The problem in arguing in favor of Zico is that there’s not one single reputable source that considered him as the best player in the world in his heyday. His potential 1981 world player of the year award had more to do with the international trophies — controversial I may add — but not so much to do with the argument as the best technical player in the game. There’s not one single reputable source that claims this. His 1981 Guerin Sportivo award was based on the accumulation of points of featuring in the best XI of the year in what ended in a three-way tie with Maradona and Rummenigge (he was part of the panel of voters that gave his vote for both of his competitors which turned out to be the deciding factor) that was arbitrarily tilted in his favor thanks to the international prizes and because the other two had won the previous awards. The other prize he won was handed out by the editors of Don Balón thanks again to the international success. The claim by some on this board that Zico would have won 2 or even 3 Ballon d’Ors is devoid from reality. In 1977 Cruijff was still seen as the best player in the world and Europe didn’t really care for what was transpiring in South America. In 1982 no one was taking away Paolo Rossi’s awards, whether one accepts it or not, he swept aside all competition that year. In retrospect, Brazil’s colorful 1982 team has gone down in history as some type of moral victors, but at the time they were considered big-time underachievers. Zico’s best shot was in 1981, but even then there’s doubts.
Not that I personally disagree with this opinion, but what are your sources for Cruyff in 77 as the best player in Europe? Your logic of citing the 82 Ballon d'Or win for Rossi as proof of his perception by contemporaries as the best that year, or seeing the Ballon d'Or voting as an authoritative source does not match up well with your idea of Cruyff being perceived as the best player in Europe in 77 when he finished 5th in the Ballon d'Or and only got one first place vote.
The press voices through newspapers and magazines of particularly Latin sources, point to Cruijff still generally viewed as the best player in the game. The reputation that he had built in the previous years had still not waned and there are articles that interview players and managers that consider him to still be the indispensable player at the time. Even Eusebio in early 1977 mentions him in the class of greatness with the Pelés, Beckenbauers, etc when asked to pick the best player he ever witnessed. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/alfredo-di-stéfano-career-match-reports.1994303/page-13#post-39154091 But I think we must separate the differences of understanding an award given based on many different factors, from a general perception of who is considered individually the best player. Paolo Rossi in 1982 would have won mostly every award at his disposable (which he did) thanks to the World Cup triumph, but he wasn’t viewed as the best technical player by any means. In 1977 Allan Simonsen won the Ballon d’Or and others finished ahead of Cruijff, but I found no source that would claim that those players were considered superior. Their placings ahead must have evidently been based on the prioritizing of the success of their club teams on the European stages or the hype that was circulating at the time for some through the machine of propaganda. In a nutshell, if world pundits would have been asked to pick the best player in 1977, it’s highly unlikely anyone would have chosen Zico. In addition, there’s no international prizes available to hold him accountable in contention for a theoretical world award.
La liga 1976/77 top scorers Mario Kempes 24 goals Marañón 22 goals Carlos Morete 22 goals Manuel Clares 22 goals Rubén Cano 20 goals Jesús María Satrústegui 19 goals Dani 16 goals Diarte 16 goals Mario Finarolli 16 goals Johan Cruyff 14 goals Its unfathomable that a 30 year old 'best player in the world attacker" is outscored by 9 different players in his own domestic league Much less so that la liga was in the latter half of the 1970s a 2nd tier league known more for its physicality then its high level of technical football It doesn't matter that pitches were disastrous or the tackles were brutal. It doesn't matter when 9 different players outscore him playing under the exact same adverse circumstances Cruyff was the best player of 1977 in name only and hype based on his level a few years previous
Indeed, some believed that Cruijff in 1977 was living off his past laurels, that there was a great contrast of home and away games (back then visiting teams sat back when on the road), that he played when he decided he wanted to play or when he was allowed to by Spain’s stoppers. But at the same time he was rated by multiple Spanish sources of Don Balon and Mundo Deportivo (both Barcelona papers of course) as the best player in the league. However, in 1977 Cruijff orchestrated a memorable victory at Wembley at the expense of Kevin Keegan and England in one of the finest displays of a visiting side on their turf in the color-tv era. Allan Simonsen and Kevin Keegan obtained firecracker praise for reaching and contesting the European Cup final. A tournament less congested than the more trickier but less prestigious UEFA European Cup, where Cruijff bowed out in semifinals. Barcelona weren’t particularly special in Europe while Liverpool and Borussia Mönchengladbach had the better sides.
Correction: Barcelona were knocked out in the quarterfinals of the UEFA Cup in 1977 to eventual runners-up Athletic Bilbao, who went on to lose against Juventus in the final. Roberto Bettega’s high finish in this year’s Ballon d’Or had evidently to do with this achievement.
As I dug deeper into the 1977 year using only Spanish sources (I have some other international info stashed away somewhere) all of them came to a similar conclusion: Simonsen had been the weakest or at least the least likable winner. The Danish player was viewed as a good winger but not a fuoriclasse. Never before had France Football’s award been so questioned. For Mundo Deportivo, Marca Madrid and ABC Madrid, Simonsen’s win had taken a sharp turn from the illustrious names from the past to the unproven and more modest skilled player of the present. In the critics views, in order to deserve the award, the athlete had to pull rank, earn his stripes over time in order to obtain recognition. If not, it was seen more as a one-hit wonder, a strike of one goal to win a pivotal match but not the conqueror of an entire year or the reputation built over time. In addition, it was viewed as the darker period of football, where physicality overcame technique, where football was devoid of geniuses — with the exception of Johan Cruijff — and where France Football with their “chauvinism” of wanting to promote their new darling of French Football, Michel Platini, had started to devalue the award. Marca Madrid ABC Madrid Mundo Deportivo http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1977/12/29/pagina-11/1025559/pdf.html
This is tiresome stuff: - Cruijff had actually one of his stronger years in 1977, as an individual. In normal circumstances he wins the league and he performed against all top level opponents he faced that year. Clares was almost topscorer thanks to his efforts. He scored two goals when he went out in Europe and he didn't take penalties. He was ineligible to play in the domestic cup. Check on football ratings blog his high average ratings in the Clasico. As usual, it doesn't compute here. - For the 100th time: even Placar didn't believe Zico was the best in the world. I have shown the articles countless times. When Cruijff played in Brazil in 1976 (against other great players) they saw their perception confirmed and he was seen as the world best player by them. Nowhere is Zico (right or wrong) placed at that level. By Placar. Sigh...
As everyone knows, Argentine ace Messi has seven Golden Balls, the biggest winner of this award so far, but he wasn't supposed to be the biggest winner of this award. In the years 2010, 2012 and 2019, Messi also won the award. However, in 2010, there were players who deserved more than Messi, to take the Golden Ball. In 2010, Messi had a great year, he was top scorer in the Champions League, won the BBVA League, the Copa del Rey and the Spanish Super Cup. However, Iniesta, had these same achievements and won the World Cup for the Spanish team, including scoring the title, against a Netherlands in a Cup final. Why didn't he win? Since he was essential for Barcelona to win these titles, always giving assists, being a genius in this foundation, and it was essential for Spain to take the first World Cup in its history. If two players that year had the same achievements... Yes! The World Cup was to break the tie and weigh the balance, more to one side than the other. Iniesta is one of those who deserved it that year. But he deserved no better than Dutchman Wesley Sneijder. The 2010 Golden Ball was supposed to be his. He had several achievements: Champions, World Cup, Italian Championship, Italian Cup, Italian Super Cup, being fundamental for Inter Milan that year. So then, he was supposed to have (at least) been among the three finalists in the Ballon d'Or that year. In the World Cup, Sneijder practically "led" the Dutch team to the final of that World Cup. Being decisive in the game against Brazil, scoring two goals, winning the game of comeback, eliminating the team with the highest number of world achievements, and classifying the Netherlands to the semifinals. Also, along with the German Thomas Müller, being the top scorer of that Cup, with five goals scored. Did all of that, and WAS NOT EVEN AMONG THE THREE FINALISTS, THAT'S IT! For many, the most stolen Golden Ball in the history of world football. This is one of the two stolen ones Messi has. What criteria did FIFA take into account? It's no use scoring goals and goals and not being decisive. In addition to the bad Cup that Messi did that year, without a goal scored and being eliminated in the quarterfinals to a merciless Germany, winning 4-0. This is one of Messi's stolen Golden Balls. For the whole work, Sneijder was more decisive and was better. In 2012, Messi set records, the most expressive of them being 91 goals in the year. Remember nonsense! Amazing! Something fantastic! Absurd goal average. But as I had said in another part of this text, that it is useless for you to score goals and goals, and not be decisive. He had only one achievement that year: The King's Cup, the minor title of the season. Of those 91 goals that Messi scored, how many were decisive in this conquest of the Copa del Rey? Only two goals. That's right, two goals! In other words, out of 91 goals, only two were important for this conquest of the Copa del Rey that year. Apart from these two goals, 89 goals were scored "for nothing". The player who was supposed to be the Golden Ball that year was Cristiano Ronaldo. Look, stop and make an analysis of Cristiano Ronaldo's 2012 year and compare it with Messi's 2012 year. The Portuguese ace scored 46 goals in Liga BBVA, four less than Messi, who scored 50 goals. Cristiano scored fewer goals and was more decisive, playing a lot in decisive matches against Barcelona at Camp Nou and at the end of the championship, taking the title. In the Spanish Super Cup (Copa del Rey champion vs. Liga BBVA champion) Real Madrid ended up taking this title, with Cristiano Ronaldo being decisive in the match, at the Santiago Bernabéu. The two aces had been eliminated with their respective teams in the Champions semis. Messi, lost a penalty, and was eliminated early at home. Cristiano Ronaldo was eliminated in a melancholy way, on penalties, at home, but in normal time, he scored a goal and took the decision of the spot to penalties. At the Euro Cup that year, Cristiano Ronaldo was decisive in the matches that the Portuguese team needed him. He claimed responsibility and scored two goals in the third group stage game against the Netherlands, and classified Portugal into the quarterfinals of that Euro. In the quarterfinals of that 2012 Euro Cup, he was again decisive against the Czech Republic, scoring the qualifying goal for the semi-final against Spain. He lost on penalties, but made a surprising and spectacular Euro. So, for all the work, Cristiano was better, because he won more titles, he was decisive, both in the club and in the NT. Messi, scored many goals, and was not decisive. That's what must be put into the scene. Clearly, you see that Cristiano was better. Then, raises that doubt in the air: What is the criterion that FIFA uses to crown a player with that award? In 2011, he gave the Ballon d'Or to Messi for having won titles with the club and being decisive. This year, Cristiano scored more goals that Messi and set records. In 2012, the Argentine ace lived the same side of the coin that Cristiano lived in 2011. AND WAS ELECTED! THAT'S RIGHT! ELECTED. Can you understand and consider such a Golden Ball? If it's not for titles and decisive games that Messi is elected, it's for goals and records, and vice versa. Many people consider this Ballon d'Or fair, given the fact that Messi scored 91 goals in the year. Let's follow FIFA's logic: If such a player scores 91 goals in the year playing in China, wins only one Cup, and in that same Cup, scores only 2 goals, he is deserving of this Ballon d'Or! Simple. Another fact: If Messi deserved it in 2012, Cristiano Ronaldo deserved it in 2011, if we are going to follow the logic of goals and records. It's frustrating. Then, for you Messi fan, you will use the argument: "FIFA is not the one who decides the winner of the Ballon d'Or, it only promotes the event. The journalists, coaches, and captains of the national teams vote." Okay, so how do you explain the voting controversy that year? Thiago Silva, voted for Mario Balotelli, but his vote was counted for Messi. The coach and captain of the Gabon Selection did not receive the ballots to vote. Why? Consequence of having given the declarations that they would vote for Cristiano Ronaldo. Strange, isn't it? Clearly, it was theft, not a computer error. Evidence of this is that Messi was elected the "best player at the 2014 World Cup", something that is not true, the FIFA president, having gone public, saying that he prefers Messi, and making fun of Cristiano's face and the corruption scandals of FIFA officials, that is, leads us to believe that there may have been vote manipulation in 2012, if there were all these controversies. If you don't believe in these kinds of things, I'm sorry, you're innocent or you play blind. Since ancient times, football, on and off the field, has been full of trickery. That 2012 Golden Ball was stolen, it was donated to Messi. It's reality, as much as it hurts a lot of people. It's no use. @IceBlood34 @carlito86 @PuckVanHeel @leadleader
In 1976 the views amongst Europeans about Brazilian footballers was that they still were an elite force in world football but lacked the temerity to opponents of possessing an iconic figure like Pelé. From the old guard there still was Roberto Rivelino pulling rank with his seniority card, and the potential class Zico and Reinaldo as Brazil’s new generation of upcoming stars. But none were classified in the world as fuoriclasse like Cruijff and Beckenbauer. In fact, by early 1977 Britain’s writer Brian Glanville, pointed out after the Dutch had defeated England at Wembley, that perhaps Cruijff was still the World’s best player with Beckenbauer as his shadow, and that when they no longer existed the Netherlands and Germans would decline. http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1977/03/05/pagina-32/1016713/pdf.html Zico did have a go at two of Europe’s finest in 1977, away at Wembley against England and at home to West Germany in Rio at the Maracaná. On both occasions Zico didn’t impress and Brazil failed to win. With no major tournaments featuring Zico in this year and only a handful of demolition performances at the expense of minnows Bolivia and Colombia, it’s questionable how did he win the South American award. At the domestic National level, his club finished well behind Reinaldo’s Atlético-MG, who were runners-up to eventual champions São Paulo. http://www.rsssf.com/tablesb/braz77.html For some to lay claim that he was the world’s best in 1977 or deserving of a Ballon d’Or, is one of the biggest enigmas on this board that I’ve read in recent times.
It is not a bizarre statement to make Glanville often went along with the 'politically correct' view and the incumbent, the default. He was at times somewhat part of the establishment and he was European, a self-admitted friendly acquaintance of Dassler and pals. More telling is how Placar themselves saw their own players (in particular in the context of Zico playing for the regime team, mind), and saw their perception confirmed: https://books.google.com/books?id=m58YuLQCJ1QC&lpg=PT42&dq=placar cruijff 1976&hl=nl&pg=PT42#v=onepage&q&f=false And really, when one looks at things like the huge uptake in win percentages there are still pretty good 'objective' arguments for it (the year 1977 I mean, not 1975).
What I do find amusing since it’s been used around here as some reference point, is the work of Dearman, which admittedly deserves praise for the effort, but mostly anything researched prior to 1990 should be taken with a grain of salt (damn that cliché word but it applies here). For example, in his work he has Zico number 1 for the year 1980 but has Maradona number 4 that year as one of the best performers across all eras. Zico in 1980 is not mentioned as one of the top 10 all-time efforts in his list. So how logical is this ? For 1979 Zico is ranked 5th in the official South American yearly awards but for some reason is or should be ranked number 1 in the world, according to his understanding. In 1976 Zico is ranked 4 in his work but there’s no Cruijff, generally accepted as the premier player in the game, even by Brazilian accounts. And how Passarella makes it into the top 2 in the world is remarkably odd. In 1981 Maradona is universally hailed as the second-coming to the myths of the past, with a successful year at the change of clubs, but for some reason is omitted here in the top 4. Instead, Platini, with no supporting evidence of the time, creeps in the top 3. For 1970 Pelé doesn’t make his top 5, and even though prior to the tournament there’s sceptism about his form, the Brazilian more than makes up for it after the World Cup is over, which draws certain reviews from around the globe that he’s still the best player in the game. These are with a quick look some of the dubious choices that I’ve spotted. There must be plenty more.
There is no clear-cut winner in 1977. Cruyff retired from international football in October that year. Beckenbauer had effectively done so by moving to America. Both were out of the forthcoming World Cup. They may still have been technically as good as anyone else but both were in their thirties and attention had shifted elsewhere. Ballon d'Or voting reflects this. The 1977 Ballon d'Or was a close three-horse race between Simonsen, Keegan and Platini. Keegan had won the European Cup with Liverpool but was making a slow start at Hamburg. Like Simonsen he was regarded as a good player rather than a great one. Platini was 22 and on the way up, the only one of the three whose country had qualified for the 1978 World Cup. That World Cup would be the first held in Latin America since Brazil's heady triumph in Mexico only seven years before. It is not unreasonable to imagine our mythical panel considering the leading players there. The South American Footballer of the Year Award for 1977 went to Zico, followed by Rivelino and Figueroa. The same players had made up the top three the year before, with Zico runner-up to Figueroa. Zico was 1977 top-scorer both in the Carioca championship and in Brazil overall. He had also top-scored in the Carioca in 1975 and in Brazil overall in 1976. In 1974 Placar awarded him the Bola de Ouro for best player in the Brazilian league. In December 1977 he was 24 years of age, a few months younger than Simonsen and two years younger than Keegan. Within his own continent, officially at least, he had gained more recognition than either. On the international stage Zico had at this point in time scored 12 goals in 16 matches (half of them in 1977). Simonsen had 9 in 16, Platini 6 in 12, and Keegan just 8 in 34 games. If the preference is for one of the up and coming guys in 1977, Zico looks to have as strong a case as any. If you would rather go for the tried and trusted then Cruyff is probably your man, followed perhaps by Rivelino or Figueroa.
Going back to 1976, I wonder whether Zico/Figueroa would be a bit like Belanov/Zavarov in 1986, whereby globally Zico gets quite a few more votes even though Figueroa took the crown as South American Player of the Year (similar to Zavarov being Soviet Player of the Year, but Belanov winning the Ballon d'Or as European Player of the Year and the wider Eastern Europe vote marginally over Zavarov too - see below) https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/newspapers-best-players-from-eastern-european-nations.2109938/ Zico played in the more eye-catching position and scored some notable and quality International goals in 1976, while Figueroa's impact was probably more confined to South America, even though he had a worldwide reputation already as a defender.
The Brazilian league system is complex and there’s nothing like it. The state Brazilian regional leagues consisted of many amateur quality teams. In the Carioca championship it was always dominated by 4 clubs, Flamengo, Botafogo, Vasco da Gama and Fluminense. The rest of the 10+ teams had virtually always consisted of non-professional or top Serie A calibre quality. These regional tournaments that mixed professional with amateur were not applicable to other elite players in Europe. In Italy for example, Serie A, B and C are professional leagues. Then follows the non-professional Serie D. The fifth level of Italian football is called the Excellenza, which is a regional league. This would be considered somewhat of an idea to what Zico was up against with the addition of some top flight teams thrown into the mix. In Spain it would be the equivalent to the Primera División RFEF, Segunda División RFEF and Tercera División RFEF in the 3rd, 4th and 5th tier levels. Brazil’s National championship is a whole different matter, one of the most challenging and complex tournaments that exist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccellenza https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tercera_División_RFEF So can we imagine for example Cruijff or Mario Kempes, when they were at Spain, playing a regional league that consisted of 10+ amateur teams with 4 professional sides in the mix ? And then the rest of the year playing the professional first division championship. How many goals would they accumulate in the entire year ? If Zico’s claim as the world’s best in 1977 was primarily based on the accomplishments in the Carioca league and his 4 goals vs Bolivia in the WC qualifications, over the battle tested and seasoned European contenders that had to compete on all fronts against the best managers, diverse defenders, different settings and schemes in their continent, then the standards for excellence are really low.
It is much harder for Cruijff to stay relevant in years he doesn't win big trophies (without that dubious suspension he would have; goalscoring ignores his assists and that he didn't take pens) because he represented a small market and is not exotic enough. Wm442443 once elaborated on this in relation to Zico. Let not forget the West German, Italian and English voters (except for Glanville in 1969) never had him at #1 in the Ballon d'Or (Spain and France did, but had combined only one international trophy in history). We are by the media with the most weight either a (to be belittled) sideshow or cast as villain, that is the recurring reality. Therefore it is very telling how Placar saw it. In particular within the context and environment of that time. Zico didn't perform in 1977 against opponents of Real Madrid or England their level, as Vegan10 correctly points out. He didn't do that at club level against international opposition either. 1976 is arguably a different story, though. For both players.
Yeah, I don't have any authority on the matter, but I've felt for a while that Zico in 1976 could be a bit under the radar compared to 1977, because of the outcome of the South American Player of the Year vote (winning it in the latter). I remember somebody once posted a best Brazilian players of the 70s vote or something, and Zico won that ahead of Rivelino (with Socrates getting a notable amount of points too), but Vegan could be right that it wasn't ever the case at a particular point that he was picked out widely as the best player in the game (Vegan is a bit older than me as well as being South American too to be fair, as well as having some sources available with similar conclusions that you've seen too about Cruyff still being the best player around which American public announcers still proclaimed to the fans when he arrived in the USA of course too as we've seen before). It does seem like on the other hand 1977 is a better call for Cruyff, as compared to 1976 (though perhaps if his form and the team success had carried over from the Belgium games into the final Euros tournament games too then that'd have given him a boost, and the start of 76/77 must have been in general very good for Cruyff at Barcelona I think wasn't it?). I guess you're happy and/or impressed with a pole position lap a few minutes ago, by your compatriot anyway Puck (not to turn this into a Formula 1 Forum)?
One of his sceptics Batty wrote at the end of 1977 that by now he had transformed into a "field general" and midfielder for a while. Jimmy Hill wrote the same. In the 1976-77 season he had 26 goals in all official games (excluding friendlies) and about 25 assists in all official games together (maybe more), with one penalty goal and a number of penalties won for others. Carlito86 makes it appear as if he had poor production. Keegan and Simonsen actually also said he was the best in the world (in 1977 and 1978), which Keegan oddly repeated again to Placar in 1980. Zico just didn't perform in virtually all the bigger games that year, when he came up against (foreign) teams of high quality. Here another sort of "least likely" source: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/a...ropean-football-1977-miroir-football.2032410/ "Mirror Football was always advocate of the beautiful game and beautiful gesture (hence the emphasis given in its columns to Latin America), while its competitors - and L'Equipe and France Football - defended primarily European efficiency." As I said before, I don't think he was near his best in 1975 and 1976 (mixture of rough play, quarrels with the manager Weisweiler and maybe motivation), but in 1977 and then in 1977-78 after he had recovered from a broken fibula he was. It was one of his best years and without suspension he wins the league. Zico is not really near that level (while being better in 1976 himself against teams like Italy quality, which tbf was an odd game and didn't impress Glanville at all). I didn't see that live (if it is in the evening I'm more likely to watch). I find neither sympathetic but the way the British media machines and the always terrible fans cover this is absolutely awful. Pieces like this in a supposed 'quality newspaper' are a disgrace, and the memories are rather short. "Watch him crashing here with 51G at Silverstone and going to a checkup in the hospital - Merry Christmas, Sky Sports [propaganda channel of the anglogerman teaming up in motorsport]". It is a sort of general atmosphere we really don't see to this degree in most of the other West European countries. I did see the end of the first half and the second half of the Liverpool game. I thought Liverpool was poor but Van Dijk was individually great and very important for the result. Some of his blocks or long balls could/should have resulted in another goal. Without the yellow card he is MOTM at WhoScored. Take Salah and/or Van Dijk out and Aston Villa wins the game, 100%. I've heard though he was less assured and involved in the first 30 minutes. Van Dijk was unreal todayGoes without saying that he’s the best, but I think the fact that it goes without saying means we haven’t been hyping up enough how insane he’s been this seasonBack to his best— Carson (@WC_LFC_Torres) December 11, 2021 Van Dijk's passing today has been outrageous. Spraying the ball around for fun.— DaveOCKOP (@DaveOCKOP) December 11, 2021
Wouldn't El Mundo have taken all this into account when naming Zico South American Footballer of the Year? If not, who should they have chosen instead?
Here another take by Keegan himself in 1977 and how he describes this: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/interesting-best-xi.325564/page-43#post-34781657 I forgot to answer I'm happier to see the good results by our teams in Europe, with proper style of football. FiveThirtyEight their model has Ajax as fourth best team in the world at the moment but also the other teams are doing better than before. Unfortunately, UEFA with their money is now distorting the domestic league. There is an agreement to give 10% of UEFA money to the rest of the league, but more needs to be done. Otherwise Ajax will win the league every year the next ten years. Football needs his own Piketty or someone like that. (Less happy to see FDJ now being too tired and not playing too well - last season he was of all players in the Big Five leagues the player with the most minutes; La Liga in general has a clear fitness issue right now)
At the National level, the Brasilerao, which was the highest competition, Zico was less reliable for his club than Reinaldo was for his. A quick look into the figures, without taking into account the quality of play, Zico only scored 2 goals against last placed teams ABC and Caxias in the final two rounds. Compare this with Reinaldo, scorer of 10 goals in the final rounds distributed evenly. In the semifinals he put 3 goals past Londrina, winner of the previous group that featured Flamengo and Zico. In the final they lose on penalty kicks to São Paulo. He goes on to score a staggering 28 goals in 18 matches obtaining the Bola de Prata from Placar. https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Reinaldo_de_Lima http://www.rsssf.com/tablesb/braz77.html From a state level perspective, Zico is one of the best in his field, but at the national level, he’s not. So Reinaldo, who is a king at the state Mineiro level, also backs it up at the national level. The fact that he’s not even in the top 10 by Mundo in 1977, and Pelé, who finished 4th in the voting playing in the semiprofessional NASL, tells us just how questionable this award was. Elsewhere, Fillol and Gatti are pivotal in the league (Fillol) and international Copa Libertadores level (Gatti) but it’s not attractive to have a goalkeeper win the award. Instead, Rivelino is chosen at number 2, for whatever reason, and Zico number 1. Ricardo Bochini makes the list more off of his name than based on true merits. He doesn’t feature in any international competition and is ranked by El Gráfico as a third option in the Metro tournament in his position behind Maradona and Ardiles. A key player for Boca Juniors is Zanabria, but he’s not a household name and doesn’t have the attractive appeal by the Argentinian press. It’s possible that Nelinho for Cruzeiro had some merit for his importance in the club reaching the final of the Libertadores, but he’s not mentioned either. Some have argued that the Libertadores cup wasn’t always taken seriously, like the Copa America, but it’s what we had at least to distinguish the calibre of strength of bragging rights on the continent on who ruled as the supreme best country in the region. Figueroa ending 3rd seems like a case of reputation rather than any significant merit. Chilean football is behind Argentinian and Brazilian and the NT fail to make the 1978 World Cup. I don’t have the right answer to who should have won but Zico appears to be a case of Brazilian propaganda that were looking to hype up the image of selling us a “new Pelé” for the upcoming World Cup. Reinaldo, for all his negative rap he has received, couldn’t be ignored for the NT, thanks to bagging in loads of goals. Unfortunately injuries derailed his career, but the distance between him and the king of the Maracanã was closer than what some retrospectively want to believe, and the fact that the international awards don’t back it up, has to have more to do with politics than anything else.
https://www.hojeemdia.com.br/esportes/zico-diz-que-reinaldo-poderia-ter-sido-o-maior-pós-pelé-foi-o-maior-jogador-que-eu-vi-1.754049 Do you believe Reinaldo would've been the best Brazilian attacker since Pele if not for injuries?
In my opinion, the concept of a "best player" award is flawed in the first place, because, making the bold assumption the award is judged fairly (based on individual performance alone), the best player doesn't really change from year to year. I mean, in a fair world and barring injury, players like Pelé, Cruyff, Maradona and Messi would have won it in almost every year of their primes, and the award would have no purpose. So, it makes sense that until the 2010s, when the powers that be just decided to market Messi and CR and ignore the rest of their stars, the Ballon d'Or was more like an NBA MVP equivalent, based more on team performance than individual performance. This gave them an excuse to spread the award out more, and, in turn, show off all of football's biggest names/assets. Anyway, here is what I think roughly would have happened, based on what I've read, had non-Europeans been eligible in Maradona's era: 1979: Maradona 1980: Rummenigge 1981: Zico 1982: Rossi 1983: Falcão 1984: Platini 1985: Platini 1986: Maradona 1987: Maradona 1988: Van Basten 1989: Van Basten 1990: Matthäus And here is what I think roughly would have happened in Messi's era, had the criteria remained consistent: 2009: Messi 2010: Sneijder 2011: Messi 2012: Iniesta 2013: Ribery 2014: Neuer 2015: Messi 2016: CR 2017: CR 2018: Modrić 2019: Van Dijk 2020: Lewandowski 2021: Messi Pelé, I believe, would have been given up to 5 (1961, 63, 64, 65, 70), and Cruyff would still have the 3 that he was given anyway. So, that leaves: Pelé: 5 Messi: 4 Cruyff and Maradona: 3 Which, also aligns with the narrative that I believe France Football would like to depict (Pelé as football's figurehead, Messi his modern equivalent and closest challenger, and Maradona and Cruyff after that).
The criterias remain consistent (there are just slight modifications in it over time and most of all the thing remains about weighing each of them) but most of all, the World and World's football have changed/ evolved. One criteria of the Ballon d'Or that is not well-known is also about the continuity in the performances, year after year. The voting panel has changed too.
In your opinion, what are the criteria taken into account for the golden ball? I usually take into account the whole of the work, which is the sum of goals, titles, records, decisive games and regularity