Actual events: In 1957, Juventus discovered Eusebio when he was 15 years. Eusebio's mother did not want his son to move to Italy. I don't know the Italian law in 1957. He was not an oriundo. Let's assume that he became an Italian citizen around 1962. What would happen? -- Would the Italians select a Black player to their national team in 1960's? -- Italy with Riveria, Facchetti, Zoff, Riva and Eusebio? Actual events: In 1960, Eusebio was discovered by Bauer who wanted him to join Sao Paulo, but Sao Paulo rejected him. What if he went to Brazil? Again, I do not know Brazilian law in 1960. In 2013, he could become a Brazilian citizen in 4 years. He would have been eligible to play for Brazil in 1964. -- I don't know if Brazil ever capped a foreign-born player before. And I don't know if Brazil would ever cap a foreign-born player in 1964. -- Can Brazil win WC 1966 with Eusebio? Imagine Brazil with Eusebio in 1970.
It was a nice fantasy ... However, as much as I love and respect Eusebio talent ... his "fantasy move" to Brazil would not change much I think. Brazil had already won 2 WC's 58 and 62 ... I am not sure of the law but I can not see if Brazil were (supposed) to keen to make Eusebio became "Brazilian" just to play WC. I hardly recalled any info about successful foreign players in Brazil NT (ever?) At WC66, Pele's injury was a huge part of the lost. Eusebio would always make the team advance deeper ... The real question would be: can he win (w/o Pele) ? maybe and maybe not ... with Pele along side definitely YES - they would make a most dangerous pair in front.
The 1966 WC Finals will be interesting. -- If Eusebio went to Italy, Italy with him might have beaten North Korea. Eusebio was on fire in 1966. Italy would have advanced to play in the next round. Or Portugal without Eusebio would have lost to the Koreans. This is a chicken and egg question. North Korea might not be there to play Portugal. Portugal without him might not qualify for the second round. Hungary probably topped the group. -- Brazil with Eusebio might be able to stop Portugal in group stage..... or at least, allowed Hungary to advance as top seed. But Brazil with Eusebio probably won't win the WC in 1966. I do believe Portugal with Eusebio is stronger than Brazil with Esuebio(that is without Pele).
You're very well spot on and that's what I see too This is a ... a good exercise reminder for some here that think Brazil could always win WC w.o Pele Also it's a sad fact that as great as Eusebio was, his chance of WINNING a WC was very slim (even he was born a Brazilian or Italian like you posed)
Brazil did win it without Pele in WC62, so I didn't see why you readily dismiss Eusebio not being able to pull it off. Eusebio's individual performance in WC66 is top five in history, very close if not same level to Garrincha's in WC62. Also, NT manager Saldanha was sacked in favor of Zagallo months before the start of WC70 as he refused to include Pele under heavy pressure from the Brazilian government but possibly with Eusebio there the pressure is nowhere near as big and Pele does not get called up for WC70.
Eusebio developed knee injuries during and after 1968. Thanks to the much rougher play in Europe (blunt statement, I know). He moved gradually to midfield and by 1970 he was certainly a midfielder for a large part. A very good one though.
Go back and read Misioux analysis for Wc66 situation. Now last time: WC62 was a different story *than 66 with Eusebio at his best! 1- Garrincha (a TOP10 all time) did STEP IN (Pele's shoes) and won that WC for Brazil - many put his performance as #2 in WC history for that 2- now IF Pele was NOT injured, Brazil were still SURELY and EASILY winning that cup, So? Na dmay be he could have won his 1st WC goldenboot there (NOTE: that season was PEle's best ever season 126goals/90+games)??? SO UNFORTUNATELY Who said Eusebio 66 was TOP5 best in history? you? NOT ME, NEITHER FIFA NOR any reliable sources .... OK?
Can you give me five individual WC performances better than Eusebio's at WC66? PS: Eusebio is also top ten of all time player.
not to diminish his performance at WC66 (thanks to 4goals vs N Korea) he could NOT even win the golden ball WC66, so forget about top5 ever ... with the coming strong of Ronaldo and Zidane lately ... I am afraid he was fighting for a place in TOP10 now ... depends on the source of poll ...
Anyway this is from Eusebio during an interview in 98 Exclusive Interview with EUSEBIO Q: What was one of your greatest moments as a footballer? A: There were many great experiences that I had playing football. It is very difficult to choose one at this time, however playing in the 1966 World Cup was a wonderful moment. Q: Who would you consider to be the best player of all time. A: There were many great players during my time, before, and after me. Today many people believe Ronaldo is the best player. This is a difficult question because there are different positions as well as rules. The rules can also determine the type of play you will see. But in my opinion, I would have to say Pele was the best player of all. Q: How would Ronaldo compare to Pele? A: You cannot compare the two persons. Pele played in an era which had o many great players and in that atmosphere he stood out above the others. He was the complete player in every aspect as well as being a kind human being. Ronaldo is young yet, and has many years ahead of himself. But as of now, I do not see anyone who can compare with Pele. Q: Many people consider you to be the greatest player that Africa has every produced. What is your opinion? A: I am honored to be considered in that way however, I loved the sport of football and played only to win. If others want to say such things I am very honored
LOL, Ronaldo's performances at the WC cannot shine the boots of Euebio's at WC66. Of course, there was no golden ball in WC66, but he is rightly acknowledged as the tournament's best player.
Must have changed his mind... Here is what he said in an interview with him from 2008 on FourFourTwo (http://fourfourtwo.com/interviews/one-on-one/426/article.aspx) You played against some of the game's greatest players – Pele, Best, Di Stefano, Puskas, Charlton. Who was the best?Sam McGuffle, Newbury And you could add others to that list. But I'm not going to sit on the fence. In my opinion, one player was the most complete: Alfredo Di Stefano. They are all great players, but Di Stefano had it all.
WRONG 1: most pro rated Ronaldo 02 higher (8goals in 2000's >> 9goals in 60's) and Eusebio failed to lead the team to final. Even Castrol stats backed up Ronaldo higher! WRONG 2: Officially Boby Charlton won Goldenball WC66, Moore silver and Eusebio was Bronze WRONG3: Ronaldo WC performance overall was in TOP10, NOT Eusebio ============================================ In WC history only two players won Goldenball but not in the final: Schillaci WC90 and last Forlan WC10. NOT Eusebio66 NOR Muller 70. I rated Muller 70 > Eusebio 66
Most complete is sometimes FAR FROM BEST player. I also agree with him, Di stefano was more complete than Pele, but not better!
I totally agree most complete does not necessarily mean better. But in all fairness, the question is Who was best? He does not say "Di Stefano was the most complete, but the best was..." Right or wrong, Eusebio clearly puts Di Stefano above the rest. His opinion, no need to share it.
Once again you bring up anachronisms to back your arguments. There was no Golden Ball given at the end of WC66, by that I mean in 1966. All of those awards were done by FIFA's marketing branch and have the fallacy of looking over a career rather than the tournament itself. Eusebio in WC66 is a truly transcendental performance, only Maradona's in WC86 can be said to be clearly better. Ronaldo in WC02 does not even figure as something vintage, notice that except for you almost no one else in these forums references it as some kind of benchmark. In WC94 alone, four players at least gave a greater individual performance (Hagi, Stoichkov, Romario and Baggio).
Want to clarify/correct this: I did not have him in my top five. I had him in my 'first tier' of legends, and first tier of strikers. And I think that is fairer thing to do than just making a top five, because uncountable issues exists in deciding between players. But I made once a top 10 because it was asked to do so (and Eusebio wasn't in the top 5)... And I added that about eight names are more or less equal and not significantly 'better'. So that is what I did...
P*ck, in another thread you clearly stated that Eusebio's performance at WC66 is top five for individual WC play, alongside Maradona-86, Cruyff-74, Garrincha-62. You even suggested it could well be #2 and Garrincha's was not really better.
Sorry, yes, that is correct. Was confusing it with an 'overall' all-time ranking (as posted in Daily Mail top 50 thread). I misinterpreted James his post. You're right.
Did I? I must be drinking LOL ... (or I must mix/swap up Muller 70 and Eusebio 66) anyway Eusebio at WC66 (or Muller 70) was a great performance, and could well be highly rated. But rating involved a points system and they both would be deducted for they were NOT playing in the final. There are two sides of the story: 1- Most often I said on behalf of some surveys/list .... (that Eusebio 66 was not in TOP5 best single WC) rather than my own opinion 2- Above was 'according to most pros or surveys'. Now on the "sentimental" side, everyone has his own right to pick his own choice. For example, a lot of people "picked" Rossi's 82 as among TOP10 best WC performance, but NOT ME. In this case I'd rather put Muller 70, Eusebio 66 above Rossi (or Kempes 78) in that sense!
You are the only one who rates Ronaldo in WC02 as better than Eusebio in WC66. Besides myself, Puck, msioux, celito, PDG and a host of others rate Eusebio's performance higher.
I did not say it "literally" I just comment 1-8goals of 2000s > 9goals of 60's - (that's my opinion) 2- Based on Castrol stats, Ronaldo 02 was higher (not my opinion) If I had to rate probably they were all equal in performance and efficiency: Eusebio 66 Muller70, Ronaldo02