Dunno about Sneijder. He had a great 09/10 season and deserved imo the Ballon d'Or but his form for the NT is often greater than for his club. That is quite strange. For example: he was awful in the beginning of 2011 but played great for the NT and did these kind of things: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wyfxk54v3w"]Amazing Goal Wesley Sneijder 1-0 Netherlands - Austria (Nederland - Oostenrijk) Friendly Match - YouTube[/ame]
Just to clarify I would say Klinsmann was a better goalscorer overall but I was thinking perhaps in terms of alertness to score a goal Butragueno might have the edge possibly. He was more of the 2nd striker in the partnership with Sanchez I think yeah.
Sorry, I meant being involved in the build-up. He was a 'busy' player I would say who looked to move around rather than just waiting in the box - I'm not contrasting him with Dalglish really by saying that but just describing his attributes.
Yeah he was one of several candidates for that list who has had some particulary impressive form at certain moments (I also remember he had a very good Euro '08 including a goal when he turned and curled the ball into the top corner - similar in quality to the one you showed I think; right at the start of his Real Madrid career he was excellent too I recall though I was always a bit confused with references to similarities to Di Stefano that I heard on the Real Madrid channel that was on my TV package at that time).
By the way, I think Figo is often underrated a bit. Of course, he was a 'mere' winger and not a magical number 10 but that guy was able to create chances out of nothing. Both for himself and others. I said it before, rating players is very difficult in a team sport with so many factors at play but Figo was one of the few who was able to do his work in any team and system, and made me believe that if you had Figo a good striker wasn't even needed. Difficult to express what I entirely mean but despite his lack of stunning pace he was always able to make the difference. It was also a joy to watch him play, really. I understand why someone like Zidane and Ronaldo is often placed above him but, it sounds strange maybe, in case of Figo I had the feeling that he could make the most out of every situation, more than those other two. Don't get me wrong, Ronaldo was also a blessed individual talent to make things out of nothing but Figo's crosses and passes were really superb which made it dangerous to mark him.
The best of Figo was found at Euro2000 for Portugal and 99-01 in Liga However, when the three played together in the 1st Galacticos it became SO OBVIOUS that Ronaldo and Zidane were a LEAGUE ABOVE Figo, no doubt. In 2003 and 04 Real were all about Ronaldo Zidane and Casillas - And I do NOT recall any game that Figo could have OUTSHONE either Ronaldo or Zidane! Ronaldo was among the rare legends who could change a game on his own , while Zidane was a true great #10 to conduct a team thru difficult time toward glory. They both will be missed for YEARS to come - they were sometimes placed in the TOP10 or near TOP10 all time= a different class! Figo might look good compared to others (lesser skills) like Raul, Del Piero, Nedved, Sheva Henry ... who are outside TOP75 or TOP100
1991 on it's own I think yes, and I put him in the top 3 for that year in another thread (also an estimation but I think his form at that time and achievments and goals that year are worthy). If the early 90's was just 1990 and 1991 then like Matthaus and maybe Caniggia even he'd have a better chance I think. It's possible his decline was exagerated and he did score a few goals at Milan too didn't he, but given that in those years there are a number of quality candidates I felt he wouldn't be in my top 7. Sorry , but I respect your opinion if you think he should be. In some ways, even doing the rankings this way some players can miss out if they don't have their best 3 or 4 years coinciding with a chosen period - I suppose 89-91/92 might've been a better period for Papin but you'll know better than me whether that's the case.
Ah, ok. More to do with the pass of time than anything else. I take it then that you dont consider neither Ronaldo nor Messi proper "ambassadors"? Well, I'll be damned, Puck! No Maradona in the top3 AND no Pele at n1... Thats very unusual. Very unusual. Cool. Mmm.. So, his comments refer to Maradona's way of playing in general, not what he did in the 1986 WC, right? And does it mean that outside those few moments of brilliance in a game, he was actually less productive/contributive than the more "normal" players? I mean, is he implying that Maradona would rise high every now and then, but only to sink bellow a certain standard of performance in between? That might be right. But by no means he had a poor first phase of the tournament. In the final he was a bit erratic, maybe. But he was enduring nasty harrassing from Matthaws and co. Yet he managed to be decisive with that assist, not to mention by creating space for Valdano and Burru while so much of the German defensive efforts were focused heavily on him. Nobody is as good in every match, Puck. But that does not necessarily mean playing badly. The bad choices, losing the ball very easily and such (meaning excessively, of course, because that happens to everybody as well), you feel thats there in all the games? Any in particular? No it was not. There is that butthurt World Soccer editor not including Maradona in the team of the tournament.. No, I did not. That place clearly belongs to Der Bomber in my book. But I'd rather be able to play like Rivelino than like Müller..
That's fair enough. Papin's peak coincided with the late 80's and the early 90's but it's hard to include him in any of them. I guess the best option would be to make a 87/92 list in which Papin would be an automatic pick (at least in my book ).
Yes fair comment. I also think it's a hard call to compare prolific goalscorers like Papin who are otherwise good footballers with more creative/generally brilliant players who score less or even defenders. If he'd have been an all-time great during '90 or '91 then I'd have probably included him even if he was going off the boil a bit around '93 (his goals record for Milan in season 1 in Serie A is still pretty good for that league at that time but from memory he wasn't seen to be playing great and not generally at the level he was at Marseille when his goal scoring was exceptional not only in the French league but in the European Cup) - by all-time great I was meaning somewhere near the level of Pele, Maradona, Cruyff etc or from a French persepctive Platini or Zidane or someone who IMO was very close to that wheras I'd value Papin slightly less (maybe similar to Shearer but of course Papin did better in the European Cup; I feel Papin had a bit more goalscoring quality than the likes of Zamorano or Pancev who also had prolific spells in the 90's for example). He was playing in a very good team indeed in Marseille who lets not forget won the European Cup albeit controversially in '93 after he left (I think the '91 side was better though from what I recall). It would seem like he could've done better at Milan and become a key player (though the 3 foreigners rule would've been an issue anyway) if he'd gone there a bit earlier as evidenced by the 'proof' of his declining form at Bayern Munich. He's certainly a valid candidate for the early 90's but glad you understand the reasoning.
Papin was a very good and pretty complete striker but let be honest: other goal scorers as Van Nistelrooy and Forlan also never won one. He's of the category like Shevchenko who was also lucky to won a ballon d'or. His major contenders for the 1991 ballon d'or came from eastern-europe, who are in a disadvantage anyway to win such a prize.
To be fair, his quick decline at Bayern and later was more due to multiple knee injuries than anything else. That really hurt his carreer badly and was the main reason he missed EC96. The best proof of it is that when he got finally fit again in 1996-97 with Bordeaux he was really good (he scored 18 goals in 39 games). Even in 1997-98 -though he had obviously past his prime- he proved to be still a capable goalscorer. I wish Jacquet picked him for WC98. As a 'super-sub' he could have been great.
I can't remember one either! But Figo was at that time less good as in Barcelona. Not so quick and agile anymore. He wasn't quick anyway but he had some deceptiviness thank to his footwork. Well, it is also a matter of feeling. As you perhaps know, when I see Messi playing football I wonder whether he is so good because of his own qualities or because he plays at Barcelona. When I see Rooney playing, I've less that feeling. Rooney is obviously the best talented player of Manchester United and almost everything he does is his own merit. Same with Figo. Because of his excellent crosses and very sophisticated moves (technically perfect, do not underestimate that) I had always the feeling that he all did it by himself. He had also an excellent cut-in move. Maybe it is also because he was equally good at the NT, where he didn't had a Rivaldo as team-mate. I won't say that Zidane is a level below him but with Zidane I had less that feeling.
Matthaus was also very good and Prosinecki too, in their respective European Cup campaigns. It wasn't undeserved but those two had a credible claim as well.
I think it was also Papin's performances with France (EC92 qualifiers especially) that made the difference.
True, but Yugoslavia had also a fine campaign. The decision of the FIFA to ban them is in my view one of the most ridiculous that has came out of Zurich ever. Although I never had a problem with Denmark winning the trophy, tbh.
France won all his games in that campaign however, with Papin scoring 9 goals in 6 games. His partnership with Cantona was the best in Europe at that time IMHO. What a shame they underperformed in EC92.
For those suggesting Matthews in the late 40s, it's worth considering that in the 1947, 48 and 49 seasons he only played 81 league games out of 126. This isn't meant as a slight on his ability, but I can't put a player who missed 1/3 of his teams games as the best player of the time. Neil Franklin or Wilf Mannion would be a better pick from that time from England.
Good info lanman. Personally, i think that near 2/3 presences is OK. Since most people tend to remember players with awesome matches than players with full presences. Most media who made rankings considered that ratio as the edge to include players in their resume, for players who can made more impact than just one game wonder.
If you look at it further, though. 1946/47 23/42 games 1947/48 33/42 games 1948/49 25/42 games Thats 2 out of 3 at not much more than half a season. Although he did play 6 internationals in both 1947 and 1948 (out of 8 and 6 respectively - although just 1 out of 8 in 1949) and 14 FA Cup games over that period.
Fair point and I suppose the titles of best player in the decade and best player of the decade could be viewed differently. He does seem to have had a very positive influence on Stoke and Blackpool's fortunes though when he was playing (it's speculation but given that Wikipedia says he contributed in a major way to 30 of Stoke's 41 goals when he did play, it's likely they would've done even better than 4th place in 1946/47 if he'd played more games). He did win the Player of the Year award in his first season for Blackpool too as they got to the FA Cup Final. With Blackpool too it seems the more he played the better league finishes they had. I think Finney's importance to Preston is better known even but it would look as though they certainly wouldn't have been relegated if he'd played more in 1948/49 (much better results when he played - more wins than losses but only 2 wins in 18 when he didn't play) and a couple of 7th places in the two seasons prior were very good for Preston I think. http://www.football-england.com/tom_finney.html As has been noted elsewhere on Big Soccer Matthews' scoring record is nearly non-existent during the 40's and the 50's but as has also been noted his role which he performed very well was setting up the goals. His goal record in the 30's is comfortably better though. I know lanman you didn't question Finney directly as a candidate, but to bracket him and Matthews together I felt that firstly they'd be in their prime physically (and generally?) during the 40's rather than the 50's and that they were the ones with the reputations in terms of skills and abilities to be candidates for the best in the world out of the English players during that time. It is guesswork though of course and if leaning more towards the player of the decade (or half-decade) missing a large-ish number of matches would be a factor.