I was using DM in the same broad sense FF was. The list has precious little actual DMs, if we mean ball-winners or players that actually played as the bottom man in a midfield. Still, deep-lying playmakers often suffer from the same lack of recognition, if not to the same degree as ball-winners. For the record, ESM votes coincide quite perfectly with the amount of hype/coverage a player got in World Soccer. In that sense I'd say the votes are a pretty spot-on indicator of the average media opinion. Every one of the ones you listed came off as being ahead of Guardiola or Redondo. Sacchi's Italy was absolutely godawful. Maybe the most criticized Italy team of all-time? Even the ones that got pelted with tomatoes got off more easy. The only reason they won games in normal time was because of the brilliance of Baggio.
Totti is a unique player, but loyalty was his biggest flaw. He could’ve have had a better career if he joined Real or Barca or any other bigger side. Maldini himself said he would’ve left Milan if they weren’t an ambitious club. In terms of ability, it is difficult to judge who was the better player between Totti and Zidane.
That's largely true but most of the games Italy was awful, Baggio was poor too. The group stage, the final. Against Spain and Bulgaria they had an upper hand for most of the time. Their midfield was on top with Albertini and Dino Baggio. Spain was far away from pummeling them. Bulgaria was never on the front foot in the match. Against Nigeria in the round of 16 they were really fortunate (in particular Maldini) and there Baggio came up big against the run of play indeed. This match is the best example of what you describe. In general I think 1988 to 1998 Italy was (just as the league itself) even better as what came after. And yes, stats paint an appropriate picture for this.
Which was Italy’s best WC campaign? In one of their WC win, Mussolini played a role, but I don’t recall them being favourites when they’ve won it. When Italy was stacked as hell during Euro 2000 and 2002, they failed to win it, but let’s not forget that drug addict referee was totally bribed by South Korea for them to advance.
Drug smuggler(not addict lmao) https://nypost.com/2011/09/23/ex-soccer-ref-sentenced-to-30-months-for-smuggling-heroin-through-jfk/ Imagine a referee running around mad and strung on heroin in a high profile match Maybe they could make his life into a biopic/movie It had the right blend of real tradegy as well real highs and lows WC 1982 Best backline in world cup history And perhaps the most clutch performance by a CF in the tournaments history Rossi 82=Baggio 94 Maradona in his real/absolute dribbling prime was neutralized here (albeit with the help of some controversial challenges) Claudio Gentile was a savage
As said/indicated, there are anomalies and the benefit of hindsight can/should lead to different conclusions. But for a top 10 or top 20 sort of position the fact someone never received a Ballon d'Or vote is something that has to be addressed. Sadly, FF doesn't make a case for any of these players. So while *personally* I think Bergomi is worthwhile company, him never getting a vote has to be dealt with in a direct or indirect way, just as his lack of playing skills and also him getting a straight red 13 times in his (long) career. The listing of Simeone among the HM however reveals coaching career is a factor. Another factor are the football demographics (the latin alliance, the anglogerman axis). Just for the World Cups, I'd say 1978 is a strong candidate. They were one of the best playing teams, maybe the best, and also played fine against the big teams (France, Argentina in the group stage; Germany and Netherlands in the 2nd group stage; Brazil for 3rd place). Had they a better draw and schedule, they might have won fair and square (although Roberto Bettega, later also truly notorious as Juventus director and by Marcotti described as "the worst person ever" tried to bribe the Dutch players). Another one is 1990 on home soil. This is a more difficult one because the first good opponent they met was immediately too much (the semi final against Argentina, totally wasted by them). Before that they had only 'easy' opponents. Generally they impressed with their play (even though their 2nd game against USA was a weak performance). Then for the 3rd place they won deservedly against England. If it's just about 2nd group stage to final, then 1982 is also fine. By Italian newspapers themselves there are though also less pleasant stories about their Cameroon game. Very lucky to progress in their group.
Some are also inclined to add 1970 in this list, but I think that's skewed by how the tournament in general is remembered and the vibrant colors. I think when those games get analysed with modern eyes it doesn't pass as well, in particular their defending, defensive organization, and the finishing of chances (by Riva especially). Unlucky though to play the 1970 final so enormously tired. For me it's 1978 and 1990, in particular 1978 given all those five really good sides they played against. 1982 was strong from the 2nd group stage onward; 2006 was good in patches but (imho) also logical why they couldn't beat the two good sides in normal time (only near the very end when Germany was knackered).
Not just Italy. Brazil 1970 wasn't as amazing as I was told they were, when I finally got around to watching them in full.
The fake 'no look' pass Pele saw Carlos Alberto coming from a mile away Instead the standard romanticized version is Pele had eyes at the back of his head Before Pele stopped the ball He waits for the right time to give the ball to me.” At the strange beauty of playing a pass to a man who isn’t there. Pele knew I was coming, because we had spoken about that kind of chance before the game, if Jairzinho made the movement to the left side https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...nts-that-make-carlos-albertos-goal-for-brazi/ How one simple basic action that is performed 100s of Times every weekend across Europe's 5 leagues is enshrined into folklore and legend It was the first World cup televised in colour(As puck already mentioned) Everything is magical when you see it the first time Anybody who seriously took there time could find 100 comical defensive errors upon reviewing every match in WC1970 Of that i am certain
I mean, any old team will look worse than the modern teams due to various factors. I don't judge them harshly for that. What I do have problems with is the romanticization of it. Here is a quote from Eric Cantona: "An artist in my eyes is someone who can lighten up a dark room. I have never and will never find difference between the pass from Pele to Carlos Alberto in the final of the World Cup in 1970 and the poetry of the young Rimbaud. There is in each of these human manifestations an expression of beauty which touches us and gives us a feeling of eternity." At the end of the day, I can appreciate differences in era, I just don't like it when it is claimed that something is so great, no one can ever surpass it. It is possible, perhaps, to argue that Brazil 1970 was the most dominant and beautiful/exciting World Cup team ever, relative to their time. That would be something more palatable, and I would have no problem with such a statement, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.
1970 Brazil wasn’t more beautiful to watch than 1974 Total Football era Netherlands tbh. In fact, I would say 1982 Brazil was more entertaining to watch than 1970 Brazil team. One thing we all could agree is that these two nations at their peak played the best football at international stages. In recent era, I would say Spain was absolutely great to watch during 2012 Euros. Otherwise Spain definitely was boring to watch during 2010 WC and bored their opponents to death with defensive iteration of ball possession and scored the least amount of goals which nevertheless is still more interesting to watch than Italy’s anti football, no offence. I gotta be honest, but France for their talent plays 19th century football. They have insane talent pool in almost every single position and could play good football. I don’t think France was so stacked in talent before and Ligue 1 teams are doing a great job producing such players.
I think what can be argued about the Pele pass is that it was everything that was needed to set up Carlos Alberto perfectly for his shot. Not that other players would be incapable of such a pass, but just that the delay and timing, and the weight and angle of the pass allowed the first time shot with a flourish. Pele's pass to Jairzinho vs England had similar elements in those respects I think (in otherwise Pele's least impressive display of the tournament arguably I think to be fair). I think the other aspect is the context it was delivered in, and that for people watching at the time (but even those of us seeing it for the first time in retrospect), whether Brazilians especially, but also neutrals who just enjoy football, there could be a sense of enjoyment and satisfaction in the way it helps round off both the goal and the victory - there can be a release of endorphins for the viewer probably, enhanced by commentary (and there were different versions of commentary even in England, but in both cases it applies I think...plus the crowd noises etc). So maybe it is that whole experience that Cantona refers to. Pele's delay was in order to give Carlos Alberto chance to get in the right place, but it also adds a sense of finale and "this is the final great goal that seals Brazil's championship" and it comes at the end of a move that Clodoaldo started with shimmying and dribbling in his own half and that several Brazilian players had been involved in.
That pass was definitely romanticised because it was Pele’s final World Cup, he was the most marketable athlete in that era and had a good tournament at the age of 30 years which for an attacking player is almost in final stage of his career.
Personally, I think if R9 was never injured, and Romario was allowed to play, the late 1990s and early 2000s Brazil could've been the single most entertaining world cup teams to watch, especially once the young Ronaldinho joined the fray. There was something pure and joyful about the way those Brazilians played. It probably wasn't the most effective (although credit needs to be given to the pragmatic defensive foundation of the team) but the individualistic expression was very fun to watch at times.
Maradona started experimenting with recreational drugs in late 1982 or 1983 And up until that stage he hadnt suffered any serious injuries Before the Goikoetxea foul incident Maradona was a pure artist/dribbler with the end product to match In a career spanning between 1976 and 1997 Maradona scored 259 goals+162 assists in 491 league matches Maradona was 22 years old at the end of 1982/83 season and by that stage he had already scored 144 league goals+92 assists in 226 appearances Maradona officialy retired at 37 years old Yet 56% of his entire career goal+assist league production came at the age of 22 years old https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Maradona Here's a start Playmaking+assists at 16-21 years old for argentinos juniors/Boca 1976-1981 Goals,shots on/off target,FKs and set piece attempts Argentinos juniors 1976-1980 The real peak This comp specifically should answer your question Maradona was sometimes struggling to dribble even 1 player in napoli https://statsbomb.com/2020/04/decoding-diego-maradona-by-the-numbers/ The lifestyle had already taken a toll on his performance level for much of his time there I wouldn't be surprised if someone did a analysis of seasons 85/86,86/87,87/88 and 88/89 and found he was irregular and fluctuating between absolutely fantastic and completely mediocre Dearman insists about inflating Maradona when in reality Maradona was only a 'phenomenon' at club level up until 1982 You cannot be a phenomenon without the phenomenon production And even if Maradona was no box striker he was certainly one of the highest fielded players So stats defintely do play a significant role in defining how good he really was And this is a telling statistic IMO 56% of his entire career goal+assist league production came by the age of 22 years old(1982)
Goikoetxea should be arrested for the tackles he made during his time. He was definitely a psychopath. The man was proud of breaking Maradona’s ankle ligaments and cased the boot he used to do that. He also ruined Schuster’s career.
Guys, feels like this one is going off on a major tangent. Let’s try and keep it more on topic. Personally I agree with lots of the comments about the inclusions (N’Kono, Cannavaro, Gerrard) and the omissions (Nesta, Dani Alves, Keane). Overall though my biggest observation is the poor way France Football have done this. The coverage in the magazine with just the trophies won by the players has been rubbish. A big missed opportunity for something that could have been really good.
Normally I don't like merely name dropping but I'll summarize my calls. For actual explanation I refer to the previous posts. Goalkeepers (1st page): N'Kono is the glaring choice. The rest is about fine although personally I think some have not the longevity for this sort of top 10 position. Right backs: Dani Alves is a miss. Maybe there can be question marks about Bergomi, Kaltz, Gentile and Suurbier. Some of these can also be a central defender (and I find Thuram the more rounded defender as Desailly, for previously stated reasons) Defenders: As mentioned, not enough places for similarly deserving players. Cannavaro instead of Nesta I don't agree with, but is understandable for the stated reasons. Scirea was as his career petered out, and then his tragic death, rated much higher in hindsight - see BdO and also DBScalcio - and of course it's true his disciplinary record was exemplary (even though with the 'advantage' of playing for Juventus). The total opposite of a Ramos or a Sammer. Left backs: I'd bring in more diversity. So drop Marcelo and bring in Alaba or Ashley Cole. It's (for me at least) not very hard to think of able left backs. Defensive midfielders (last post 1st page): Gerrard should be AM and then not sure whether he makes the cut (above Robson for example). Modric is a big miss, and - perhaps to a lesser degree - Keane. Guardiola wouldn't be here without his coaching career and Redondo is another one who looks better in hindsight. I'd replace Schuster, given national team and continental career (except for 5 competitive games or so), with someone else of his country, for reasons stated there. Tardelli is a particularly weak choice and I'd replace Xabi Alonso as well, with a few Spanish midfielders of his generation already in and with him not *that* good a league player/winner. Neeskens I can understand given their own BdO voting but personally I see Haan and Davids as also fairly well-rounded players, with enough arguments to put them on a roughly similar standing. Offensive midfielders (2nd page): I have doubts about Kubala, Socrates and Totti (I'd insert Del Piero). As far as the honorable mentions go, I'd replace Sneijder by Bergkamp certainly (and is arguably good enough for the real top 20). Indeed a number 10 who managed to survive at top clubs and was "magnificent" as late as 2004-2005. Notwithstanding a few poor seasons, 1994-95, 2000-01, maybe 2002-03. Major omissions are hard to comment on because some might appear among the wingers and forwards category.
Repped you for the summary and thought you have put into it Puck, and helping comme get the thread back on track I guess lol! I think to try to make a definitive "should be included" list it might be necessary to even just name 5 players (and 10 for DMs and AMs), as beyond that surely it will be arguable according to peoples ideas about the players and how people would see things in terms of criteria too. I see what you are saying on Scirea and Redondo for example, even if I suspect I'd have them both in (regardless of whether Scirea would really suit a WM as sole centre-back or Redondo would really suit old fashioned left half with one centre-back behind in reality - if formations hadn't moved on I guess they'd have played those roles and been more conservative than in their own time, or otherwise been more advanced players positionally than they were in their own time) if going with a full list at least (of 10 names per slot). It can be I'd be persuaded by the 'class' and maximum potential, even a bit too much it might be argued (although it seems to me that Scirea was probably fairly reliable in general and the defensive record of Juventus was pretty good I think wasn't it with him as libero and last man i.e sweeper). Re: Bergkamp, as you'd expect I'd definitely tend to agree and include him as an option myself, even in the most stacked position for world class players. Maybe some would hold the Serie A period against him when it came to deciding between various names, but I think that would be a bit unfair and he showed a few times playing for Arsenal that he can certainly still be effective and incisive creatively against top Serie A defences. I think he actually probably would suit a WM quite well too anyway (or WM variant where he could be almost a second striker, or alternatively the one holding back as more of a withdrawn inside forward).
Maybe it's not even a certainty that Bergkamp won't appear himself as a centre forward option, or right forward option, even if I would have said AM (in the context of the 3-2-2-3 system with so supporting strikers as such) was the best choice. I guess one thing with putting Cruyff (or Pele) at centre-forward is it does take away the decision many might have to make otherwise, which would be dropping Pele, Maradona or Cruyff from their All-Time XI. Maybe in the end more modern systems (especially with free choice, and with people viewing this as All-Star XIs mainly) wouldn't allow for less of the attacking stars than the seemingly very attacking old-fashioned 3-2-2-3 does. Edit: He won't be the only case like this but one thing that can come to mind with Redondo is that his status in terms of awards/recognition looks better on a seasonal basis than with the annual awards based on calendar year. The 1999/2000 'Best Player in Europe' (even if not getting voted 'best midfielder' somehow as sometimes happened with the overall winners not winning in their position) award most notably, although I do realise as you've pointed out before Puck that his La Liga form in that season as a whole was not at the level of his displays vs Man Utd, Valencia in the CL consistently. Moving from Real Madrid and getting injured perhaps cut him off in his prime, or would he have soon declined from that level anyway?
Since FF put Box-to-Box and Deep Lying Playmakers into the DM category, the best label it would have been Central Midfielders. I understand, DM is the weakest category in AT XI and they want to strenghten it.
I find Rattin a stronger choice than Redondo. If I have to explain I'll try but think I've explained myself on Redondo before. I don't see him appearing among the ten center forwards and guess for the right wingers they'll nominate Robben or so (or at least give a honorable mention). Don't know. He was already 31 when he moved and had injuries before. I think this was one of the motivations behind Real Madrid to sell him (another is that they needed money to cancel debts). While Redondo was previously actually not really seen as their main midfielder (I'd say he was that in 1998-99, but not seen that way), it was now a good time to sell him. Well yes, certainly. Without repeating it all again: against 'peak Maldini' he played six times and put three past him (includes one penalty, helped to win it), as well as some assists. Won penalties against Juventus as well, winning the points for the team. Inter also had better results with him on the field than without him. In the matches he played (Serie A, UEFA Cup) the win percentage was 44%, while losing 32%. In the matches he missed (17 games) the win percentage is 35% and losing 42%. It's a difference of 1.60 points per game vs 1.29 points per game. One of the main foundations behind that is, of course, getting your positioning right and not being too focused on just scoring goals. Four different Inter managers within two years don't help either, and it's understandable they were expecting the sort of goal production he had for Ajax and the national team (but also understandable why it didn't happen). For me the idea he failed the Serie A test - even though not his best streak - is not quite right. The UEFA Cup win as topscorer too, of course (kind of 'running circles' around Sammer, see video), but I've gone over this before. Indeed, later on in his career he was often determined to show he could do it against the best Italian defenders (Nesta, Thuram, Montero etc.). Too bad that move in the 2000 semi final, getting the better of Nesta and Luliano, ended with a shot on the post... There is btw an interesting special appearing on number 10s... and it goes also into why 'classic' number 10s have never been fully appreciated/embraced in these regions. Number 10s are only accepted when they score a lot (in Europe) like for example Litmanen. https://www.fantasista10.co.uk/cruyff-the-misuse-of-the-number-10/ The cover photo is intruiging.
In fairness to them, in the actual magazine it includes the category as milieu defensif ou relayeur which reflects it more as defensive and central midfielders.