against eachother and according to the reports Di Stefano was absolutely the better player in that game. So a strong case can be made for Di stefano here.

In 1960 Pele had a lesser year compared to his other years in his peak (1958-1965). And Puskas had a great year actually being top scorer of La Liga, top scorer of the EC, winning the EC, scoring 4 goals in the final, scoring 3 goals in the semi-finals against a very good Barcelona. So this year I believe is in favor Puskas imo. (Btw I do not agree with your statement about Puskas. Like I've read it somewhere in BigSoccer before, Pele's greatest game according to Pele himself was the game against Benfica where he scored a hattrick. Puskas scored in the same year also a hattrick against Benfica in the EC final. And I am pretty convinced that Santos 1962, was a better team than Real Madrid 1962. So, although Pele is obviously the better of the two, Puskas is surely not overrated in my opinion. )

In 1962, I believe during this period (1961-1964) was the absolute peak of Pele. But then Garrincha had one of the best performances ever shown in a WC, which makes him a serioius contender too. Although, personally I believe Pele should be regarded as the best player of this year regardless of his injury.

In 1965 I would give it to Pele as well, but I've seen some people giving it to Eusebio, and this period was in Eusebio's peak.

And we could discuss also 1969 and 1970, but you get the point. Especially 1970, I've seen a lot of people ranking him as the best player and a lot of people not having him even in the top 3, although he is generally seen as the best player of the WC of that legendary Brazilian team, and in a completely different role than he used to have.

So the amount of ballon d'ors rewarded to Pele is really a hard discussion. Some argue that he deserves only three, some argue that he deserves even ten ballon d'ors. I personally believe that a rational discussion would be between 5 and 8 ballon d'ors. Whichever amount is assigned to him should not make any difference. Pele is either the best or at least the second best player in the history of the game. The fact that during his prime, some years were really competitive in the sense of best player of that year, should not make any difference. And I am very sure that a grading system would make this very clear.

 

Pele scored 120~ goals in 1959
That is an obscene number even in a era with 3-4 GPG averages

Granted some/many were in friendlies but there is already a separate discussion on friendlies not being the modern day equivalent(ie matches completely devoid of a competitive edge)

What is the 'la liga top scorer' compared to this?

Bear in my there were like 5 higher scoring la liga campaigns in the 1950s alone

Telmo zarra 1950/51
38 goals

Alfredo di Stéfano 1956/57
31 goals

Pahiño 1951/52
28 goals

Juan Arza 1954/55
28 goals

Alfredo di stefano 1953/54
27 goals

Alfredo di stefano 1958/59
25 goals

What was uniquely impressive about top scoring in la liga with 25 goals in the 1950s may i ask


Ferenc Puskas was clinically obese and outscored this return several times
https://www.archyde.com/the-reason-why-puskas-came-to-real-madrid-with-twelve-extra-kilos/
There is even a guy with like 20 caps for Paraguay who outscored this a few years later
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayetano_Ré


The point about Puskas and his sub par athleticism was more of a criticism/condemnation of la liga itself then the player.

Simple question
How does a player with such shockingly bad athleticism for a professional ball player produce such insanely good results?

Not in a backyard competition but in la liga
The exact same competition that produced the team that won 6 European cups in like 10 years

There is no level of technique or football IQ that could compensate for being so overweight in a top tier league unless that league isn't even top tier in the first place


Did you see Ronaldo fenomeno in the late 2000s
Or Maradona 1994-1997
They left Europe for a reason that everyone knows

 

I'll be perfectly honest
I've seen Eden hazard here on this thread touted as the best player/performer in the world over a 12-18 month period
That is an opinion unchallenged and given the nature of this 'truth seeking' thread I'm very surprised

Since this is a free for all forum where one can express his own football related opinions and respectfully challenge the opinions of others ill briefly say my piece (briefly because this topic doesn't overly interest me)

There are no match reports that corroborate Hazard ever being the best player over a season/calender year
No advanced analytics

Not even the Sky sports pundits paid tens if not hundreds of thousands of British pounds per year to eulogise all things premier league related would say this



not even the most hardcore/die-hard fan born slap bang in the middle of Chelsea would even say this
Never
So how is such a bizzare 'opinion' passed off as one being 'expert' in nature and tallied off in a big soccer poll


when i saw this i figured anything was possible

Ill never say the official ballon dor rankings are irrefutable evidence but common sense has to take precedence in these discussions


Salah/Hazard being the best performing players in the world over a 12 month period just simply never happened.
Even if Cristiano Ronaldo or Lionel Messi never existed it still never happened

Ive said my piece on Pele
The best player isn't always the best performer
True
but that logic simply doesn't extend to prime era Pele

Game to game,month to month and year to year he was very likely the most dominant and productive player on the two major football continents(Europe & SA)

1970 Pele was neither the best player nor the best performer IMO
His level dropped enough that he lost both distinctions


Lofty Titles are earned and not given

 

Well if your argument is that Pele is a better goalscorer than Di Stefano, I absolutely agree with you. I just mentioned it as one of the achievements amongst others. But Di Stefano was never regarded as the best just because of his goalscoring abilities, not at all. He is known for roaming all around the field. The games that I have seen he played more in a role of a central midfielder than a striker, and he even helped with defending. So that makes it more impressive that he was a top scorer, which was really not his focus. I think the game of Di Stefano against Pele shows this perfectly. Pele scored a goal, Di Stefano had 4 assists. Also, this was the year where Di Stefano had the most points for the Ballon d'Or during his career.

I do not think La Liga was overrated during that time if that is your point. Pele played against La Liga teams. If we look at the games of Pele against Spanish team during the time that Di Stefano and Puskas were active, he won 2 lost 3 and 3 times they had a draw so he only won 25% of these matches. His goalscoring ratio was 0.75, which for that version Pele was crazy low.

As for Puskas, he was more of a pure striker than Di Stefano. He in fact scored against Santos in '59, which I assume you see as a tough challenge. Also, like I mentioned before Puskas scored in 1962 in the final a hattrick against Benfica, and when Pele did it a few months later, it was his best match.

I'd give Pele a Ballon d'Or for '58, '61-'65 though and possibly '70. I even think that only Pele and Messi can be in the argument of the best player of all time. But calling La Liga overrated and therefore also Puskas and Di Stefano is something I cannot agree with.

 

The parallel with Messi is very accurate and I agree completely with that. I think I agree with every point you made (except for the fact I am more leaning towards 7 Ballon d'Ors for Pele).

How do I vote if I may ask?

 

Europe XI 1967. Team A and B. Results of a poll by the Hungarian newspaper Nepsport, published on 24.12.1967



15 sports journalists took part in this survey

 

I think the best way is probably just to write-out your top 5s for the years/seasons you want to cover, on this thread, isn't it @IceBlood34

I can fairly quickly adjust the 1950s and 1960s summaries to add new votes anyway. Maybe we can finalise whether we should be giving 6 points for 1st places or just 5 in the meantime....

Anyway, moving on to the 1966 Ballon d'Or latest standings summary:

1966 Ballon d'Or Revisited Big Soccer panel consensus

1 Eusebio (Portugal/Benfica) - 60
2 Bobby Charlton (England/Manchester United) - 59
3 Franz Beckenbauer (W.Germany/Bayern Munich) - 25
4 Bobby Moore (England/West Ham United) - 20
5 Florian Albert (Hungary/Ferencvaros) - 7
6 Pele (Brazil/Santos) - 5
7 Alberto Spencer (Ecuador*/Penarol) - 2
8 Ferenc Bene (Hungary/Ujpest), Pedro Rocha (Uruguay/Penarol) - 1

* Spencer has also played for Uruguay.

Four votes have no 4th or 5th places awarded.

Eusebio has a very narrow lead in the Golden Ball race at the moment - him and Silver Ball positioned Charlton having six 1st place votes each, but Eusebio having six 2nd place votes to Charlton's five. Beckenbauer has a quite narrow lead in the competition for Bronze Ball in theory too.

 

1967 Ballon d'Or Revisited Big Soccer panel consensus

1 Florian Albert (Hungary/Ferencvaros) - 56
2 Bobby Charlton (England/Manchester United) - 39
3 Jimmy Johnstone (Scotland/Celtic) - 31
4 Pedro Rocha (Uruguay/Penarol) - 15
5 Tostao (Brazil/Cruzeiro) - 9
6 Franz Beckenbauer (W.Germany/Bayern Munich), George Best (Northern Ireland/Manchester United), Johan Cruyff (Netherlands/Ajax), Sandro Mazzola (Italy/Inter Milan) - 6
10 Ademir Da Guia (Brazil/Palmeiras), Pele (Brazil/Santos) - 3
12 Tommy Gemmell (Scotland/Celtic), Gerd Muller (W.Germany/Bayern Munich) - 1

Three votes have no 4th or 5th places awarded, and one other vote has no 5th place awarded.

Albert has eight of the 1st place votes, and a decent lead for the Golden Ball accolade, though with 5 points for 1st places his lead would be cut by 7 points. Charlton, again in Silver Ball position currently, has one of the 1st place votes, and Johnstone in Bronze Ball position has one too. The remaining ones have gone to Tostao and Mazzola.