What really stands out to me with all these reports is how ridiculously consistent ADS was. Could there may have been some sort of media bias towards him?
Take a look at his Marca (!!) ratings, they're often a lot less impressive (just as for Puskas). To the extent it can look suspicious, really.
Without taking a look at the ratings, I have a theory to explain this. When going through all the old match reports, I've noticed a clear pattern of the "home" reports being a lot more critical of a team than the "away" ones. This is particularly true of the really big teams, like the Wunderteam or the Golden Hungarians. It makes sense when you think about it. The home reporters are more used to the high quality of the team, whereas ones who don't see the team as often are more likely to be awed by them. In the case of Madrid, it sounds like an example of the "white handkerchief" effect in match report form. You can see it in online discussion, too. The big team "supporters" are always the first to throw any and every player under the bus.
I thought about that too, but Marca has also done the complete opposite from time to time. Quite often.
Spanish observers may have not seen a player like Di Stefano before. In the same way that Mexican or Chilean observers had not seen someone like Jose Manuel Moreno before his arrival on their fields. It was mentioned by opponents and journalists in Spain that the ability of a player to shrink the field, by fulfilling multiple tasks at once, was a rare capacity that had not been showcased on Spanish fields. This novelty struck the eye of the observer. It is also telling that older journalists/managers/players that witnessed Alfredo in action, whether still alive (Alfredo Relaño, Enrique Macaya, Van Himst, Bobby Charlton, Adalberto Bortolotti, El Tano Fazzini, etc) or deceased (Helenio Herrera, etc) stated that no one was better (although in some cases they recanted due to outside pressures). Alfredo became the golden standard to be measured with after he retired. It is for this reason that Cruijff and Maradona were viewed one step below. In regards to the reports, this 1955-56 campaign had not started strong for him. He was criticized but had rediscovered his form towards the middle of the competition.
The Marca ratings started in the 1958-59 season when Di Stefano was 32-years-old. Assuming his ratings were not always stellar between 1958-59 to 1964, when he was between the ages of 32-37, I have the feeling that had the grades been into effect since 1953, between his physical prime, that the results would have looked somewhat different. In any event, I have not verified how well he was rated once Marca implemented their grades, but I had the initial impression from the reports that there was an inevitable physical decline after the age of 29. This was apparent from the beginning of the 1955-56 campaign.
Mate, in 1983 there was a poll by Gazzetta dello Sport that utilized the most renowned European managers to pick the greatest Ballon d’Or winner of all-time and Di Stefano won by a landslide. There was simply various press voices and opinions from former players that classified neither Cruijff or Maradona at the level of Alfredo. Cruijff was viewed by some as a player that provided great spectacle, a sorcerer, but not a great player. Diego was prodigious, a true genius with a glove in his left foot, but did not have the full capacity of the blonde arrow. I know that may sound controversial now and it may be sensitive to the personal sentiments of some, but the standards were different back then.
The golden standard was ratified in 1989 with the super ballon d’Or, as the greatest European performer. I also want to point out that Alfredo won the original awards twice (1957 and 1959) but only because in 1958 France Football felt that it was not right to award it in consecutive years. There is a reason why our forum member @PuckVanHeel regarded him as his number one player of all-time.
Yes, but that is something else than the hyperbole others are not on that level, and Di Stefano was the gold standard. We have both seen the Liedholm examples, who has ordered things differently in different years. As you expressed yourself, when it came to technical mastery there were in your eyes flaws in Di Stefano his game. Others, including Puskas, were more fluid when plucking balls out of the air and turning around (same for Cruijff, and of course Maradona; who in turn was a somewhat sub-standard and inaccurate shooter by the actual facts as shown by Guerin Sportivo and later OPTA; you showed there were over 110 attempted shots in the 1987 Serie A campaign) In the meantime, I started to think Pele attained a bigger dominance, without being a greater player perse. One poll by 'your' El Grafico in 1979 came to a very different outcome. Some of them might have been too young or too remote to have seen Di Stefano at his absolute prime, but still. Of course, you have shown the expressed view of Herrera in 1977, but on the flipside there is also the view of Zagallo around the same period of time. Another El Grafico poll in 1980, as you showed yourself, had Moreno ahead of him, with Maradona already circling around. Furthermore, that Super Ballon d'Or wasn't a landslide either. It is, among other things, also skewed by that between 1960 and 1971 you have a whole row of single Ballon d'Or winners, that helped Di Stefano to get it. Later winners had a tendency to vote for Platini or Cruijff, but they were with fewer or didn't vote. The very oldest voter there in that Super Ballon d'Or poll, by the way, the gentleman Stanley Matthews (11 years older than Di Stefano, 14 years older than Yashin) casted his vote for Cruijff, just as he did in 1995 and in some other years.
Yes, in the beginning he had limitations of a young player still soaking up experience. His great strength was his dedication to always practice to better himself. But he was not a master in any particular area, but instead second to all areas, which made up for the expertise of others in certain facets of the game, but limited in other areas. Puskas had the edge over them all in the shot. He had a glove in his left foot. But he was a player of one-third of the pitch and if defenders directed him to the right half of the field they had a great chance of making him ineffective. Pele had the edge over Di Stefano in virtuosity, he produced unexpected plays with his feet and had a glove on his chest, he was an athlete and he headed like José Manuel Moreno. For deployment, athletic duration and strategic ability, Di Stefano had the upper hand. Maradona surpassed them both in the subtlety with which he handled his left foot. For deployment, athletic power and strategic ability, for never having disappointed his fans, José Manuel Moreno was better than Maradona. His heading capacity in South American fields was rivaled by few like Ersenio Erico and Pelé. For precision in speed, having a glove in his left foot and chest, Maradona beats him. Both were equally valiant with great spirit of fight. El Gráfico’s reporters had first hand access to Moreno and Di Stefano in live action in the 1930s and 40s. Alfredo was still a grunt, viewed as an unpolished product, that couldn’t head the ball well and reduced to just one profile on the pitch: to his right. It’s established in this thread from the beginning that his evolution as commander in chief reached its culmination in Spain when Argentinian observers had already lost most access to him once he moved abroad. But Argentinian experts weren’t impressed with what happened in Spanish football and viewed it with scepticism. They felt their football was the premier in the game. Moreno was idolized back home, even had a column to write in El Gráfico after he retired. He was the greatest representative for the NT by most accounts until Maradona came around. Alfredo even acknowledged in the Don Balón magazine in the late 1970s that Moreno had been the ideal player that he valued the most as a reflection of true professionalism (even though his idol had been Erico). Later on when Alfredo went to coach in Argentina he gained more respect and El Gráfico focused more on sensationalizing his legacy.
I also made the revision of the season 1957-58 (Marca have ratings for some matches, and complete evaluations for non rated matches). So, my impression of Di Stefano since mid 1957 from now on, is that, he played as the level expected in the international matches, but in the league, his performances there wasn't so consistent (for Marca's eyes)
Mate, you have a link to the 1960s Marca match reports? Edit: It is understandable. Age was catching up on him and he was focusing more on the international prize.
La Liga Round 24 11/03/1956 Real Madrid 4-1 Hércules Stadium: Santiago Bernabéu Here we have a case where the local papers were critical with Madrid even by winning by a large scoreline, while praising the losing team. Goliath vs David (Madrid vs the last placed team) ABC Madrid “Madrid played a bad game with the failure of almost all of their men. Navarro declared his long stay out of active play, although he had outbursts of his own. Marquitos was slow and unplaced. Zárraga remains low on the game, denunciating his true kind of man, suitable for a great complement of work. In other words, he is a magnificent second when he relies on a good first, like Muñoz, but he cannot act first, when he has to lead Rubio as second. Rubio struggled a lot and went out a lot. Castaños almost never got it right and Marsal was a useless man, ill-tempered, nervous, without knowing if he should help the defense or try the attack. They remain as excellent Berasaluce, Di Stéfano, slower than other times; Rial, who is beginning to recover, and Gento very fast. Madrid is in a bad moment of form. Fortunately they have time to re-emerge before April 19 when they will clash with AC Milan. By then we trust that it will be a great champion again” Mundo Deportivo highlighted the poor first half from the home team who were jeered from its home fans and the good initial start from the bottom table team. But once Madrid got rolling after the half the match lost its suspense and became another formality. Marca Madrid “The best: Di Stefano” He had played a great second half, “working hard always and executioner of the best plays of the afternoon, which at times was extraordinary” Di Stefano scored the last goal with a powerful outside shot. The manager of Hércules, Iraragorri, later said: “With Di Stefano on our side we would have won.” Summary: 1 goal https://www.abc.es/archivo/periodicos/abc-madrid-19560313-41.html https://www.abc.es/archivo/periodicos/abc-madrid-19560313-42.html http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1956/03/12/pagina-4/635971/pdf.html
So what about the 1983 Gazzetta dello Sport poll that used 12 highly qualified European managers, with 11 out 12 voting for Alfredo ? You may argue that some recanted or changed ships later on, but closer to his playing time, he was viewed as the golden standard. There simply was no higher achievement than for his peers to crown him as the best golden ball winner of them all. And speaking of El Gráfico, they also in 1980 made a comparison using various ex-players and journalists about who was greater: Di Stefano or Pelé (I’ll get to that one at another time). Originally it had been Moreno vs Pelé in 1964 because the golden standard of Argentinian football had been Moreno, but by 1980 the focus had shifted. Moreno had passed away by then.
The whole point is there were other polls around that time with different outcomes. For example: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/o...-esp-1950s-1970s.2038892/page-2#post-35243426 Thus the whole idea of "not a great player" and a "Maradona a step below" is a hyperbole. As for this poll specifically, there are a few obvious explanations: 1) El Grafico, at the height of domestic propaganda and state controlled media, possibly made up, censored or exaggerated Gazzetta their poll. Those things did happen. 2) The usual Italy-Argentina connections. Up to 60% of the Argentine population is of Italian origin while Argentines were also the largest immigrant demographic in Italy, at that point. 3) Who they asked. They didn't ask a Brazilian manager, for example. Not a German manager either, or a French manager. There are three obvious successful coaches among those twelve: Munoz, Herrera and Paisley. The first two voted of course, understandably, for AdS. The last one, Paisley, who arguably won his stuff with actual football rather than the Herrera method, voted for Charlton. I agree they are almost all "qualified" but only a few were really successful, and they (almost) all came from the same circle. Some of the more successful managers in the European Cup and national team tournaments weren't asked. 4) At this point Di Stefano was a reasonably successful manager, even though by his players (John Metgod et al.) not seen as tactically brilliant. He had just reached the Cup Winners Cup final with Real Madrid. He was at the least more successful than your Charlton, Pele and the rest of the row. That this is a positive factor is also shown by the 1984 France Football poll, with Ernst Happel extremely high up among the defenders. 5) By this point, almost two decades after retirement, some of his playing traits got exaggerated and stretched out in the minds, with a critical mass created and snowball effect bouncing around, while they didn't have youtube as we have now. Claims like he defended on the goal-line, the goal area, and then scored goals are not really backed up by the videos from 1957 and 1958, when he was still in his prime, and are a bit of an exaggeration. At this point in time however, it was often said and people created an ideal image in the mind of what a model professional should be.
The amount of games that have surfaced of that Real Madrid era are less than 10 and starting from the 1959-60 season, when Di Stefano was approaching the age of 34 and past his physical prime. Those matches were at the European Cup against Niza and Barcelona. But to base conclusions on a handful of games at the end of his career is like taking away the video footage of Cruijff at WC74 or Maradona at ‘86 and relying only on a few matches when they were 34 or 35. It would distort the picture. In any event, Di Stefano at that age seemed at times like he had a spare of extra legs at halftime and seemed better conditioned than other icons of similar ages. At that age on the cusp of turning 34, Di Stefano was playing a European Cup final for the 5th consecutive time giving a dominant performance. Compared to other post-war established top 10 greats at similar ages he was still thriving. At 34 Pelé was past his best and on his way to retirement. Maradona was suspended. Cruijff was in the second division of La Liga getting criticized. Platini had retired. Beckenbauer was at the NASL in a semiprofessional league. José Moreno was at Boca Juniors but way past his best and struggling with his fitness. Eusébio was bouncing around in the semipros ending in the NASL. Garrincha virtually retired and stuck in his vices. So who were the last men standing ? Alfredo and Puskas. Omnipresent and triumphant at still an advanced football age. Coincidentally both playing together. Some have argued here about his grades with the newspaper of Marca, even drawing comparisons with others in an unfavorable way. But no one has taken into account the age factor and that when Marca was consistently praising him, grades had not yet been implemented in their newspaper. Now while I agree that there has been embedded an image of him doing everything everywhere at all times, which is an exaggeration, but it is also true that he did things on a more routine basis that others couldn’t or wouldn’t do. According to my reports in the three first seasons covered thus far, there have been various examples of him backtracking and plucking holes in his team’s defense and at one point saving a goal on his own line at Belgrade at the European Cup. You take Cruijff out of the equation, which other choice of politically top 10 players of all-time would do that which weren’t a defender ?
Some decent things, and a few aspects I agree with, but three comments here: 1) Matches or extended footage of 1957 and 1958 has actually appeared. That was still his prime, and at his scoring peak. Enough very good things to see there, definitely, but also takes away some mythology. On the one hand there is enough to rate him very highly, as I did and do, on the other hand it dispels some mid-1980s beliefs. Later on, Real Madrid bought some extra lungs as Del Sol for big money, while against Juventus in 1962 (played over three legs) it's obvious AdS fades in the second half. 2) It is not just Puskas and him that played for so long in that era. Cases like Liedholm, Matthews, Walter, Zizinho (and many others) all played at a high level until an advanced age. That was definitely a harder feat 20 years later, for outfield players. Only a few like Alan Ball and Cruijff too indeed had the luck to survive. 3) I already said explicitly those Marca grades look suspicious. Also for the season Puskas is topscorer for example... But that gets of course 'forgotten' 20 years later, just as the controversies (remember that suddenly arranged replay?), with then Real Madrid elevated to an 'establishment choice' (to the extent Eusebio and Cruijff just weren't, see also the date of receiving uefa and fifa presidential honors).
Very good observations. Even, I made those threads with old Marca and CdS ratings. I learn to take those not literally, I mean, considering a margin of error in ordering or decimal places. btw, this is a great thread.
La Liga Round 25 18/03/1956 Barcelona 2-0 Real Madrid Stadium: Las Corts, Barcelona ABC Madrid headlined: “In a great game Barcelona defeated Madrid” “Ramallets, in a brilliant performance, shutdown Madrid” “The Barcelona-Real Madrid match was, on this occasion, decisive for Barcelona if they wanted to maintain their aspirations for the title. It was appreciated how the Barcelona home crowd under the rain witnessed how the home team from the start launched themselves in determination to fight, in its quest to seize the initiative. These efforts of Barcelona were accentuated as the match progressed, despite the fact that their midfielders, Biosca and Segarra, were imprecise and did not support, as on other occasions, their forwards, since Segarra dedicated himself completely to shadow Di Stefano. However, this work, which we could classify as irregular on the part of the Catalan coverage line, had no transcendence in the job, since on the pitch there was a man who, with his extraordinary mobility and his fortunate interventions, managed to correct the failures of the Blaugrana defenders, taking the ball to the opponent's area with cleanliness and precision. We are referring to Suárez, who, with the collaboration of Villaverde, very battling and determined, originated the dangerous situations to Alonso’s goal, which shortly afterwards would culminate in the two goals (...)” “Madrid for their part, came out to play, and, far from adopting an 'opposing field tactic, this time surprised us with an authentic attacking game, in which Di Stéfano and Marsal were at all times, the men who forced the opposing defensive lines to use themselves thoroughly, while behind, contrary to what happened on the Catalan side, Muñoz and Zárraga were authentic elements of support, both in the offensive and defensive aspects. Despite the unfavorable balance for the Madridistas when the game resumed, after the break, this team, acting with accused serenity, without precipitations, and putting into practice a quick game and on the basis of short passes, they managed not only to take the initiative for most of the second half, but also to clearly dominate, forcing Barcelona to close their lines and pay more attention to the defense of their area than the attack. And that was when both Bosch and Segarra recovered and carried out the specific mission that was entrusted to them, dismantling many of Madrid's advances, and, on other occasions, it was Ramallets, who, on a great afternoon, because there is no other words, he neutralized on three occasions in which, due to the placement and toughness of the shot, the goal seemed achieved.” An impression of Félix Marquillas (ABC correspondent) “MADRID SOAKED FOOTBALL OF QUALITY” The Barcelona-Real Madrid meeting responded to the expectations that had awakened, in Les Corts registering an impressive full house, since this time the normal capacity of the field, with the consequent avalanches of the public, especially from the southern goal, where several spectators, victims of the strains, had to be assisted in the field sickness before the start of the match. Barcelona played a magnificent first half, justifying the successes achieved in the last matches held in the opposition field. On the contrary, Madrid, unimpressed by the progress of the game, replied with rapid advances and in one of them there was a powerful shot by Mateos, which Ramallets in a splendid intervention, cleared with the fist, hitting the ball in the upper part of the crossbar to return to the power of the Barcelona goalkeeper. In this play there was a doubt if the ball had crossed the goal line, and, therefore, the Madrid forwards demanded so much, without the referee answering their demand. In any case, the play was doubtful, since It could not be seen with certainty if the ball had completely passed the goal line, but since the shot was very hard and the ball also bounced, at dizzying speed on the upper part of the crossbar, leaving the field of play again, it remained floating in the environment without delay. it was a real goal. Later, Barcelona, with the advantage of two goals, achieved by Villaverde, lowered their performance, seeing themselves outmatched by their opponent, who played a superb second half. It was then when the game acquired its greatest spectacularity, because Real Madrid, with serenity, spun the most beautiful plays, in a squandering of football of the highest quality, in some moments it acquired characters of the purest exhibitionism, and the emotion remained latent as a consequence of the duel between the Madrid strikers, well supported by Muñoz and Zárraga, and the Barcelona goalkeeper. It was a persistently sustained struggle by the Real Madrid team, who shot with intention and power, but the shots by Mateos and Di Stéfano, some of them with goal marks, were always neutralized by Ramallets in a simply formidable, pre-awarded performance. with the most enthusiastic ovation of how many the public lavished on both teams throughout the match [...] In Barcelona, the best man was Ramallets, followed in merits by Villaverde and Suárez, while Mandi and Kubala were less brilliant, and Manchón, frankly blurred. The flying midfielders did not have their afternoon, while the defensive trio had its best man in Seguer. Madrid played a magnificent game, greatly improving their first visit to our city, when they arrived in Sarria. Alonso reappeared in full capacity, while in the defensive trio, Marquitos was the best man; the midfielders played a superb second half, with Muñoz being the brain element of the team, and from the lead, as I am praised, it can be said that no one remembered the absences of Olsen and Rial. It was a line of attack in which Di Stéfano, a tireless worker, was helped by the effective work of Marsal and Mateos, the two young Madrid elements, and by the quick Gento (...) https://www.abc.es/archivo/periodicos/abc-madrid-19560320-35.html Mundo Deportivo “It was a good game, especially the first half, in an open game where Ramallets was enormous (...)” “Di Stefano was the slowest and less practical in the young offensive attack, which required another type of game from its conductor than to abuse the dribble in the midfield, excessively concerned perhaps with his own individual image of shining.” “Kubala played an intelligent game for the team but did not shine personally” http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1956/03/19/pagina-3/636378/pdf.html http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1956/03/19/pagina-4/636379/pdf.html Marca Madrid headlined: “Although Madrid lost they were not inferior” “Barcelona dominated the first half while Madrid the second” “Kubala was more subdued than his counterpart Di Stefano, who was playing across the width of the pitch, creating the initiation and conducting the entire attack from Madrid (...) As far as chances in the box (...) In the final third the defenders Segarra and Biosca were able to stifle Di Stefano...” “Ramallets was the best from the home team” “For Madrid the most complete was the midfield line of Muñoz and Zarraga (...) Di Stefano was not the constant threat of his team”
La Liga Round 26 25/03/1956 Real Madrid 5-0 Alavés Stadium: Santiago Bernabéu ABC Madrid headlined: “WITH A VERY FAST GAME, MADRID BRILLIANTLY BEAT THE ENTHUSIASTIC ALAVÉS” “MADRID, IN TRANCE OF RECOVERY” “It would not be logical to induce Real Madrid to boast of its victory. Nothing else could happen and any result that had not clearly indicated their technical superiority over Sunday's rival would have been unworthy. What must be confirmed, however, is that the white eleven obtained its triumph with the practice of its best and least frequent virtue: the authentic speed, which is that of the ball, - moving without rest, set from man to man (...) Madrid easily dispatched an inferior side, with Di Stefano scoring one goal and setting up another. Alavés were one of the bottom table teams still fighting off relegation and acknowledged their inferiority by stating: “Madrid are too much of a team for us” [...] around the exceptional game of Di Stéfano, very brilliant despite being very marked (...) we have alluded to the most outstanding men of Real Madrid: Lesmes, Di Stéfano and Gento. The average worked better with the reappearance of Muñoz, who has improved his physical condition although he was a little slow (...)” Mundo Deportivo “Easy game for Madrid against an inoffensive Alavés team” For this newspaper Lesmes had been the best player of the game. Marca Madrid headlined: “Alavés played quick with enthusiasm but their inefficient defensive positioning facilitated Madrid’s dominance” “Di Stefano had won the game before it even started” This in reference to the tactical approach from Alavés that sacrificed a forward (Primi) to help out the defender (Erezuma) in shadowing Alfredo, thus renouncing any offensive possibilities up front. The result backfired. Opinion of some protagonists: Alavés defender, Erezuma: “Di Stefano is better than people think” “He’s a great player and everything that is said about him is little. I am convinced he is better than what people think and when he no longer is with Madrid that’s when people will be convinced” Berasaluce: “There was a great difference amongst both sides” Summary: 1 goal, 1 assist https://www.abc.es/archivo/periodicos/abc-madrid-19560327-29.html https://www.abc.es/archivo/periodicos/abc-madrid-19560327-30.htmlhttps://www.abc.es/archivo/periodicos/abc-madrid-19560327-31.html http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1956/03/26/pagina-4/637943/pdf.html http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1956/03/26/pagina-5/637944/pdf.html
La Liga Round 27 01/04/1956 Valladolid 2-2 Real Madrid Stadium: Municipal de Zorrila, Valladolid ABC Madrid “Valladolid and Madrid have shared the points by drawing two goals, a result that has satisfied their own and, strangers, because the final equalizer on the scoreboard has been deserved. The two teams had a great meeting. A real championship match, moved, despite the softness of the terrain, which at the last minute made the players accuse some fatigue, but without losing the tonic of speed imposed by the two teams.” “In Madrid they played a lot in the attack, with Joseíto, very fast and a special technician, led by Di Stéfano and Olsen. Neither Gento nor Pérez Paya were lowered, Muñoz and Zárraga were also an effective midfield. The weakest thing in Madrid was the defense, on the part of Navarro and Marquitos (...)” Mundo Deportivo highlighted the magnificent first half of Madrid, with some brilliant moments from Di Stefano, scorer of 1 goal. But Gento in particular was crowned as the best left winger the country had at the moment. “With him Di Stefano was magnificent, and Muñoz very good in the first half (...) Marca Madrid headlined: “Just result in Zorrila” “Both sides offered a good game” About Di Stefano it said: “with that great professional quality of being in the right place of preciseness, dropped as an auxiliary to help his defense, and in search of balls to spring forward counterattacks.” “The best players for Madrid were Alonso, Lesmes, and Gento: together with them Di Stefano in his good job in the midfield. In the forward line he did not have that much fortune, but still obtained a magnificent goal — the second one — shooting a halfway volley (...)” Summary: 1 goal https://www.abc.es/archivo/periodicos/abc-madrid-19560403-37.html http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1956/04/02/pagina-4/638354/pdf.html