Cristiano Ronaldo ~ Your Favorite Player Is So Much Better!! Thread

yes, Cruyff



...

about Alfredo Di Stefano :


for example, the Argentine national football team side did not participate in the 1950 World Cup

because it did not accept Brazil from being chosen as the host country.

for the next World Cup 1950

so ,

then in 1954

Di Stefano could not play for Argentina

because in the Argentine national football team side

there was a rule

that only Argentine players

who were playing in the Argentine championship could play

playing in Argentine
soil


then for Spain 1958

they lost
to Wales

John Charles

at his peak


Di Stefano gave a backheel pass...

to Gento and Gento missed the goal there




1962 qualified but suffered an injury.. at the end of the season 1961-1962 .



there is a great game by Di Stefano in 1957 against Holland..

Di Stefano was given 10 ratings by journalists who saw this match live in the stadium and by TVE.es in Spain.. Note : 10 on this match

Cruyff says in an interview that it was the first match he had ever seen in his life..

automatically he became a super-fan of Alfredo Di Stefano.

Holland had the veteran Faas Wilkes, he was the same as Ibra from Sweden in terms playing style.

 

Dictator Franco of Spain

did not allow the Spanish National Team side

to play the decisive games

against the USSR

of Yashin

in the first

modern Euro-cup-1960

Franco dictator

forced

the Spanish national team

to abandon this competition

prematurely



the old central Euro-cup
by Italy G.Meazza, Austria...Sindelar and Hungary Puskas ..

 

You are assuming a lot about my position and what i am actually saying. Just to stop you right there, what I am saying is much more well-thought out than you think or want to make it sound like, and reasoning behind is, as you can already see from the way I speak about football as a sport, is not something I've seen any other people talk about ever. So just dont put me in the same bracket as others and if you want to challenge my words, challenge them by all means, but do not equate it to the opinion of masses, as this is clearly not the case. You dont like me for whatever reason, you dont like Messi, but you are not talking to "a Messi fan" on twitter. Thanks.

For example, where did I say that brilliant moments on the pitch are exclusively on the ball actions? You added that part as a part of your narrative to attack certain beliefs. My wording is deliberately precise. The word goalscoring implies off the ball movement and Ive argued in the past that off the ball movement is more important factor in scoring goals than finishing. There is no contradiction here in my words - you simply added meaning to my words that I havent said. Similarily, the word creative in creative passing is deliberate as well for the same reason. I can elaborate further and be even more precise for more nuanced analysis, but I am not going to defend assumptions you are attaching to me.

All of that sounds nice, we should appreciate and love all roles and efforts and yadda yadda, but yiu dont actually believe that. There is a very simple question that reveals that:

Do you think Giroud WC18 campaign is better than Ronaldo's WC02 campaign?

I dont think anyone would argue that. Would you? Why not? Ask yourself that honestly..

If you were really a skeptic and trying to come into this discussion with open mind, critical thinking and a clean slate, you would engage with the thought process. Everything I said so far is an obvious observation yet you are already dismissing it and jumping to conclusions and different topics.

What have I said so far related to the discussion that is definitvely false?

It is funny you use a turn-based board game analogy because if football was that than it would be more true that each turn has value and my words would be false. For example, in chess, it doesnt matter if you make one brilliant move, you will win if you have higher accuracy on average and perfect chess move in isolation doesnt guarantee you a win. Chess is not a perfect analogy in this case tbh becsuse one chess game is sequential.

The fact football is extremely dynamic game, it means it is error-forgiving, because you always have capacity to correct an error with a better action. For example, misplaced throuh ball (error) can be turned into favorable circumstance if you win the ball back in advanced position. Other sports are not like that. This goes in favor of what I said before.

Just like the fact football is a very team-oriented sport. That doesnt make individual, brilliant actions less valuable, it makes them more valuable, as it is more difficult to stand out, and low impact actions are drowned by complexity.

Therr are few other things I am not saying that you implied in your post.

 

Thoughts @Sexy Beast ?

 

Many people think many things about many players at different times.

Have you read my conversation with carlito about Roberto Carlos few weeks back about redibility and authority and expertise?

 

Yeah but back then there were a consensus that Di Stefano were the greatest player of all times before Pelé took that spot. I just showed you the opinion of two of the greatest managers of this time and a reputable journalist. We can only judge players based on how good they were relative to their era especially if the distance between them is 50 years.

I'm challenging you on your own concept of what constitutes greatness. You seems to have a view of sustained dominance in the most important facets of the game regardless of the titles won.

Di Stefano were a great goalscorer, also a great dribbler and a great playmaker. He were better as a scorer and a speedy dribbler on his early career at River Plate in the 40s but in the 50s he evolved into a great playmaker. On top of all that he were seen as a total footballer who get back to recover the ball when his team lost possession. He seems to get the same way as Pelé and Messi. Pelé being more of a goalscorer in the late 50s and early 60s and becoming more of a playmaker in the late 60s. Messi being more of a goalscorer when Xavi were at Barça and becoming more of a playmaker from 2015 onwards.

Imo Di Stefano were the best player of 50s, Pelé in the 60s and Messi in the 10s. Puskás were the "Ronaldo" of Di Stefano and Eusébio the one from Pelé. Scopelli seems to share my pov on di Stefano at least.

 

If I seem to assume your position, it is my way of completing your train of thought that makes sense for me. Or you can just clearly state the points, and address my queries with more detail, and guide me through your logic once more.

Football is not restricted to a single attacking sequence that causes that critical irreversible game-ending checkmate move, that no amount of effort, time, and number of additional moves (no matter how infinite) can overcome. If it was, I would agree that the playmaker usually has the most impact within a single attacking sequence picked at random. To a degree that makes all other efforts inconsequential in comparison. However, football is not chess.

Lionel Messi will have to make repeated guest appearance in this conversation, whether you are a fan of him or not, because he is the extreme outlier that proves this particular theory correct, for him alone and maybe a couple of others across history. Except once this logical train of thought applies to every single footballer on the planet, creates a vastly skewed perspective, that you deem it to be fine, because Ronaldo is better than Giroud.

If a crocodile is heavier than you based on the length of his tail compared to yours, can I conclude a cat is heavier than you based on the comparative length of the tails also? An assumption that is true for a statement, that is true for a couple of cases, cannot be applied universally.

What you should be asking yourself instead, is how Giroud would compare to an imaginary player of exactly the same competence in goal-scoring, dribbling, and playmaking usually seen in historically great number-tens, but without his particular assets back-to-the-goal, and aerial prowess.

Because apparently, assuming the model is accurate, every non-playmaker contribution Giroud offered can be deemed inconsequential, and I can just select a statical match for the all-so-important playmaker traits, and have that player sit on his ass all game and do nothing else as a 1.5m midget, and it wouldn't make a damned difference.

Not true right? If that is a collateral damage you are willing to suffer, simply to put historical greats like Alfedo Di Stefano down (the list of accusations can be endless, is he that much better at dribbling than Raymond Kopa?), that is where you made your peace, and I think it is wrong.

Ignore enough positive contributions merely for categorization purposes, and overplay the importance of a select few traits, you can end up with the most ridiculous conclusions.

That is the falsehood I think you make. It does not matter if the conclusions you make from the clearly wrong assumptions and premises, follow a clean logical train of thought. False premise, wrong conclusions.

We can name every comparison in history. For every Ronaldo to Giroud that proves your model correct, I can name one hundred that does not. Because the model is an edited version of reality that champions a very select profile of players from the get-go.

The "drowning" of the consequences non-playmaker actions, in a real-life football match setting, is clearly a bullshit statement. Otherwise football would be entirely filled out by playmakers. Competence at all of other roles is clearly an asset that is valuable, but irreplaceable.

A player with superior stamina, ground coverage, off-the-ball action, aerial superiority, and defensive skillets, all of which are traits Alfedo Di Stefano was known for, will be an asset to the team in a manner that simply cannot be downplayed merely for not being impressive enough with the ball at his feet.

It is you that drowns out the "signal noise", you already have assumed all the actions and roles are just locked into a game of football for granted, like the laws of physics, and we should only inspect the good stuff, and it is okay to judge every single player by that flawed model.

 

"Yeah but back then there were a consensus that Di Stefano were the greatest player of all times before Pelé took that spot."

You've answered yourself. What else do you want me to add to that?

 

I am not saying these less impactful actions are inconsequential or replacable. I am saying that certain, individual actions have disproportionally great impact on the game.

That is why I asked you was Giroud in the world cup 2018 better than Ronaldo in the world cup 2002 IN YOUR OPINION?

Not in general, but solely based on these two world cup winning campaigns.

This is not my model against your model. You dont even believe your model is correct. It sounds nice in theory, but in practise, you are intuitively looking football through a lens you are intelectually and ferociously fighting against.

 

Pelé took that spot after winning his third world cup. If your definition of greatness is sustained dominance of impact on the game then why Pelé even surpassed Di Stefano?

 

Even though Alfredo Di Stéfano and Ferenc Puskás have absolutely nothing to do with this thread I’ll indulge.


This thread below which has plenty of knowledgeable contributors retroactively awards Puskás 3 Ballon d’Ors to Di Stéfano’s 4
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/ballon-dor-awards-revisited-by-bigsoccer-users.2119696/page-108


According to this consensus Alfredo Di Stéfano (born 1926) won his first Ballon d’Or in 1955, with two podium finishes before that in 1947 and 1951.


Meanwhile by 1955 Ferenc Puskás (born 1927) had already won the Ballon d’Or twice (back to back in 1952 and 1953) and finished on the podium four times (1948, 1949, 1950, and 1954).


So Puskás was a year younger than Di Stéfano but was way more accomplished by the mid 1950s with literally double the Ballon d’Or wins and double the podium finishes.


According to this Big Soccer consensus from 1955 onwards Di Stéfano goes on to win three straight Ballon d’Ors (1955, 1956, 1957).


Anyone with a mild interest in classical era football history is aware that Puskás was literally banned by FIFA from playing football in 1956 and 1957.

Those just happen to be the exact years Di Stéfano was dominating world football.

Funny enough the BigSoccer community didn’t seem to think Di Stéfano deserved the 1958 Ballon d’Or (retroactively awarding it to Pelé instead)


Even if I were to play devils advocate and suggest that ADS should’ve won the 1958 ballon dor ahead of Pelé (who was too young and his all round game not developed at least not the extent it would be few years later)

The fact remains

Puskás still didn’t even play club football until September 1958.
His debut for Real Madrid came after almost three years out of the game and by the time he returned he was extremely out of shape.


So this is how I see it

1.)The trajectory of Puskás was clearly greater than Di Stéfano’s.


2.)When both were in their physical primes (which realistically is your early to mid 20s), Puskás was significantly more accomplished and way more globally recognized.


3.)Is it a coincidence that Di Stéfano’s run of dominance (1955–1957) happened when Puskás was completely out of the picture.
I don’t think it was

Let’s put it in modern terms for anyone struggling to process this:

Imagine if Cristiano won 3 Ballon d’Ors while Messi was banned by FIFA.

What kind of things do you think Messi fans would be saying?


Because there was no direct rivalry between Di Stéfano/Puskás as they played on different continents during their physical primes and later teamed up at Madrid nobody ever looks at it from this perspective.

But if we’re really comparing them side by side we absolutely should.




4.)When they finally played together, you could argue that Di Stéfano only clearly outperformed Puskás in one season namely 1958/59.


And even that comes with an huge asterisk.

Puskás himself said he let Di Stéfano win the Pichichi that year.


Even if you want to say that’s not true (no reason to believe it isn’t), the facts are

In 1958/59 Puskás was 31 years old, hadn’t played for nearly three years, was overweight, and was debuting in a league he’d never played in before.


So how impressive is it really for a legend like Di Stéfano to outperform Puskás for one season under those circumstances?

Not that impressive and possibly not impressive at all in my opinion.




Now moving away from this

Sadly we live in the age of agendas, fake news, and double standards, and this conversation is really no different.


Everyone loves to act like international football matters so much when comparing certain players.


There’s no amount of mental gymnastics that could convince me that Alfredo Di Stéfano’s international career was even remotely comparable to Ferenc Puskás’s.



Hungary had international football in an absolute chokehold in the early 1950s.

And Puskás wasn’t just a part of that team he was the brightest star on a team full legitimate all timers

Hidegkuti confirmed this when he said
Of all of us Puskas was the best.
He had a seventh sense for soccer. If there were 1,000 solutions, he would pick the 1,001st.


Puskas reached a World Cup final and most people agree he scored a legitimate equaliser in that final that was wrongly disallowed.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/feb/01/joy-of-six-disallowed-goals


I’m not even saying Puskás was spectacular during that particular World Cup (he was injured for most of it) but if that goal stood and it absolutely should’ve there’s a real chance Hungary wins the World Cup.


And if that happens, the question today wouldn’t be “Was Puskás better than ADS?” it would be “Was Pelé better than Puskás?”


Di Stéfano had an incredible club career
Easily top 5 all time for me with Puskas,Pele,Messi and Cristiano

But as far as international football is concerned
He doesn’t have an international career that’s even worthy of a top 100 all-timer.


Don’t come at me talking about Copa America in the 1940s because I’m not interested at all


Lastly and very briefly
Most legendary footballers are greatly appreciated by their peers/contemporaries and Puskas is no different


I have demonstrated that very clearly with Cristiano Ronaldo on this thread (and I will continue to do that in due time)


As very quick look on his Wikipedia page will show you that Puskas was the “first footballer to achieve world wide superstar status”

You say that Alejandro Scopelli said ADS was the GOAT
Pelé famously said that puskas would be the best player anywhere even on the moon



Perceptions change over time,memories fade and new hero’s are born but it wasn’t that long ago that there were still voices in the British press that recognised puskas as being Europes joint greatest ever player

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2006/nov/17/sport.comment2


Before the age of spreadsheet and goal involvement merchants it is a fact that Puskas was officially recognised as being the greatest goalscorer of the 20th century
https://iffhs.com/legends/5

Not Pelé
Not Gerd Muller
And Not bican


Before our unemployed friends did the work for us(searching for his assists in newspaper archives) it was Hidegkuti and Bozsik who first confirmed that puskas created as many goals as he scored(definitely through assists and also through what we call today pre assists)

So the numbers we now know of although helpful are hardly surprising


ADS for all his achievements and all his talents is really not a GOAT level goalscorer.
Elite goalscorer for sure but there are levels to this

He was not a uniquely impressive assister either (definitely not to the extent of puskas)

And exactly how sure are you Puskas in his peak was an inferior playmaker?
Puskas reinvented himself at Real Madrid becoming a CF

After the game of the century in 1953 he was universally acclaimed as being the best inside forward in Europe

He was a capable long passer aswell according to first hand testimony


And this is now corroborated by footage

 

I am not calling for equal weighting for all actions, but there is still merit to each action no matter how insignificant individually they seem at that immediate moment in time, they often accrue over time and having lasting repercussions.

A pressure action without the ball, to change a potential progressive pass from the opponent, to a rushed sideways pass that immediately places a teammate under further pressure and more actions required just to escape being surrounded and dispossessed, done over and over again, can have repercussions later on, in an attacking sequence that the playmaker takes 99% of the credit for, but was only made possible due to the drop in focus and stamina that took place over the natural imbalanced flow of the game.

Isolated by itself, the attack sequence with a sick dribble into a pre-assist from the playmaker could have massive expected threat measurements that towers over all other actions around the ball from that sequence, but that attack sequence taking place 50 minutes earlier, with the opponents fresh and positionally more astutely may never succeed. What happens between then, and the moment the magic happens needs to be measured also. Not when it just happens on the highlights.

In my opinion, Giroud from 2018 has pragmatic value that goes beyond your specific model, but not to the extent where I want to compare him to Ronaldo from 2002. I thought that was a given. I'm asking for further appreciation beyond the immediate sick action with the ball, not to equalize all actions as the same, and all players of the same team performance as the same, as if I'm a social activist wanting equal treatment for fullbacks and playmakers no matter what. Alfredo Di Stefano analyzed for the minutia of his prowess with the ball, needs other elements evaluated beyond immediate and absolute dismissal for being non-playmaker traits. That sounds fair enough for me, and something to strive for, rather being scoffed at.

Finally, I fight fiercely against simplified bastardization of football analysis for these situations, exactly because it is so easy to implement and fall prey to it. How I enjoy and spectate football, is bound to be an inaccurate bastardization of the precise measurements required to evaluate pragmatic effectiveness on the pitch. If I'm guilty of having the wrong eye for football, I want counter-measures when discussing it in depth, or as in depth as time allows.

 

"Puskás was one of the greatest I ever played with. He had a left foot like a violin — he could shoot, pass, and think faster than anyone. And he was a great teammate."

— Alfredo Di Stéfano

"Di Stéfano was the best player I ever saw. He could play in any position, and he was always the most important player on the pitch."

— Ferenc Puskás

Scopelli, Schon and Hanot considered di Stefano the goat.

We all know very well that ballon d'Or isn't about the best player. It's mostly about team success and protagonism on achieving that success. Hungary/Honved were arguably the best team in the world on early 50s and Puskás were their most standout player. Real Madrid were the best team in the world in the late 50s and Di Stefano were their most standout player. So it's not a surprise that Di Stefano won his ballon d'Ors in the late 50s while Puskás in the early 50s. Not to mention that Di Stefano was playing in a pirate league in Colombia in the early 1950s.

Unfortunately for Puskás, the Champions League was created in 1955 at the beginning of the Hungarian civil war, when football was interrupted and there was an exodus of Hungarian players. If the Champions League had started in 1950, it is very likely that Puskás would have already won some titles and had more recognition.

That said, Di Stefano made Real Madrid the European giant we know today. Puskás arrived in an established team that had Di Stefano as its protagonist. The match reports I read from Di Stefano in the 56 and 58 finals were surreal.

With the limited footage we have, Di Stefano appears to have better dribbling in short spaces. He appears to be as fast as prime R9 with and without the ball. In addition to the fact that he came back to mark and actively participated in the construction of plays. But I recognize that purely as a goalscorer and creating goal chances, Puskás was better than him. Which is no discredit since Puskás is probably the greatest assist maker in the history of football and one of the greatest goalscorers.

Regarding the 1954 World Cup, it is redundant for me to mention that Puskás was injured at the beginning of the tournament and only returned to play in the final. Kocsis was elected the best player of the tournament and was the top scorer if I'm not mistaken. Hungary were so good that they reached the final without their best player.

 

I saw both Playing so many many whole Matches ,


so


They are completely different styles or schools of football

especially
in the construction phase of the game

Build up phase

Di Stefano's style

Orientation
with very shorter passes

with a lot of patience

very narrow

Di Stefano liked

to build plays with a lot

PLays One-twos in speed

and very very narrow

he likes to keep possession of the ball

he transforms the intensity of the game and plays more direct when he passes to Gento runs into Open Space

But for the other teammates

he likes to pass shorter...

enjoying possession of the ball...all the time

Di Stefano's Real Madrid had an average of 70% or 80% possession of the ball per game .

Di Stefano

Pass in deeper or killer balls == 92-94


shorter pass in speed or

Plays one-twos in speed == 96-98


Long range Balls == 86-88


Crossing at speed

88-90 ................. was more Low crosses

first touch skills ==

93



He built the game from his own defensive zone

with a lot of patience and enjoying from this

he tried to build the plays beautifully until he reached

the offensive zone or
the opponent's defensive midfield .

 

and now on Ferenc Puskas :





Puskas had a better vision of the entire field 105/105 meters " length " and 68/68 meters width "

due to his orientation

and characteristic Trait " Tries always Long Range Balls "

of passing longer, more directly and always very accurately with swerve outside foot


Puskas intuited, foresawhe had the mental attributes to make decisions in levels beyond this world .



Vision
Flair
composure
Decisions
Decision-making Power
aggression
anticipation
concentration




The characteristics
of the Hungarian National Team side
was to play trying to create very very faster counter-attacks situations ...

sometimes creating

with shorter passes

with Plays one-twos in speed also

or

with more higher intensity
acceleration
sprint speed
pace
long range balls
vertical Passes
a very direct style


without patience
and very faster


to create the Plays ... with 5 touches on the ball to make Into the Net .. !


with this hatred for the wiser patience..let.. so many many times the Hungarian selection without variations of mentality..which is bad totally on my view about Football...that's why.. it got..draws or silly comebacksthere


it was no contrast of mentalities or alternatives in gameplay.

it's like a broken recordplaying the same song forever.. until at the end of eternity .





Ferenc Puskas



Pass in Deeper == 94-96

Plays one-twos == 90-94


Long Range Balls == 93-96 .......


Crossing in speed == 88-92

firs touch skills == 93-95

 

That seems unlikely. Pele was probably seen as a god figure way before 1970.

Pele was undoubtedly the best player in the world with godlike peak for how many years?

Di stefano wasnt.

 

well, Real Madrid 5 vs 3 Santos Fc .!1959



Di Stefano 4 assists (Opta )


Pelé himself

was very very passionate about Alfredo Di Stefano

until the end of his time on Planet Earth,

Pelé says in Brazil always on Interviews in Public :

Di Stefano was the only one player in the Whole World

who completely surpassed me

after this game against Real Madrid in 1959

I wanted to copy his style of play .

which was very complete and Total.


was my game model

 

yes,, about top-goalscorer ..you're right yes .. !


but about the best player not .. at least Officially not ..


Switzerland

ESPN Deportes[28] Ferenc Puskás — —
World Cup: A Statistical Summary[21] Ferenc Puskás Sándor Kocsis Fritz Walter by Fifa
Clarín Ferenc Puskás

 

Honestly ....Ferenc Puskas was 200x times better than Diego Armando Maradona easily . !


What a Pass against Scotland in 1954 ..to Hidegkuti and later to Sandor Kocsis !

 

1954 Puskás Ferenc vs Scotland A (Friendly)


1954 Puskás Ferenc vs Scotland A (Friendly)

 

Puskas is one of the very very few players in the entire world

what a draw with Zico..
in this technical attribute

Killer Balls
or
pass the ball deeper

or

Through balls is an offensive tactic where a player kicks the ball forward between the opposing team's defenders, aiming for a teammate to run onto it and potentially create a scoring opportunity. It's a pass designed to exploit gaps in the opponent's defense, often sending the ball into open space behind the defenders.

 

It’s a complex question, largely because of the regional isolation in which these players competed. Prior to 1955, there were no continental club tournaments that allowed us to compare the strength of different leagues directly.

Di Stéfano began his career at the tail end of River Plate’s legendary “La Máquina” era—arguably the strongest team in South America at the time. After that, he played in Colombia’s so-called “El Dorado” league, a unique period in the late 1940s and early 1950s when many of the best South American players moved there, drawn by lucrative salaries. This was somewhat comparable to what Saudi Arabia is attempting today, except that the Colombian league operated outside FIFA’s official recognition. Even so, Di Stéfano was the standout player in that environment too.

His performances were so impressive that both Barcelona and Real Madrid competed fiercely for his signature—something those clubs have done throughout history whenever a generational talent appears. It’s important to remember that Barcelona already had stars like Kubala, Miramontes, and Evaristo at the time. Despite that, Di Stéfano ultimately joined Real Madrid and became the central figure in what remains arguably the most dominant club side in football history: the team that won five consecutive European Cups. That achievement remains unmatched.

With the arrival of Puskás around 1959–60, the leadership within the team began to shift. Di Stéfano’s last six years were played in the 1960s, a period when his influence declined. If we were to pinpoint the years when he wasn’t the world’s best player, it would likely be the early 1950s—during the peak of Puskás and the dominant Hungarian national team—and then again from 1960 onward, when Puskás and Pelé were more widely seen as the leading figures.

That said, Real Madrid’s gradual decline coincided with Di Stéfano’s diminishing role, suggesting how central he had been to their dominance.

One often-raised question is whether players like Puskás benefited from playing in weaker domestic leagues—Hungary’s in his case. But it’s worth noting that the Hungarian national team went unbeaten for around five years, including their famous win over England in the “Match of the Century.” When a national team is that dominant and nearly all of its players come from the same domestic league, it suggests that league was at a very high level at the time.

It’s also important to understand the political context. In Hungary, the state assembled the best players at Honvéd, a military team, as part of a broader strategy where dictators used football for propaganda purposes. Spain was no exception—Franco's regime invested in football as a national image tool, supporting not only Real Madrid, but also clubs like Barcelona, Atlético Madrid, and Athletic Bilbao at various times.

 

I’m not entirely sure Pelé was viewed as the definitive best player in the world—or the greatest of all time—in the early 1960s.

Take 1958, for example. Despite an extraordinary club season where he scored 58 goals to win the Paulista Championship (a record that still stands), the standout player of the World Cup wasn’t Pelé but Didi, who was unanimously seen as the tournament’s best.

Santos reached their peak between 1961 and 1963, a stretch during which Pelé won every competition he entered. Yet even then, at the 1962 World Cup—when he might have consolidated his claim as the world’s best—he was injured early, and Garrincha carried Brazil to the title in dominant fashion, again receiving universal recognition as the tournament’s best player.

From 1963 onward, Brazilian clubs—including Santos—began to opt out of the Copa Libertadores, instead prioritizing domestic competitions and international friendlies. These European tours were lucrative, but not part of any serious competitive structure. That context weakens the idea that Pelé, during this stretch, was consistently tested against the world’s top opposition in meaningful matches.

So I’m not convinced Pelé had already solidified his status as the greatest player by the early 1960s. He was certainly among the best—possibly the best—but the case wasn’t airtight. Was he clearly better than Puskás in 1960, for instance? That’s debatable. And from 1964 onward, with Santos in decline and Pelé absent from the Libertadores, Eusébio arguably surpassed him in terms of competitive relevance—reaching multiple European finals and having a far stronger 1966 World Cup, while Pelé was again sidelined by injury and Brazil crashed out early.

In hindsight, what truly cemented Pelé’s legacy was the 1970 World Cup. That team is often described as the greatest in football history, and Pelé was its undisputed leader and best player. From that point on, the narrative became difficult to challenge: three World Cup titles, over a thousand career goals, and the aura of having been the face of the most beautiful expression of football ever seen.

 

you are improving alot Isaías Silva Serafim, Congratulations brazilian mate !

 

and now on Ferenc Puskas :





Puskas had a better vision of the entire field 105/105 meters " length " and 68/68 meters width "

due to his orientation

and characteristic Trait " Tries always Long Range Balls "

of passing longer, more directly and always very accurately with swerve outside foot


Puskas intuited, foresawhe had the mental attributes to make decisions in levels beyond this world .



and now on Don Alfredo Di Stefano :


a player who is really very capable of covering

the 105/105 meters " length "
and
the 68/68 meters " width "
with extreme intensity
super endurance
super Stamina
work-Rate
sacrifice
team-work
mental focus " A Total Footballer "


on the ball
Off the ball

working per 90 minutes played.

super concentration
and always super focused on the team !

a total sacrifice for the team

serenity
leadership by example, dedication and work

110% delivery level for the team


didn't feel the pressure of the matches

maximum composure


I'm saying all this because I actually saw this,

on the entire matches I watched of Di Stefano.


1947 until 1960

was a super phenomenal player at all !