What do you guys think of this list: https://www.fourfourtwo.com/gallery/50-greatest-footballers-all-time? Are Messi and Cr. Ronaldo too high? Also I think that Ronaldo(R9), Zidane and Best are too high.
Same list extended to 100 players. Only change to Top 50 is Messi and Maradona swapping places. It is also very similar to Voetbal International's list that came out just before. https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/fourfourtwos-100-greatest-footballers-ever
There are several ways of looking at this. The Top 10 includes exactly the same players the BBC listed (not in order) a couple of weeks ago. So it may be near to the current consensus. FourFourTwo's Top 100 by country: Brazil 16, Italy 13, Argentina 10, Germany 10, England 6, Netherlands 6, France 5, Hungary 4, Spain 4, Denmark 3, Portugal 3, Scotland 3, Uruguay 3, Sweden 2, Former USSR 2, Wales 2, Austria 1, Bulgaria 1, Former Czechoslovakia 1, Mexico 1, Northern Ireland 1, Peru 1, Romania 1, Former Yugoslavia 1. 31 from Latin America. None from Africa. There are 6 goalkeepers and 15 defenders. FourFourTwo's Top 100 by decade: 1870-1919: 0, 1920s: 2, 1930s: 2, 1940s: 5, 1950s: 16, 1960s: 19, 1970s: 17, 1980s: 12, 1990s: 14, 2000s: 8, 2010-2020: 5. The second half of the twentieth century looks over-represented. Pre-1950 and post-2000 appear under-represented. Ignoring the fifty years from 1870 is not uncommon but any list that does so is not an all-time selection. Leading candidates from this time include Arnott, Ross, GO Smith, Needham and Meredith. A recent exercise on BigSoccer, undertaken by EnnalzisTheman, combined the detailed work of Tom Stevens and Ariaga to produce a list of leading players between 1920 and 1949. FourFourTwo have included 9 footballers from this time. According to the BigSoccer study, the leading men they have omitted in order are Morton, Pesek, Sarosi, Sastre, Orsi, Bican, Gallacher, Lawton, Scarone, Leonidas and James. The IFFHS lists of Twentieth Century footballers in 1999 involved a large number of voters. From their Top 50 outfield players, those who have now been left out by FourFourTwo, again in order, are Weah, Milla, Kubala, Bican, Figueroa, Scarone, Zizinho and Erico. The leading IFFHS goalkeepers omitted by FourFourTwo are Zamora and Chilavert. Since 2000 the leading vote-winner in the Ballon d'Or who does not appear in FourFourTwo's Top 100 is Shevchenko. Others left out who picked up significant votes include Figo, Kahn, Owen, Nedved, Kaka, Cannavaro, Modric, Griezmann and van Dijk. Had there been an award in 2020 Lewandowski might have been another. BigSoccer posters could no doubt collaborate to produce a more balanced up-to-date list.
What caught my attention is how FourFourTwo in a matter of 3 years apart created two lists with slight differences. How common is that ? It reminded me of the case of Adalberto Bortolotti’s revised list in Guerin Sportivo, where in a matter of 3 years after receiving criticism from outside pressures, he altered his original list of 1996. In regards to the order of ranking in FourFourTwo, it’s not surprising considering the authors are from a younger generation.
I suppose they could argue that Messi has played for another three years since 2017 and has enhanced his standing sufficiently to surpass Maradona. The Bortolotti case sounds more suspicious. On the other hand, France Football in their all-time Ballon d'Or exercise have ensured that Maradona cannot take votes from Messi by placing them in different categories. One could claim they have done the same with Pelé and Cristiano Ronaldo. The IFFHS top six in 1999 remain in FourFourTwo's top ten. Numbers 7-10 back then (Platini, Garrincha, Eusebio and Charlton) have been replaced in the top ten by Messi, the two Ronaldos and Zidane.
The VI Top 100, as you have said yourself, was partly aimed at a Dutch and Belgian audience. It included 10 Dutchmen and Preud'homme. There are 11 names different from FFT, five of which are Dutch or Belgian. There are several issues with the FFT list as noted above. But it is recent (Top 50 re-confirmed a few weeks ago with one change) and does not appear to be directed at a particular audience.
Well, it is of course primarily aimed at a British audience (12 inclusions) with likewise changes. Just as that the original was already sympathetic to British players with a high number of inclusions compared to e.g. Argentina or France. That in itself is not the main problem though, it is the complete supplanting and overshadowing of the original, and not mentioning the original at all. Although the distribution is arguable, the official FIFA 100 and recent quasi-official France Football distribution were about as favorable (more favorable) to the low countries... It's telling for the cultural power of certain media and countries.
See second post in this thread. "It is also very similar to Voetbal International's list that came out just before."
Here the France Football distribution (110 names): https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/ballon-dor-dream-team-2020.2111826/page-9#post-39046808 Here FIFA 100 (125 names): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_100 Think of it what you will (in the first link I shared my ideas on this matter of diversity) but it was even more favorable to the low countries as the original VI list did. This original VI list had a high number of British inclusions as well (relative to e.g. France, Argentina or Spain). In contrast to the usual boldfacing choppers and the likes.
VI and France Football have the same proportion of players from the Low Countries: 1 in 9. FF picked 110 with 12 Dutch and none from Belgium. The proportion in the FIFA 125 is more generous: just under 1 in 8. The difference is that the VI (and FourFourTwo) selections were meant to be all-time. France Football's is a post-1950 pick, and the FIFA 125 even more so as their candidates had to be alive in 2004. Nobody in FIFA's list retired before 1960. VI and FourFourTwo each picked nine men whose main career was before 1950. With the perception, largely false, that the Dutch only came to the party in the 1970s, more modern lists are likely to feature a higher proportion of their players. With the British it is the other way round. Nearly all their highest-rated players appeared before 1970. FIFA's selection, for example, includes 16 from the Low Countries and 9 from the four British nations. My main point though was that pre-1950 and post-2000 footballers from all countries are undersold.
I think it's important to note that these were both online lists rather than things that appeared in the magazine. As noted before, the top 100 list was stolen from VI. So I don't think either should be taken too seriously as being representative of FFT. At the same time, FFT is a magazine which has seen a very high churn of personnel. It's not like World Soccer who had the same editor for 25 years or so. So in that regard, changing lists shouldn't be seen as anything meaningful.
Yes, this might be increased. Other than the aspect of familiarity, media and video footage, I think there are also other factors here. - For example the large increase in under-18 population, in particular directly after the war. In Europe. In the Netherlands you're talking about going from 1.3 million under-20 men in 1920 to over 2.2 million in 1960. In 1913, just before the Great War, Western Europe was on 261 million people; in 1950 on 305 million and in 1973 on 358 million people (the year of the Oil Crisis, with the 2nd Oil Crisis placing a definite end on 'the long 1960s'). Notice here however a decline in under-18 population after 1980 (also true for many of the big European countries). - More countries started to play professional. Either directed top-down, or - as World Soccer observed in 1973 - driven from bottom-up like in Holland. Major countries as Spain, Italy and France didn't have a proper (amateur) league until the late 1920s. So of course you get more quality players, being a driver behind the successes, rather than a Monti-Mussolini partnership, Uruguay having a short-cut schedule to the 1950 trophy, or whatever else. Professional vs amateur is, ceteris paribus, a huge difference. Many countries made that step to the professional game. - The health went up too (although children of parents who suffered the 1944 famine had a burden in this respect). Meaning more young players could attain the necessary athletic gifts. I don't have a line here showing this for 1930 or 1920, but believe me: the survival rate went up drastically by 1950. Far fewer youngsters died before their 20th year. And no, Holland wasn't a deprived third world country in 1900: This is playing the devil's advocate a little bit by me (to be sure), of course I know population is only one factor. For example (just three): https://bleacherreport.com/articles...g-football-nations-by-the-talent-they-produce https://football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/mr/mr55/en/ https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/missing-esm-team-of-the-month.1981639/page-4#post-38125912 edit: it isn't just mere chance I post this; I've thought before about a proper distribution per era myself for my home countries.... just didn't post it yet.
Some interesting data here. The impact of professionalism varied from country to country. English football declined temporarily when the amateurs disappeared. They had brought more thinking to the game and were also braver on the field, their livelihoods not at risk through injury. English footballers had been paid since the mid-1870s but their most highly rated player before 1914 was an amateur, as were some of the leading Scots. Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Italy and Spain officially introduced professionalism in the 1920s, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and France in the early 1930s. Uruguay brought a doctor and physical trainer with them to the 1924 Olympics and secluded themselves in a quiet village while other teams indulged in the nightlife of Paris. They had also arranged friendly matches in Spain beforehand for preparation. So their approach was professional. MTK Budapest had been paying players several years before professionalism was legalised in Hungary. The Australian cricket team was officially amateur during most of the twentieth century, their players dependent on other jobs. They still got the better of England's professionals more often than not. Ultimately everyone has to be judged by the standards of their own time. Napoleon was no less a general for not having tanks or aircraft, Roosevelt no less a president for not using social media. Comparing two Welsh Manchester United wingers with long careers a century apart, Billy Meredith was further ahead of his contemporaries than Ryan Giggs, even though Giggs won a lot more trophies. It will be interesting to see your ranking of pre-1970 Dutch and Belgian footballers.
To package this in a soundbite: the red line are the peers of Harry Denis (b. 28 august 1896), the green line are the colleagues and schoolmates Johan Neeskens (b. 15 september 1951). Actual, not the predicted, life expectancy in 1900 was the 6th highest of the world. Behind Norway, Denmark, Australia and practically equal to Ireland and the United States (and equal to Canada on 7th place). With the quality of health more equitably distributed among the population than (at least) USA, Ireland and Australia.
Pretty telling stuff of course how e.g. Briane doesn't make the grade while freakin' Pesek or Sastre does. Admittedly, Pesek is more or less the odd one out in terms of 'usual suspect countries' or the usual cultural regions, by the downrating/upgrading professor brigade (and of course the media behind it, where it's ultimately based on, with video not yet around).
Braine missed six years of international football at his peak, banned by Belgium after signing professional terms with Sparta Prague. He was offered money to become a Czechoslovak citizen in time for the 1934 World Cup but refused. Ariaga's lists take more account of internationals. Braine is not really competing with Pesek or Sastre here. One was twelve years older, the other began his career nine years after Braine. Rather his competition comes from the likes of Dixie Dean. Combining the work of Tom Stevens and Ariaga, EnnalzisThe Man included Braine in his Top 30 between 1920 and 1949. He was half a point behind Dean.
Fair point to compare it with direct contemporaries - and the thing of international football, although that's also applicable to other players of the list.
The records of centre-forwards Braine and Dean in league top divisions are remarkably similar. Braine played one more game (370) and scored two more goals (322). Both have a goal per match ratio of 0.87. Braine found scoring easier in the professional Czechoslovak league than in Belgium's amateur competition. His goal per match ratios were respectively 1.13 and 0.77. According to the Dutch newspaper Trouw, Braine received payment for playing in Belgium. Dean's numbers here do not include 69 goals in 76 English Second and Third Division matches. Dean was the best in the business at heading goals and was a specialist goalscorer with a formidable physical presence. Braine seems to have been more of an all-round footballer, sometimes playing inside-forward and spending the final two seasons of his career in defence. It was a high-scoring era. Among their contemporaries (main career 1920s and 1930s) half a dozen players scored at a rate of a goal a game or better in league top divisions: Friedenreich, Petrone, Bernabe Ferreyra, Takacs, McGrory and also Bambrick in the Irish League.
Good post; as said, Pesek is (imho) the only one who falls outside the main patterns. When the English FA existed 75 years, Braine was invited and made captain of the opposition team, 'Rest of Europe'. http://www.rsssf.com/tablesc/contreps3770.html The thing you say in bold is interesting; This was (also) said in their top 100 all-time list of 2004, compiled by Verkamman, in which both Braine and Dean feature. Dean features too in the recent VI list. I've posted that 2004 list in the relevant thread (link). https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/de-top-100~b8e5803a/ edit: "Scoring was his biggest hobby. Earned as an amateur already by playing football and when that became a problem, he decided to become a professional footballer at Sparta Prague." It's not always clear where travel expenses stop and disguised amateurism begins. This can become a long (and boring) text but it boils down to that. Regularly it has been theorized and observed the Catholic parts of the Low Countries were less strict and dogmatic in the execution of the ban as the Protestant parts. The 'Bosatlas of football' notices, page 22, that southern clubs in the Netherlands won between the re-start of football and the introduction of professionalism seven of the eleven titles and had a clear upper-hand overall. Since 1956 only PSV Eindhoven has been successful as a southern club. One factor behind that might be the softer policing of the professional ban within the 'Rijke Roomsche Leven' ('Rich Roman Life' - a nickname embraced by themselves). But it's likely not the only thing, also the ban/discouragement to play football on Sunday for the Protestant part of the country was a likely a inhibiting factor (and there are some more variables to mention). Directly after the founding of professionalism, a certain club called Fortuna '54 became known as free spending and attracted various big names and veterans (Vd Hart, Wilkes, Appel, De Munck and also Carlier on which wm442433 has posted about). This was a southern club. It must be added however, that the secularization and decline of the church has been significantly more pronounced in the Catholic parts of the Low Countries. In the Netherlands for example, over the past 35 years, the Protestants have declined with a factor two (source). The Catholics with a factor three (excluding the ones who don't make the effort to 'delist' themselves at the RC church, which can be a long process). For the production of footballers, in the last number of decades, the south of the Netherlands as well as the north of the neighbors have done more than their 'fair' share. Think of Van Nistelrooij or Van Dijk here.
To be honest that 2004 list is very strange. Besides the inclusion of many dutch/belgian players (for all of them one might make a case, but all in all the bias is clearly visible), the ordering of players really hurt my eyes (Beckham before the likes of Puskas, Matthews and Garrincha??? Edit: I even noticed that Beckenbauer is behind Beckham[emoji848][emoji848], additionally there are some very very strange inclusions one might not expect at all, even though some of them really were a positive surprise). I'm totally sure the BigSoccer community could create a more accurate top 100 list with ease, no matter which is to be the main criteria of this list (peak, success, influence, ...). In the end, I'm personally convinced that an annual/seasonal rating of players will lead to a more balanced and valid ordering of players without any recency or greatness bias than any non-systematic method (which most of the recognized lists obviously apply) could ever do. The list that I created based on the tremendous work of Tom and Ariaga in the Historic World Wide Ballon D'Or thread is far from perfect in my opinion, but still one can make valid arguments from annual rankings on how players are rated in direct comparison. This is what newspaper lists like the FFT or VI one are totally lacking.
And thus in 1953 we see things as England being superior in all categories over Hungary.... It is a systematic error that we see for pretty much every year. I don't buy that. As for that Trouw list: I said myself it was "idiosyncratic". As you can read. Nevertheless, for a few reasons still interesting enough to post it.
As I mentioned explicitly and on purpose at the very beginning, it was an 'idiosyncratic' list. It has nevertheless a few pointed remarks there (on Bobby Moore, but also on domestic heroes) and thought it was therefore interesting. Also notice how Beckenbauer is still the highest placed defender (in nominal position at least) and Germany has more inclusions in the list as, for example, Argentina (not without logic, of course). The next best defenders in the list were Roberto Carlos and Facchetti; both primarily famous for their attacking game (although Facchetti also helped to keep the 'goals conceded' low and was in his autumn a good sweeper). You can take that as 'Nixon goes to China' if you like. Consider here the history of the newspaper as well.
One minor thing on the part in bold: the reason I initially said the FF thing was in the end more favorable as the VI list is because FF also included 40 defensive players, of 110 in total (10 keepers, 10 right-backs, 10 left-backs, 10 center-backs). There the proportion is 4 in 40 (or: 1 in 10). The proportion is higher in the remaining categories (8 in 70). In fairness however, after a second glance I noticed VI included a high amount of defensive players as well (keepers, central defenders, full-backs). 21% vs 36% of the total by France Football if I count correctly. All three defensive inclusions from the low countries are placed #90 or lower, thus not firmly locked in the middle of the pack.