Rounds 23-27 The following are the league standings after 27 rounds. Il Littoriale, 11.05.1931 Juventus and Roma are dominating the league. They both won 5 out of 5 matches, playing greatly. Juventus has been more solid, Roma more spectacular. As the Littoriale states, both teams have been so good that the title “should be shared”, although Juve is favourite to win it. After losing to Juve, Genoa has had some good results, as well as Bologna. Napoli dropped a little bit, and Ambrosiana, although inconsistent, has played some interesting matches. The lesser teams are struggling a lot and their inferiority has been pointed out in almost every game. The worst team has been Legnano, losing 4 matches out of 5 and having probably the worst performing forward line of the season. Of all matches, the most interesting one, and the most praised by the press, has been Genoa – Torino 3-2, in the 27th round. Both teams gave their best, fighting openly to achieve the win, showing brilliant offensive play and good defenses as well. Il Corriere della Sera, 11.05.1931 “The match has been maybe the best one played on Via del Piano’s field this season. Genova responded to Torino’s technical and brilliant playing style with an equally fast and effective play, so that the match was, alongside its entire length, interesting and balanced”. Top 10 players - rounds 23-27 Only players with at least 3 out of 5 matches played Top XI - Rounds 23-27 Provera – Vincenzi, Caligaris – Ferraris IV, Albertoni, Fantoni – Costantino, Fasanelli, Vecchina, Ferrari, Tansini Best coach: H. Burgess (Roma) 3,400 The only players maintaining top XI status are Ferraris and Costantino. The fast winger has definitively settled at Roma. Orsi and Bertolini are yet again in top 20, proving to be the most consistent players this season. Best performer of rounds 23-27: Giovanni Vincenzi. Whenever the Napoli right-back plays, he is described as capable of “miraculous” tackles and saving goals on his own. In goal, many players are impressing; Casale’s Provera was instrumental in conceding fewer goals than expected. Combi has had some work to do and he did it brilliantly. After them: Rapetti, Peruchetti, Cavanna. The best “third lines” have been Napoli’s, with Vincenzi and Innocenti, alongside with the formidable duo of Rosetta and Caligaris at Juventus. The former has regained his form and is now shining as the composed, intelligent world-class defender he always was. Bertolini needs to be praised as left half, alongside with Roman duo Ferraris and Bernardini, and Genoa’s Albertoni. But the surprise has been Lazio’s new signing, the Italian-Brazilian Octávio Fantoni, who came alongside with his brother João from Paléstra Itália (now Cruzeiro). Il Littoriale, 27.04.1931 Roma and Juventus’ forward lines have been stunning as a whole. Vecchina was the best centre-forward (6 goals), followed by Volk (5) and Meazza (6). But the top scorer of this stint was an inside-right: Fasanelli with 8 goals in 5 matches! The Roma player scored 5 against Livorno, this being also the best performance of rounds 23 to 27, warranting him a clear note of 5 out of 5. Coming to the underperforming players: Legnano’s forwards, with Ostromann (1,000), Rizzi (1,333) and Cidri (1,360); a very young Gino Colaussi (1,200), still far to be the player that will shine at the 1938 World Cup. Some of Casale’s players, and Ambrosiana’s Enrico Rivolta (1,300). The next one (rounds 28 to 34) will be the last stint of what has been an extremely interesting season in Italian football.
Rounds 28-34 A brief review of these final rounds, before publishing the complete overview of 1930-31 season. Juventus have been crowned champions after their victory over former champions Ambrosiana, in the 33rd round. The match, played in Turin, was witnessed by a huge crowd, which stepped on the field after the game to celebrate their heroes – and Ambrosiana’s goalkeeper Degani too, the man of the match! This final game has been, according to la Stampa, the perfect ending for this season, due to the great quality of play shown by the two rival teams. La Stampa, 29.06.1931 The last round was characterized by many “unusual” defeats by the big teams (Roma, Bologna, Napoli), due mostly to the scarce effort put by their players, who had no remaining goals in the season. Napoli, particularly, was awful in these final matches, losing 6 out of 7 games from rounds 28 to 34. Bologna was good, scoring 6 goals for two matches in a row and crushing the future champions Juve for 4-0 at home in the 28th round. Brescia was the most surprising side, with their victories against Genova, Bologna, and Roma. Top 10 players - rounds 28-34 Only players with at least 5 out of 7 matches played Top XI - Rounds 28-34 Sclavi – Zanello, Lanino – Ferraris IV, Albertoni, Fantoni II – Costantino, Giuliani, Braga, Mazzoni, Silano Best coach: I. Schoffer (Brescia) 2,929 Octávio Fantoni has been the man of the match in almost every game disputed since round 28th. His superiority is unquestioned. Once again Ferraris and Costantino figure in the best XI. They both have maintained an excellent form throughout the entire season and especially in the second part. Orsi is still in top 20. The goalkeepers of both Roman clubs have been superb. Peruchetti stands in third place, but has not achieved such an average rating. In defence, although Vincenzi and Gilardoni have been very consistent, the best duo has been Pro Vercelli’s, with Zanello and Lanino. They have been instrumentals in three clean sheets against Modena, Brescia and Bologna, as well as the 2-2 draw against Pro Patria. As well as in goal, the Roman clubs dominate in midfield as well: along with Lazio’s Fantoni, D’Aquino has impressed, and Ferraris has been the best right half of this stint. The best forward was Silano, preventing Orsi a spot in this stint’s top 10. The crowds could witness remarkable performances by Brescia’s inside right Giuseppe Braga and Modena’s fine inside left Mazzoni. The top scorer was Reguzzoni with 6 goals in 7 games. Mihalich, inside left for Napoli, was the worst player of the last part of the season (1,286). To be noted is also the abysmal form of Genova’s entire forward line.
SEASON REVIEW: 1930-31 Sources: Il Corriere della Sera, Il Littoriale and La Stampa. Gazzetta dello Sport not available. Final Table Most goals and most assists Look up the 1929-1930 review for criteria explanation After analising all sources and all matches thoroughly, I must report a general error by Wikipedia and Calcio Serie A.net, as well as most official statistic sources: Volk's goal tally was actually 28, not 29, and Meazza scored 25 goals (one more than the "24" reported by statistics throughout the internet). This is certain - unless all three sources are mistaken. It is worth noting that Meazza scored 25 goals and assisted reportedly 9 times. Even if he underperformed heavily if compared to 1929-30, with an average of 2,268 against 2,691, he managed to achieve very similar numbers in a delusional Ambrosiana side. He was terrible at the start of the season and inconsistent, but was nonetheless so influential that he took part directly in more than half of his team’s goals (31 goal contributions / 60 goals scored by Ambrosiana). Best defensive trio: Juventus (Combi, Rosetta, Caligaris) Best midfield trio: Roma (Ferraris IV / Degni, Bernardini, D’Aquino) Best forward line: Roma (Costantino, Fasanelli, Volk, Lombardo, Chini) Napoli's defensive trio (Cavanna,Vincenzi, Innocenti) is also worth mentioning. Surprise of the season: Modena and Brescia. The canarini (songbirds) were extraordinary in the first part, when they managed to fight point to point with the top teams. They lost their form at the end and dropped points to finish joint 10th in the league. The rondinelle (little swallows) were a constant threat to be dealt with and managed to achieve a series of great wins against greater clubs. Disappointment of the season: Ambrosiana, Napoli and Casale. The former champions were really inconsistent and could not regain their 1929-30 form. Napoli was terrible in the last matches, therefore “staining” their otherwise good season. Casale were very far from the glorious team that used to battle with Pro-Vercelli in the pioneer years of Italian football, and were almost relegated. Season review After Lazio’s experiment with the WM system under Pietro Piselli turned out to be disappointing, all teams adopted the traditional metodo or WW system – the same used by Pozzo’s national team to deservedly win the prestigious Central European International Cup in 1930. 952 goals overall have been scored as opposed to the 969 of 1929-30. Nonetheless, it can be said that more teams played a more offensive kind of football this season (Roma, Modena, Bologna, Napoli, Ambrosiana). It was common practice, though, that inside forwards dropped back to help the midfield in case their team was ahead during the match; so the teams actively tried to build density in the middle and reduce spaces for the opponents. The 1930-31 season can be defined by the never-ending duel between Juventus and Roma. The historic 5-0 giallorossi win in Campo Testaccio could not change the fact that the bianconeri were the better team. The extraordinary performances of their rivals did not make them shiver, and they always controlled the league from the top spot, with solidity, organization and the flair of some of their players (Orsi, Vecchina, Cesarini). After an initial stint where several teams were on the same level – Bologna, Roma, Napoli – the Roman club standed out as Juve’s only rival. They were extraordinary going forward – having scored 87 goals – but the injury of right back De Micheli forced Ferraris to play in defense for half the season, leaving a weak spot alongside Bernardini and D’Aquino in the midfield. Bologna and Napoli had similar paths, but the latter dropped their form heavily in the end. Both teams had excellent backlines and good halves, but Napoli’s attack was the weak link if compared to Bologna’s. Fedullo’s passing game and Reguzzoni’s offensive threat, especially, made the difference. Genova made the signing of the year with 1930 World Cup top scorer Stábile, but he got seriously injured and couldn’t finish the season. This unfortunate event altered their plans and only Banchero and Pratto’s excellent form helped them remain between the top teams. We already mentioned Modena and Brescia. Lazio had ups and downs like in 1929-30, but improved greatly after the arrival of the Fantoni brothers, Octávio and João. One could say that Milan underperformed all season, but the truth is that the rossoneri were quality wise very far, in the 1930s, from the great team they would be from the 1950s onwards. When Magnozzi finally settled in, their performances improved slightly. Alessandria was incredibly unlucky: a series of injuries made it very hard for them to achieve consistency, and they had to play debutants in key roles for most part of the season. Livorno battled with Casale for relegation. Their draw against Juventus and Casale’s win against Milan condemned them to Serie B. The team proved to be too modest without their main man Magnozzi. Legnano fought with an attitude that was often praised by the media; their squad quality was, nevertheless, not good enough for Serie A.
Top 50 players (ratings only) Only players with at least 18 league games. Notable players (less than 18 appearances) 1. Octávio FANTONI 3,530 Lazio Forward 10 apps. 2. Giuseppe GANDINI 2,955 Alessandria Forward 12 apps. 3. Germano LANINO 2,623 Pro Vercelli Back 13 apps. 4. Antonio MARIETTI 2,577 Napoli Goalkeeper 13 apps. 5. Bonifacio SMERZI 2,540 Ambrosiana Goalkeeper 15 apps. 6. Aldo PEDRAZZI 2,515 Modena Half 13 apps. 7. Antonio BUSINI 2,508 Bologna Forward 12 apps. 8. Juan PRATTO 2,506 Genova Back 17 apps. Guillermo STÁBILE obtained an average score of 2,323 in 13 matches. 5 goals, 2 assists. Top 5 coaches Coaches start to be mentioned more in newspaper articles. Particularly, the very popular Mr. Garbutt (Napoli), Carlo Carcano (Juventus), Giuseppe Forlivesi (Modena) and Gyüla Lelovics (Bologna). Tactics are analized a little bit more deeply than in the previous season.
Top XI Top 3 players (considering avg. rating, goals, assists, and team result. 1. Raimundo ORSI (Juventus, 3,009, 33 games, 20 goals, 16 assists, 1st place) 2. Ezio SCLAVI (Lazio, 2,955, 33 games, 0 goals, 0 assists, 8th place) 3. Giovanni VINCENZI (Napoli, 2,985, 0 goals, 0 assists, 6th place) I chose Sclavi over Vincenzi, even if they have more or less the same average, because he was Lazio’s main star and because he was tested over more games. Revelation player: Maggiolino MONGERO (Torino) Torino’s centre-half rose from anonymity and performed at a very high level for the first part of the season. His form sunk in the second part, but he managed to express himself again when he moved to right-half, after Mario Janni returned in the center. Top 5 per position Goalkeeper 1. E. Sclavi 2,955 Lazio 2. G. Masetti 2,759 Roma 3. A. Rotondi 2,707 Legnano 4. G. Cavanna 2,576 Napoli 5. G. Combi 2,571 Juventus Right-back 1. G. Vincenzi 2,985 Napoli 2. E. Monzeglio 2,847 Bologna 3. M. Zanello 2,776 Pro Vercelli 4. A. Ferraris 2,724 Roma 5. L. Gazzari 2,687 Triestina Left-back 1. L. Allemandi 2,804 Ambrosiana 2. A. Pasolini 2,700 Brescia 3. U. Caligaris 2,682 Juventus 4. A. Perduca 2,553 Legnano 5. P. Innocenti 2,532 Napoli Right-half 1. A. Pitto 2,729 Bologna 2. O. Barbieri 2,543 Genova 3. B. Dugoni 2,506 Modena 4. E. Boltri 2,381 Casale 5. M. Kufersin 2,345 Triestina Centre-half 1. P. Castello 2,788 Casale 2. F. Bernardini 2,771 Roma 3. M. Ardissone 2,697 Pro Vercelli 4. I. Rossi 2,650 Pro Patria 5. M. Mongero 2,577 Torino Left-half 1. L. Bertolini 2,869 Alessandria 2. B. Frisoni 2,589 Genova 3. R. D’Aquino 2,441 Roma 4. M. Montesanto 2,256 Bologna 5. E. Rivolta 2,230 Ambrosiana Outside right 1. R. Costantino 2,494 Roma 2. R. Cattaneo 2,459 Alessandria 3. C. Buscaglia 2,237 Napoli 4. P. Arcari 2,217 Milan 5. B. Maini 2,214 Bologna Inside right 1. R. Cesarini 2,559 Juventus 2. L. Giuliani 2,419 Brescia 3. G. Santagostino 2,338 Milan 4. C. A. Fasanelli 2,282 Roma 5. P. Serantoni 2,255 Ambrosiana Centre forward 1. E. Banchero 2,776 Genova 2. G. Vecchina 2,580 Juventus 3. R. Volk 2,491 Roma 4. S. Piola 2,481 Pro Vercelli 5. A. Sallustro 2,479 Napoli Inside left 1. F. Fedullo 2,647 Bologna 2. A. Mazzoni 2,625 Modena 3. M. Magnozzi 2,450 Milan 4. G. Ferrari 2,441 Juventus 5. N. Lombardo 2,363 Roma Outside left 1. R. Orsi 3,009 Juventus 2. C. Reguzzoni 2,554 Bologna 3. O. Silano 2,527 Torino 4. A. Chini Ludueña 2,509 Roma 5. P. Ferraris 2,331 Pro Vercelli
Hello everyone, I am the administrator of the website www.dbscalcio.it. I have read this thread and I thank you for the compliments on the work done for the 1946/47 season. If I may I'd like to offer a suggestion to improve and refine this type of work. I tried using artificial intelligence with GPT chat, and the results were excellent in my opinion. Let me explain. For about a month, I input a series of football match reports into the chat, asking the AI to generate player ratings to "train" the chat. The correlation with reality was above 80%, and in some cases it even reached 90%. This means that the player ratings generated by the chat were 80-90% similar to those published in the newspapers. Encouraged by this success, I started inputting the data from the matches of the 1947/48 season. The chat has learned so well what to do that it now provides not only ratings but also evaluations. Let me show you an example. In the 8th round of the 1947/48 season, Bologna played against Torino, and the result was 1-0. I input the match report from La Gazzetta dello Sport into chatGPT, and these are the results it provided: BOLOGNA: Vanz: Difende la porta con sicurezza, mostrando riflessi pronti su alcune occasioni. 7.5 Giovannini: Si mette in evidenza con una presenza avanzata, bloccando le azioni avversarie. 7 Spadoni, Cingolani, Sarosi III, Ballacci: I difensori e i mediani hanno lavorato sodo per mantenere l'equilibrio e tenere a bada l'attacco avversario. 7 Biavati, Arcari: Biavati ha lavorato in profondità, mentre Arcari ha mostrato flessibilità tattica, proiettandosi in avanti quando necessario. 7 Cappello: L'eroe della giornata, sigla il gol decisivo e diventa un riferimento in avanti. 8 Gritti: Mostra grinta e determinazione, anche se esce momentaneamente per infortunio. 7 Taiti: Collabora in maniera efficace con gli attaccanti e contribuisce al gioco offensivo. 7 All. Fellsner: La sua squadra si presenta ben organizzata e con un'identità chiara, superando un avversario difficile. 7.5 TORINO: Bacigalupo: Nonostante la sconfitta, ha avuto interventi salienti. Il gol subito è quasi inattaccabile. 6.5 Ballarin, Maroso, Rigamonti, Castigliano: La difesa ha avuto dei momenti di difficoltà ma Maroso si distingue come il migliore del gruppo. 6.5 Grezar: Non si fa notare particolarmente e soffre la pressione avversaria. 6 Menti: Ha qualche occasione ma non riesce a concretizzare. 6 Loik: Alcune iniziative personali ma spesso impreciso nella conclusione. 6 Fabbian, Mazzola: Giornata offuscata, con Mazzola che non riesce a esprimersi al meglio. 5.5 Ferraris: Non trova spazi e soluzioni efficaci. 6 All. Erbstein: Il suo Torino appare in difficoltà e meno brillante del solito, ma non per demeriti suoi. 6 ARBITRO: Pieri: Conduce la partita con sicurezza e decisione, anche se a tratti troppo teatrale. 6.5 I translate: BOLOGNA: Vanz: Defends the goal with confidence, showing quick reflexes on several occasions. 7.5 Giovannini: Stands out with an advanced presence, blocking the opposing actions. 7 Spadoni, Cingolani, Sarosi III, Ballacci: The defenders and midfielders worked hard to maintain balance and fend off the opposing attack. 7 Biavati, Arcari: Biavati worked in-depth, while Arcari showed tactical flexibility, pushing forward when necessary. 7 Cappello: The hero of the day, he scores the decisive goal and becomes a forward reference. 8 Gritti: Shows grit and determination, even though he temporarily goes out due to injury. 7 Taiti: Collaborates effectively with the forwards and contributes to the offensive play. 7 Coach Fellsner: His team appears well organized and with a clear identity, overcoming a tough opponent. 7.5 TORINO: Bacigalupo: Despite the defeat, he had notable interventions. The goal conceded is almost unassailable. 6.5 Ballarin, Maroso, Rigamonti, Castigliano: The defense had moments of difficulty but Maroso stands out as the best of the group. 6.5 Grezar: Doesn't particularly stand out and struggles under the opposing pressure. 6 Menti: Has some chances but fails to capitalize. 6 Loik: Some personal initiatives but often imprecise in the finish. 6 Fabbian, Mazzola: Clouded day, with Mazzola unable to express himself at his best. 5.5 Ferraris: Can't find spaces and effective solutions. 6 Coach Erbstein: His Torino looks troubled and less brilliant than usual, but not due to his shortcomings. 6 REFEREE: Pieri: Leads the match confidently and decisively, though at times overly theatrical. 6.5 One last thing, entering the match reports is not done by manually typing the text. Instead, I scan the image using the Google Drive app, which accurately converts images to text. Once I copy and paste the text into chatGPT, it does the rest. I hope this information has been helpful. Best regards to everyone.
It is unbelievable. I'm thrilled with your work. Please continue to offer data of this kind which is very enriching, especially for those distant seasons that are so complicated to review (at least for me).
Please, could you put, if you calculated them, the averages of Meazza, Baloncieri and Cesarini? Thank you.
Thank you! I will continue, it's just that I am short of time due to work. This series is gonna be long, so I'm afraid I have to ask for your patience.
For sure: Meazza (Ambrosiana, 2,268, 34 matches played, 25 goals, 9 reported assists, 5th place) Baloncieri (Torino, 2,133, 30 matches played, 4 goals, 8 reported assists, 7th place) Cesarini (Juventus, 2,559, 29 matches played, 8 goals, 5 reported assists, 1st place) Meazza played as Centre-forward, wherease Baloncieri and Cesarini mostly as inside-right.
This is truly stunning. I personally prefer to read the articles myself and try to evaluate the players, since I cannot rely 100% on technology, but what you have achieved will give us a fair share of what the performances have been like throughout the whole season in a relatively short amount of time and work.