Really? Chile/Paraguay rated in the same class as Rom/Bul in the 1950s?? I don't think any of them could won a tournament over Brazil or thrash Brazil in an oficial match, like Par/Chi did in the 1950s. Why not, brazilian players, since they were the top side alongside an emerging Hungary team? Some newcomers also makes the top places. In these years were played some Intercontinental clubs tournaments and also occurs some clubs tours. Btw, the quota or range, and crossing players list with top countries, I take it as a quality control.
Well, Bulgaria earned a win and a draw against Hungary around this period, so everything is possible in football. Romania gave the Olympic Hungarians their biggest scare that year, in the beautiful Finnish city of Turku (the stadium still has a plague memorizing it, BTW). In World Soccer Chile were considered a step below the average European level. Basically no-hopers if they'd have to have qualified from a European group. That was in the early 60s, but I don't see their quality going down from the 50s to the 60s. Paraguay peaked at a higher level, but every time they managed to put together a decent side it would get demolished by foreign clubs. Newcomers make it in if they impress enough. They don't make it in based on what they'll achieve later in their careers. Intercontinental tournaments and club tours... You're trying to murder me, aren't you? You want this project to kill me.
Friendlies are not the same as Official Tournaments, and tight losses are not the same as a win by large margin. Btw, USSR at early 1950s is at least at step below that its late-50s version. But, I guess we disagree in our views.
I understand that the "rankings" we make are made from the information that we can find in paper, digitized and online documentation. In my case, I also entertain myself looking for information year by year (some of which I have shared with you) and I recognize that many times I have fallen short in the selection of South American players for a very simple reason: lack of information. Perhaps you can share sites or literature in which we can find more information about these American players and we can further value their achievements. ............................................................................................................... Entiendo que los "rankings" que hacemos los confeccionamos a partir de la información que podemos localizar en documentación en papel, digitalizada y online. En mi caso, también me entretengo buscando información año por año (alguna de la cual he compartido con ustedes) y reconozco que muchas veces me he quedado corto en la selección de jugadores sudamericanos por una razón muy sencilla: falta de información. Quizá puedan compartir sitios o literatura en la cual podamos encontrar más información sobre estos jugadores americanos y podamos valorar más sus logros.
I guess Ariaga might be more easily swayed when there are some notable matches between South American teams and European ones, that lead to South American players gaining plaudits in Europe too. Although obviously he's looking at some South American sources too anyway. With that in mind, I don't know whether @msioux75 you have any info on the Uruguayan championship of 1953 and how it went (depending on start/end date maybe the 1952 one has more relevance though?), because Oscar Miguez was a Penarol player for example and I have a feeling he'd be considered to be a potential candidate for this next 1952/53 season. I remember I read someone's Youtube comments about having seen the Uruguay-England 1953 match in the stadium, and having been very impressed with Finney, but also Miguez for Uruguay (maybe to the effect he was MOTM or won the game or something). The report on the Englandonline website backs up those sentiments: http://www.englandfootballonline.com/Seas1946-60/1952-53/M0279Uru1953.html "Míguez, a master of ball control and as crafty as a monkey, led the entire England defence a dance. Billy Wright, winning his 50th cap, played him as well as any defender could do, but several times was left tackling his shadow." I know Hohberg was top scorer of the 1953 championship rather than Miguez (while moving on to the 1954 World Cup, Hohberg did well against Hungary didn't he, while Miguez was one of the players not available for that game and to be fair with Varela and more unavailable too maybe Uruguay were missing more cumulatively than Hungary without the mega-star Puskas). Another player who starred against an English team (albeit in a not officially official match, so not exactly the full first choice England team) was of course Argentinian Ernesto Grillo, who I see did score a good amount of goals (while I think not really being primarily a goalscorer) during the 1953 Argentinian championship. Maybe his fame would be persuasive too, but I'm not sure and he could be more of an HM in Ariaga's view and/or consensus view: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Día_del_Futbolista_Argentino I suppose, although we talk of a 'Ballon d'Or', a worldwide award would have a worldwide panel rather than being European based, but yeah maybe it can be difficult (despite the indications from the 1950 World Cup results and 'All-Star teams' as shown being quite balanced between the continents, without the likes of Hungary and Puskas featuring that time in that tournament of course for example though) to incorporate players from so far back when the intercontinental comparisons are limited?
In my eyes, Brazil and Argentina at early 1950s were in a transition NT era, but they had an amazing pool of good players, as in modern times, so its strenght at club/NT level was not severely affected as other countries, being still seeing as top dogs. Uruguay had still WC champion squad active and adding some players that appears in WC 1954, was still a major force. Some interesting club tournament played post WC 1950: Copa Rio (1952, july) champions from BRA / URU / AUT / W.GER / POR / PAR / SWI There was a 1951 edition with ITA/YUG/FRA champions Latin Cup, (1952, june) Barcelona + Juventus + Nice + Sporting Little World Cup (1952, july) Real Madrid + Millonarios + Botafogo (3rd Carioca) + La Salle 50th Anniversary Real Madrid (1952, march)
1952-1953: Things are getting complicated again. So complicated, in fact, that my skills and resources clearly are no longer enough to deal with it. For the third season in a row, the international season is looking pretty average, with not a lot of consistent standouts on show. This time things were so serious I was having trouble even figuring out TotS and podium spots. I could almost sense the increasing influence of club achievements over friendly internationals. I made a first draft, sat on it for a little while, then ran into some new information. I found a couple of player rankings from my Brazilian papers, which I used for a basis for forming my own revised ranking (follow the green highlights if you're lost): First one Second one (part 1) Second one (part 2) Third one First one seems a bit out of date, IMO. The third one seems to be by far the most useful. From what I gather, it's the combined opinion of a number of experts, similar to the BdO. I wonder if United Press did these in other years? They'd be a hugely valuable resource. For additional help I'm also using the October 1953 supranational representative match to figure out the final standings. BTW, I mentioned before how I could feel the rising influence of the club level, but it definitely doesn't show in the rankings, does it? More than ever I'm depending more on the overall reputation of players over actual performances. That means it's time I throw the likes of Boniperti and Walter in there. They're considered major stars and had some international highlights, but in the match reports they've been poor or anonymous as often as they've been great. The likes of Finney, Ocwirk and Schiaffino are all there based primarily on overall rep. Kubala is sick and Di Stefano spends half this season between clubs, so they're taking a break this time. You'd think taking a closer look at league level would help, but it only confuses things further. Case in point, Serie A. The reports I have don't spell out the best players well enough for my taste (I generally have to infer them off the text). The Gre-No-Li trio comes off pretty good in the reports, but looking at the CDS rankings, only Gren comes off pretty good. So of course he'll be selected for the Europe-team, right? Nope, he's overlooked in favor of Nordahl and Boniperti, who don't even top the rankings in their own position. CDS questions the inclusion of the past-it Nordahl, and mentions Jeppson as probably the best CF around at the moment. The same Jeppson who has about half of Nordahl's scoring numbers this season. Yes, he's playing for a smaller team, but how is that possible? To top it off La Stampa mentions what a mediocre Serie A season it's been. Ho boy, this is the kind of waters I have to wade through. Catenaccio makes a first appearance in my reports, BTW, being described as "nonsense". The NT-scene has one standout team, of course, in Hungary. Their reputation has clearly increased after the Olympics. Last season it seemed like half of Europe hadn't quite woken up to them yet. The likes of Grosics, Czibor and especially Bozsik are getting more lip service now. Palotas is injured in one of the fall internationals. Hidegkuti takes over for him, and football will never be the same again. Puskas and Kocsis remain the big stars, though the latter seems to have a poor summer. It seems like he even loses his spot early next season? Elsewhere he's described as being possibly even more talented than Puskas, though. Paradoxically, while the team is now enjoying the champion-level prestige, many of the reports say the team isn't as dominant as it was before. Go figure. The other major team Yugoslavia has a season of mostly smashing minnows, so it's hard to figure out where their players stand. Vukas came off as the best this time, but I included everyone who was picked for the Europe team. One team on the rise now is France, thanks to their new recruits Kopa, Ujlaki and Jonquet. At this point Ujlaki is clearly the biggest star of the three. Antoine Bonifaci is a special case. He's come off very good in the reports so far, and is ranked ridiculously high in the United Press list. His club numbers are pretty low, though, and I'm not sure if he has the kind of overall reputation to be worthy of inclusion, or if he's just a flash in the pan type. Opinion, @wm442433 ? Heading in the other direction is Austria. They manage to keep an impressive rep considering their horrible results this season. At one point it's believed the entire Europe defence will be Austrian. Their highlight this season is managing to hold Hungary to a draw, thanks to the heroics of Zeman. Ocwirk and Hanappi do well in the links, but the latter came off poorly in the reports. Spain are on the up again, on performances if not necessarily on results. They're considered moral victors in the first Argentina game, and their South American tour is also a success. The team is now lead by new signing Kubala. The NT performances of Kubala and ADS are some of the things I'm most looking forward to studying. So far Kubala's CV is one match of split opinion and another with an unanimously great performance. He doesn't have enough games to make it to the 23, but I included the other big star Basora. Of the other countries, Belgium's Mermans still has a star aura, but his NT numbers aren't that great anymore. It looks like Coppens has now gone past him in the star stakes. Trevor Ford of Wales just misses out for the second time. England have Wright still impressing at RH and Lofthouse as "the complete centre-forward". South America has another Copa that's missing 2/3rds of the big teams. Julinho is the MVP, with Zizinho coming off pretty good, too. The Santoses are there (sometimes identified as Santos and Santos. Thanks), but probably don't yet have the kind of aura that would earn them a nomination here. Basora, Estanislao (Spain) Boniperti, Giampiero (Italy) Boszik, Jozsef (Hungary) Cajkovski, Zlatko (Yugoslavia) Coppens, Rik (Belgium) Finney, Tom (England) Gren, Gunnar (Sweden) Jeppson, Hasse (Sweden) Julinho (Brazil) Kocsis, Sandor (Hungary) Lofthouse, Nat (England) Marche, Roger (France) Matthews, Stanley (England) Ocwirk, Ernst (Austria) Puskas, Ferenc (Hungary) Schiaffino, Juan (Uruguay) Ujlaki, Joseph (Hungary/France) Vukas, Bernard (Yugoslavia) Walter, Fritz (Germany) Wright, Billy (England) Zebec, Branko (Yugoslavia) Zizinho (Brazil) Zeman, Walter (Austria) TotS: Zeman Young Marche; Wright Ocwirk Bozsik; Matthews Kocsis Lofthouse Puskas Finney 2-3-5 again, thanks to a lack of standout defenders. The GK-scene is quite impressive, with Zeman beating off claims from Beara, Grosics and Svensson. George Young came off as the best RB, and LB spots was between Marche and Happel. Gren and Vukas were replaced by Matthews and Lofthouse after my revisions. Top 3: 1. Puskas 2. Matthews 3. Wright I originally thought about an all-Hungarian top 3, but this is how it looks like after revisions. Matthews was ranked in the top 10 in the UP list, and that was before the FA-cup final, and with no internationals to help him out. It's a slow season, so a career-defining FA-cup match for an ATG seems worth a podium spot. The #1 spot was never in doubt, though. Puskas is already described as being worthy of being considered one of the GOATs.
First source, dated at 1953, march. Was made by Jean Eskenazi (french journalist), saying that he saw each mid to top NTs (excluding Paraguay, Perú, Czechoslovakia and Netherlands). He picked 57 players (16 SA, that's it almost 30%). He also placed 3 SA countries in his top-5. Second source, dated in september 1953, cited an article from Standard (Eng), made a World XI A and B, picking 6/22 SA players (almost 30%). They also chose a top-10 NT (3 SA countries made the top-6). They said that watched players from all countries (excluding Paraguay, Peru, Netherlands) Third source, dated in march, 1953, said that "many" european sources rated countries like this: 1) Brazil, 2) Hungría, 3) England + Argentina (close). Then a World XI made by M.Pefferkorn (french journo) and a European players ranking with a Poll made by United Press and a ranking for european NTs.
About Antoine Bonifaci, he started as an inside right but who is more of the kind of a midfielder to be soon repositionned at right half (although he could still play at IR, I suppose). I've just found an FF review, by Max Urbini, of his very first match for Inter (a compilation of reviews from La Gazzetta and Tutto Sport) and he played this match as IR, but still, who is more of the midifield : he distributed the ball with high precision to the 4 others who were more the forwards and shooters, in the axis, or to the wingers (like Lorenzi CF and Skoglund RW), also with transveral passes. In this match he also took his chance to score but also dropped back to help the defense. ... "quick and timely passes" too in Tutto Sport. The Inter directors : "with Bonifaci our attack is more balanced and will be more productive. Our shooting talents are finally used without restrictions". By the end, Urbini concludes by saying : what a lot of compliments isn't it?. When the Italians praise or bash it's always in excess blabla... it seems that he can make a good Italian career ... but he's only 23 and that he must confirm his talent, let's not forget it! At his arrival the Italian press, on the contrary was highly, skeptical (that's how the review starts) saying he was practicing a desuet football thus useless for a great modern team like Inter. so their view changed radically, all of sudden. I don't know why he did not play in 1953-1954 (the article just says it is his first after 1 year without playing at all) : injury or, more possibly I think but again I don't know, for he signed an invalid contract... like for two clubs at once or something. ?? Bonifaci is generally described as a very "complete footballer", "class/ elegant footballer", gifted. He was great for Nice immediately in his his early 20's... they were the dominant team with him and others like the experimented Argentine withdrawn #9 Carniglia... then, after his departure... it alternated with Reims. .."able to recover the ball, to make the transition, orchestrator, playmaker"... I'd call this a number 8 in this instance. 'deep-lying playmaker'... who can recover the ball maybe, without being that much of a defender... he scored with a header in Northern ireland in '51 for his first cap too... so must have been quite good in the air... his second and last NT goal in 12 caps comes against Wales for his last cap in '53... His wiki page says that he won and that he was designated the best player of Tournoi de Toulon 1949 but I wonder if it's not the Junior European Championship '49 (with Jean Vincent and others). At this time he could have been signed by Fiorentina as his first professional club but he stood on the other side of the frontier, in his country, at Nice, to start with. I loose track of his career when he is playing in Italy.
Yeah, it was 4 years later. And still highly rated. Maybe, Bonifaci playing abroad and the rise of Penverne cut his chances?
What a surprise! The double handicaps reinstated once more! No wonder you get stuff like this: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/b...ver-four-four-two-list.2112346/#post-39091288 As far as Puskas is concerned, I've already elaborated before that he didn't play (or score) against top teams before 1952 (for club and country, per elo). Once he got the opportunity to regularly play and score at international/club level against international top teams, he was across the continent seen as the best around. Not really before 1952 or so, but then there was a phase of above standing anyone, also above ADS. Until the end of 1955.
While on the subject of 50s Ligue 1, do you have an opinion on the two Marseille Gunnars? My view of them is that both would be worthy of my top tier ranking, but they'd both have to be among the absolute best in their position in the league. Andersson as the top scorer is a pretty safe bet, but defender Johansson is more difficult to pin down. In the 50s playing abroad pretty much spelled the end of your NT-career (unless you decided to switch sides). In WS Carbajal mentioned that as a reason he never moved abroad.
"More than ever I'm depending more on the overall reputation of players over actual performances. That means it's time I throw the likes of Boniperti and Walter in there. They're considered major stars and had some international highlights, but in the match reports they've been poor or anonymous as often as they've been great. The likes of Finney, Ocwirk and Schiaffino are all there based primarily on overall rep. Kubala is sick and Di Stefano spends half this season between clubs, so they're taking a break this time." Because of that Britain/England > Hungary in podium, inclusions and TOTS I presume? All of these categories The anglogerman axis. I'm gone from this thread again.
TBH, you don't need an axis to rank Holland at the bottom of the barrel in the early 50s. Even Finland is taking them to the cleaners. Puskas and Hungary are more difficult to pin down. Everyone who saw them pre-52 (f.e. Austrians and Swedes) ranked Hungary as the best team in Europe and Puskas as the best player. It just took some time for the slower members of the press to wake up to the fact. You rage quit before reading the part where I said I had an all-Hungarian podium before I ran into an official poll made by the combined votes of the press. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, drama queen.
That article - and other sources - actually didn't, of the "mid level" countries they were just not assessed, just as Peru wasn't seen by the author (who once made an all time list in 1979, which I have posted in the old lists thread... pretty balanced one that). National team was worse than the players itself, that's perfectly possible, with good reasons. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/o...-esp-1950s-1970s.2038892/page-4#post-35509926 Fine Thomas Müller avatar, ultimately though, you don't really give references to actual sources. They remain hidden in the mist and fog (save for rare exceptions). I've also the idea your translation skills are sometimes (understandably, with good excuse) lacking.
Everything is available at eu-football.info. You can literally read every match report for yourself with a couple of clicks. The "translation skills" consists of putting things into Google translator and hoping it doesn't come out as garbled horsecrap. Quite often I'll have to settle for just picking out the best players. I would love to see your own ranking one day, when you finally give us plebs all the correct answers. But your contribution is hounding literally anyone who attempts a ranking and obsessively throwing passive aggressive pot shots like the world's worst mother in law.
Yes, most of all playing abroad I think. Penverne could play at the 5 backs positions but also he brings maybe a bit more balance at RH given the composition of the forward line (and Marcel at LH... plus the Reims connection too although, in some way, whatever his club was, he had the level anyway ofc). There's also the fact that he (Bonifaci) did not play at all in 1953-1954, prior to the World Cup so he missed the construction of the team too. But yeah, playing abroad mainly I think, wich would encompass any other possible more specific reasons for his non-selection since '53. Then, there's the possibility he was later called-up again and refused the selection but I've never heard of that so I don't know. Well, it's just to not forgot about this possibilty. It seems that he did rather well in Italy anyway as shown by the ratings you shared, although Inter did not kept him. Twice top-5 in the league with Bologna (their usual rank maybe anyway). Then, 7th with Torino in '57-58 before the relegation in '59... It doesn't look excellent in terms of transferts and career but still he has that one season 56-57 that proves his value at 26 years old indeed. Had he stayed at Nice, the story could have been different but in NT when you have a Kopa you need more of a Penverne right behind indeed (Penverne being comfortable on the ball enough and a bit playmaker too and a bit more defender, or somebody else more or less of the kind of Penverne as the latter also played often at the back). Seeing him ranked that high in '57 in such a difficult league is great info and a good indicator of what his level was until then in any case. Then it looks like that his career stopped with this relegation at 28 years old and a few matches played at elite level thereafter. So, a "relative flash in the pan" maybe. Worth mentionning for sure then, as for wich tier they belong to, I really don't know. I'd tend to say not first tier, but quality b-list players. That it is my opinion, then on that OM side, Andersson was of course the star, even the mascott and Johansson was the chief of defense and highly rated well, in France at least. They were the two main guys who fulfilled their role of additional value to the team as foreigners. Andersson = the motto of OM : "droit au but/ straight to the goals" and Johansson held the defense. That said, collectively they did not achieve anything significative. They were still more a cup team in the spirit rather than a league team I think (the league rankings are not brilliant overall... but they could do some exploits, in a spectacular way, this is it). Difficult to know what the two players would have done at international level although a good scorer of goals remains a good scorer of goals if the team plays for him and that a good defender remains a good defender if everything goes well. But there was some concurrence amongst Swedish players in those times... dunno how Andersson compares to a... wait (I do the search)... Gösta Lofgren, for instance. Andersson was a "pure finisher". Physically, a bit light.
The Sweden of this time is hard to pin down. Players like Jeppson and Selmosson aren't anything out of the ordinary for the NT, but turn instantly into superstars when they move to Italy. You'd think European clubs would swoop for key NT-players like Löfgren or Gösta Sandberg. Maybe the players weren't interested? Do you have an opinion on the best foreigners in Ligue 1 in the early 50s? I'm thinking the Marseille Gunnars rank among the best with the Dutch quartet of Appel, De Harder, Van Der Hart and Rijvers?
Here's an attempt at translating an FF mag article on the matter : "foreigners of the French League" (nov. '60). It's essentialy a (AT) list but with also some info and ratings (did well, did wonders, did not do well). A good starting point, in gross. At first sight the top foreign players in the early 50's looks like this. Although it's a bit more difficult to include Johansson in that same pot, first for he was a defender. Van der Hart was superior to him I think and left a bigger mark, winning titles too. As a CH who is 'more footballer' and also clearly operates more at the midfield (Lille was very 2-3-5, as for Johansson it seems that he had balanced qualities between defense and passing (wich sometimes lacked to the local defenders) but I don't think he went through the centre like Van der Hart did. Another defender who was praised for his good distribution of the ball was Carlos Sosa of RC Paris. The FF article talks a bit about the "distribution" of the Swedish footballers in the different leagues. About Andersson, I read that he was signed by Marseille as he was suspended in his country for he earned a bit too much money for an amateur (or was it semi-pro? Something like this). After some remarked debuts in the junior category he was signed by IFK Göteborg (in '49, the team of Gunnar Gren, who left in '50) but he was still not a starter in the first team there (21 years old) and essentially a reservist.
That's what I read somewhere recently but it seems that he played 16 m. out of 22 (for 7 goals) in the '49-50 Swedish league. Dunno why they wrote this, in this article somewhere on the net (I should have verified earlier). About the rest it's better sources. He was playing for KB/ Kjobenhavns Boldklub in a tournament in Catalonia, when the president of OM spotted him (1950).
Source number 2: Teams selected by Vernon Morgan, journalist from "Standard" (London - UK). According to the brazilian source, a "brillant football commentator".
BBC article on Moscow Dynamo's tour to Britain in November 1945. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54839305
1953-1954: This season snatches the trophy of busiest one yet from the last World Cup year. Last time I could at least include everyone I wanted to, but this time I had to make some stinging cuts. Like last time, I'll start with the finalists and go down from there. Germany were of course the surprise winners, and their side is probably the biggest underdog-champions in WC-history. They were considered no-hopers against Hungary, 50-50 at most against Austria and clear underdogs against Yugoslavia. Fritz Walter is the obvious top player. Posipal is the other top guy early on in the season, but in the WC Liebrich emerges as the second most impressive performer. Rahn is maybe a tad underwhelming, with some varied opinions. Hungary of course are the clear kings of this season, doing everything except win the big trophy. The Puskas-Kocsis-Bozsik triumvirate are still the standouts, with Hidegkuti, Czibor and maybe Grosics coming in the next wave. The Scottish guy who said Ocwirk was the best all-around footballer he had ever seen now switched his opinion to Bozsik. Austria are another respected side, if maybe a tad inconsistent. Interestingly, the attack still seems to be the weak point, even if they smash in a ton of goals on several occasions. Ocwirk and Hanappi are the key men, with Koller also impressing, particularly in games where the rest of the side is poor. Happel has probably his best games yet after he's moved to centre-back. He's fairly anonymous in the WC, though, so I ended up having to drop him. Uruguay are another side who are unstoppable at times, pretty average on others. Schiaffino is now one of the best players around anywhere, with Andrade the other standout. Brazil still enjoy a reputation of having talented individuals, but being undisciplined and tactically deficient. Pretty ironic considering what's going to happen in the next couple WCs. Interestingly, the Times reports both Uruguay and Brazil are using the "bolt" system, which I understand to mean a back four. Some others don't seem to agree, which seems to indicate how fickle the difference between WM and 4-2-4 is early on. Brazil's top guy is Julinho, with Didi, Djalma and Bauer also getting some decent hype. Yugoslavia's star-studded cast increases further with the addition of super-talented but frail Milutinovic. On the other side Bobek and Mitic are getting past it, though both still have their moments. Cajkovski is still the top guy, followed by Vukas. Horvat is "possibly the best CH in the tournament". The team's main weakness is the inability to score, something which will become a Yugoslav tradition. England have their famous annus horibilis, but there is a silver lining. Their last two games of the season are probably their best two. The two best players are two old favorites, Matthews on the wing and Wright now moved over to CB. Of the smaller countries, Coppens is impressive for Belgium. Mermans is in the still-pretty-good-but-past-it phase. John Charles has a breakthrough season for Wales, and would have made it to the 23 in any other year. Likewise Kalle Svensson, who has his best games for Sweden, particularly in the tie against Hungary. Talk of Swedes allows me to segue into club level. Serie A has me stumped, because I'm seeing a distinct discrepancy between the reports I'm reading (La Stampa) and the rankings (CDS). The likes of Liedholm and Skoglund tend to come off as very good in the reports, but not in the rankings. Skoglund was definitely Inter's danger man this season. Since I already omitted him once, and feel he's getting a bad rap in the rankings, I decided to include him. Praest makes it in, too, being mentioned as the MVP in the league (though it's early on in the season). Another unfortunate fellow who should probably have been included already is Lorenzi. He came close once again, but there just wasn't room. Boniperti is as mysteriously mercurial as ever, with the performances not matching the reputation. Interestingly, Cris Freddi's WC book describes him as someone who "spent a decade not quite living up to a golden boy tag". Because things weren't crowded enough already, this season also featured another intranational representative match. This is the one where the (not quite) Rest of the World took England to the cleaners, being denied a win only through a last minute gift penalty. Except for the ones listed in the link, players who should have been there included the Hungarian big three and Ujlaki and Marche from France. They all pulled out due to NT duties. Coppens and Brinek were included in the preliminaries, and Lenstra and Jeppson were also suggested as possibilities. Kubala was the top dog in this match, ably assisted by Vukas, Zebec and Ocwirk. Kubala had a pretty good case for the very top honors, but he was disappointing in one of the decisive Turkey-qualifiers. Kubala's good buddy and future NT-mate Di Stefano isn't there yet, but I included him in the 23 with the assumption he was top class in La Liga. Since I included so many Serie A guys and all. Bozsik, Jozsef (Hungary) Cajkovski, Zlatko (Yugoslavia) Coppens, Rik (Belgium) Czibor, Zoltan (Hungary) Di Stefano, Alfredo (Argentina) Hanappi, Gerhard (Austria) Hidegkuti, Nandor (Hungary) Horvat, Ivica (Yugoslavia) Jeppson, Hasse (Sweden) Julinho (Brazil) Kocsis, Sandor (Hungary) Kubala, Laszlo (Hungary/Spain) Matthews, Stanley (England) Ocwirk, Ernst (Austria) Praest, Karl Aage (Denmark) Puskas, Ferenc (Hungary) Rahn, Helmut (Germany) Rodriguez Andrade, Victor (Uruguay) Schiaffino, Juan (Uruguay) Skoglund, Lennart (Sweden) Vukas, Bernard (Yugoslavia) Walter, Fritz (Germany) Wright, Billy (England) TotS: Beara Rodriguez Andrade Wright Hanappi; Cajkovski Bozsik; Kubala Kocsis Schiaffino Puskas Walter No really obvious goalie at the WC. Grosics let in a couple of softies, especially in the first Germany match, so I opted for Beara. Beara also comes off as the bigger standout in general, though it might be because Grosics has less to do. Svensson was another strong possibility. With even Austria now moving into a back 3 (or 4), I can't on good conscience use a 2-3-5 formation anymore. That's bad news for the halfline. The best three are once again the three standouts in this era: Cajkovski, Ocwirk and Bozsik. All three deserved to be in, really, but I ended up dropping Ocwirk for blowing hot and cold in the WC. Hanappi conveniently makes it in because he was used as a FB at times this season. Despite what was said above, I gathered Wright to be the top CB this season over Horvat. Djalma and Happel were options in defence. The forward-line pretty much picks itself, with Julinho and Hidegkuti as the back-ups. Top 3: 1. Kocsis 2. Schiaffino 3. Walter Though the TotS forwards were an easy pick, the podium spots were a much tighter race. Puskas even with his injury had a pretty good case, and Kubala is dropped due to his one bad game. I feel Kocsis and his 11 goals had the best case for top spot. Like in the last WC, the BdO is the consolation prize. Notes: The Austrians readily admit the Hungarians are the masters... of dirty tricks. The Hidegkuti special is the blind heel foul, used with his back to an opponent. Puskas finisher is the ghost foul, where he screams and goes down even when there has been no contact. I hadn't even noticed before Fritz Walter was part of the first Germany-Hungary match, the one they threw away. It's said Walter was pretty much strolling through that one. Don't see what the point was in using him in the first place, but who am I to question this master stratagem? Team comparison: Scotland struggle in their games against Norway. It's said none of the Norwegians would be sure of a place in a Scottish A division side (Svenssen isn't there, BTW). Links: United Press are back. I understand their poll for the best player of 1954 resulted in a three-way tie between Matthews, Walter and Kocsis. Matthews at age 40 earning a top spot in a WC year playing for a poor team shows the kind of esteem he's held in. I might adjust him from top 10 AT to GOAT. Billy Wright's world 11. A South American 11.
Interesting comments by a contemporary uruguayan referee. Just to remark, that brazilian sources named his XI in a 2-3-5 ordering, but taking this, in a "real WM" formation, it means: GK RB, CB RM, LM, LB RW, IR, CF, IL, LW Since the change from Pyramid to WM in Brazil, was dropping back the Left Halfback into defensive line (Diagonal System), moving the RFB to a Right Sided defender. In the case of argentinian sources of the era, when naming a team in a 2-3-5 ordering, they are thinking in a "real WM" formation, in a different way to Brazil. GK CB, LB RB, RM, LM RW, IR, CF, IL, LW Since the change from Pyramid to WM in Argentina, was dropping back the Right Halfback into defensive line (La Maquina), moving the LFB to a Left Sided defender. Uruguay can be said, made the transition directly from back-2 to a back-4. Since the WM was used there, few years. In Perú, Chile and Paraguay, it happened something similar to Bra/Arg depending who was the most skilled Wing Halfback (called to stayed in midfield alongside attacking CH to form "magical square")