This is one thing that fascinates me. After 1956 and the Hungarian revolution, Puskas went to Real Madrid and we all know what he nanaged to do there. Some other Magical Magyar stayed in Hungary. But Kocsis and Czibor went (eventually) to Spain. Now. Kocsis and Czibor (especially the former) were still two of the best forward players around. They both went to Barcelona and... they didn't play. What?? Kocsis remained there for 6 or 7 years, quite a long time, but in only two of them he managed to play 20 (out of 30!) league games. In the other seasons he played 10 or less games! His gpg was always good, so I highly doubt it was because he was considered past it. And I refuse to believe that he injured himself seriously for seven years in a row! Do you have any idea what happened?! Kubala's case is somewhat parallel: he went to Barcelona already in 1951, played a phenomenal 1952 season, fell seriously ill the following year but then managed to recover... And suddenly even he started to play comparatively few big games until the end of the decade! What was wrong with Barcelona in the mid-to-late 50s? Why did they have such aces but wouldn't let them play? I'm seriously astonished by it. It's not only one year. Season after season Kubala and Kocsis (and on a smaller scale Czibor) played only few or very few games, while STILL maintaining high gpg. Does anybody here know better??
This is indeed a justified question. I have wondered about Kocsis particularly because his Spanish stats look strange indeed. Maybe it was a combination of homesickness and injuries but that is speculation. This is just a guess but maybe he found it difficult to cope with the situation in Hungary after they lost the 1954 World Cup final. His goalscoring dropped considerably in the following years 1955 and 1956. Then later homesickness plagued him and if he was not the most stable guy mentally it might have affected his performance level... These are the career statistics of Sandor Kocsis and Ladislao Kubala: SANDOR KOCSIS Season - games - goals - club 1945-46 05 02 Köbanyai Torna 1946-47 03 02 Ferencvaros 1947-48 21 05 Ferencvaros 1948-49 30 33 Ferencvaros 1949-50 30 30 Ferencvaros ......1950 15 24 Honved ......1951 26 30 Honved (Top Scorer) ......1952 26 36 Honved (Top Scorer) ......1953 25 24 Honved ......1954 26 33 Honved (Top Scorer) ......1955 21 17 Honved ......1956 21 13 Honved 1956-57 00 00 suspended 1957-58 11 07 Young Fellows Zürich 1958-59 04 04 Barcelona 1959-60 09 02 Barcelona 1960-61 10 04 Barcelona 1961-62 20 17 Barcelona 1962-63 09 01 Barcelona 1963-64 19 12 Barcelona 1964-65 04 00 Barcelona Regarding Laszlo/Ladislao Kubala it has to be said that by the early-1960s, he had become a player-manager for Barcelona and then Espanyol and only played when there was a real need it seems. LADISLAO KUBALA Season - games - goals - club 1944-45 09 02 Ganz Torna Egylet ......1945 22 19 Ferencvaros 1945-46 27 14 Ferencvaros 1946-47 24 13 SK Bratislava 1947-48 09 01 SK Bratislava 1947-48 08 04 Vasas 1948-49 12 06 Vasas 1949-50 30 30 Ferencvaros 1949-50 no club 1950-51 no club 1951-52 19 27 Barcelona 1952-53 11 07 Barcelona 1953-54 28 24 Barcelona 1954-55 19 13 Barcelona 1955-56 25 14 Barcelona 1956-57 18 09 Barcelona 1957-58 21 12 Barcelona 1958-59 20 09 Barcelona 1959-60 12 07 Barcelona 1960-61 13 09 Barcelona 1961-62 00 00 Barcelona 1962-63 00 00 Barcelona 1963-64 29 07 RCD Espanyol Barcelona 1964-65 00 00 RCD Espanyol Barcelona 1965-66 00 00 FC Zürich 1966-67 01 00 FC Zürich .....1967 19 05 Toronto Falcons .....1968 00 00 Toronto Falcons
I was as astonished as you, Pipiolo. He has played about 190 matches in ten seasons, averaging less than 20 matches per season. Look at the stats provided by Gregoriak above, I think they're also on wikipedia...
Thanks, Gregoriak. Yes, Kocsis was probably not the most stable person, he allegedly committwd suicide before he was 50 (though he was ill). His case is really strange indeed, more than Kubala's. He really played few matches per year for Barca, and in strange order. In his first season he played some pre-season friendlies in August, then made his competitive debut only around December, then played only a couple more matches later in the season, and finally played the whole Copa del Rey in June (scoring hat-tricks). This doesn't make sense. Was he injured in two different spells in the first and in the second part of the year? And did this situation happen again and again the following years? No clue. You might be right that it wad a mental / depression problem
Re Kocsis not being stable, I have never heard that before, regarding his death he had been diagnosed with both Leukemia and Stomach cancer and may have comitted suicide but also it was reported as an accident. Interesting if he had scored one or two against England at Wembley his legend may have been greater as many foten just his WC54 goals are mentioned. Interesing to see if anyone elaborates on his lack of games for Barcelona, was this tactical or fitness or another reason, he sure had some great games for them such as the hat tricks away to Wolves in the 1960 EC Semis but never always seem to miss chunks of the season.
It seems a combination of things for Kocsis. I've a 1966 book by Gaspar & Funyik (translated from Spanish) that state FC Barcelona entered a "financial crisis" in 1959, stripped/creamed of cash and assets. They had to sell some players eventually, most notably Suarez. "Kocsis could - because all his [useful] team mates had left - also not show what they expected and thus Barcelona slipped towards the middle of the table." It started a chaotic period with managerial, staffing and board changes. He couldn't play until November 1958, because he was waiting for Spanish citizenship. It became processed at November 1958 (therefore he could play in the Copa del Generallisimo, which was only open for Spanish nationals). http://www.bdfutbol.com/en/p/j7889.html?cat=-&temp=1958-59&equip=-&rival=-&noj=1 He broke his leg in August 1959, which seemed to bother him and didn't make him happy. It was also a step down in professionalism compared to what he had enjoyed in Hungary (the club Real Madrid was certainly a different matter). It wasn't quite the connected metropole of more modern times. http://www.bdfutbol.com/en/p/j7889.html?cat=-&temp=1959-60&equip=-&rival=-&noj=1 So he lost the first one and a half seasons due to citizenship issues and a broken leg. They seemed to rotate many of their forwards (apparently related to finances too), and when the team waned the 31+ years old Kocsis didn't receive the confidence any more - despite the goals the perceived form/contribution played a part too. Apparently his testimonial match was sold out, and he was both in Hungary and Catalonia seen as a likable down-to-earth figure. This generation of players is associated with the building of the Camp Nou stadium, although the plans had already started before Kubala and co arrived. That is what I can make of it.
I think a big part of the issue was likely player rotation. There were a ton of great forwards for 5 spots: Kubala, Kocsis, Czibor, Evaristo, Eulogio Martinez, Villaverde, Luis Suarez, Tejada. It seemed in different year that different players were owners in different competitions. For instance in 58-59 Villaverde only played 1 game in La Liga but played in 8 of the 9 games in the Copa del Rey winning campaign in the same year. 1958-59 Season La Liga (winners) Tejada 28 (19) Suarez 26 (14) Evaristo 23 (20) Czibor 20 (7) Kubala 20 (9) Martinez 16 (7) Kocsis 4 (4) Villaverde 1 (0) Copa del Ray (winners) Martinez 9 (7) Suarez 9 (6) Tejada 9 (1) Villaverde 8 (1) Kocsis 6 (11) Czibor 1 (0) Kubala 1 (0) Evaristo 0 (0) Fairs Cup (eventual winners) Villaverde 2 (1) Kubala 2 (0) Evaristo 2 (2) Czibor 1 (2) Suarez 1 (0) Tejada 1 (0) Martinez 0 (0) Kocsis 0 (0) 59-60 Season La Liga (winners) Martinez 24 (23) Evaristo 24 (14) Suarez 23 (13) Villaverde 18 (3) Tejada 13 (0) Kubala 12 (7) Czibor 10 (6) Kocsis 9 (3) Copa del Rey (quarterfinals) Tejada 6 (2) Kubala 5 (4) Martinez 5 (5) Czibor 3 (2) Suarez 2 (0) Villaverde 1 (0) Kocsis 0 (0) Evaristo 0 (0) Fairs Cup (winners) Martinez 6 (4) Suarez 4 (0) Kubala 3 (3) Czibor 3 (2) Villaverde 3 (1) Evaristo 2 (2) Tejada 2 (0) Kocsis 1 (0) European Cup (semifinals) Martinez 8 (3) Suarez 7 (1) Evaristo 6 (4) Villaverde 6 (3) Kubala 3 (6) Kocsis 3 (5) Czibor 2 (1) Tejada 0 (0) 60-61 Season La Liga (4th) Evaristo 21 (11) Tejada 19 (5) Villaverde 19 (3) Suarez 17 (10) Martinez 13 (4) Kubala 13 (10) Kocsis 10 (4) Czibor 8 (4) Copa del Rey (r16) Czibor 4 (4) Kubala 3 (3) Villaverde 3 (2) Tejada 3 (1) Martinez 1 (1) Kocsis 1 (1) Suarez 0 (0) Evaristo 0 (0) Fairs Cup (quarterfinals) Evaristo 4 (1) Villaverde 3 (1) Kocsis 2 (4) Martinez 2 (2) Suarez 2 (1) Tejada 1 (0) Kubala 1 (0) Czibor 1 (1) European Cup (finalist) Evaristo 10 (6) Suarez 9 (4) Kubala 8 (1) Kocsis 7 (2) Villaverde 6 (1) Czibor 5 (2) Tejada 2 (2) Martinez 0 (0) Interesting how much players importance changed from year to year maybe injury? Martinez appeared to be the main player in 59-60 with 43 (35) to 16 (6) in 60-61. Tejada in 58-59 had 38 (20) to 59-60 21 (2).
Very interesting information Puck, thanks. The first year and a half is less of a mystery now Let's see what we can make of the following years... Perhaps he was just getting old and coaches started to use him as a sort of super sub...
Very interesting indeed, and it is astonishing to see that hardly ANY forward player played much more than 20 matches in those seasons... It seems that you are right regarding heavy player rotation. It would be very strange now, but they had (as you noticed) many aces in the forward line and they just decided to play them in different parts of the seasons and in different competitions and combinations... It seems. Side note: Hungary was really incredibly blessed in the 50s. They had THAT forward line of the Magical Magyars team (Bozsik - Czibor - Kocsis - Hidegkuti - Puskas) PLUS Kubala (who didn't play) and you could add Nyers (who didn't play). Late 40s / early 50s they had Deak, Palotas and maybe Szusza. Unfreakingcredible. Just amazing.
Bozsik was not a forward, Budai played on the right wing. Crazy team though, can you imagine Ballon d'or voting in the early 50s, Hungary would have a fair few on the lists !!!!!
I know I know, Bozsik was a midfielder, Czibor and Budai (or Toth) played on the wings, Puskas and Kocsis were nominally inside forwards but actually played as strikers, and Hidegkuti was nominally the centre forward but actually played deeper, in a position somewhat akin to today's trequartistas. I know the Magical Magyar formation by heart, I know my post above was misleading but that between brackets was not supposed to be the forward lineup but only a list of that team's greatest players An imaginary Ballon d'Or for 1952, in particular, would have been absolutely dominated by the Hungarian, with voters having to choose between Puskas (my favourite) and Kubala for the top spot. Anyway guys, these days I'm having serious problems with my internet connection because I am relocating to a new house, unfortunately I'll not be able to intervene on BigSoccer much for 7-10 days!
I doubted about writing it and then forgot the point. Will nevertheless do in brief. I think this episode is often seen from (too) myopic English glasses, which then finds resonance in the world. Especially when hyperboles come into play (without making links plausible). For 1952 I'm not certain whether Kubala would be anywhere near the top 5, if it had been voted back then. Also, by 1952 the Olympics had definitely lost some reputation and prestige, which would decrease the chances of providing a monopolizing impact. That's why there was ignorance in the rest of Europe. Also depends on how club football is factored in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolverhampton_Wanderers_F.C._v_Budapest_Honvéd_FC#Post-match
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, do post it if you feel like it! I like to discuss with people who have a variety of ideas and opinions, and you are clearly knowledgeable about the history of football. I don't personally agree with the idea that football is often seen through English glasses, but we are on this forum precisely to discuss things Re Kubala in 1952, do you mean that he probably wouldn't have been voted in the top 5 because the Spanish league was relatively minor at the time (and I don't think it was, at least not so much) or that his standing has been hyped by the subsequent generations of Barca's officials and supporters? (this is not completely unreasonable and I feel tha's what happened with other players like Paulino Alcantara and Imre Schlosser: They are club legends and consequently they are regarded today as legendary players tout court, but I think that at the time they were not considered anywhere near the world top 5). Re the 1952 Olympics: True, you are right. But a) apart for the 1924 and 1928 tournaments, and certainly sice the 1930 introduction of the World Cup, Olympic tournamenta have never been considered the greatest trophy of all. Ever. Even when teams were supposed to enter their full "A" selections, there were severe limitations. Take Italy in 1928 (no Libonatti) and 1936 (no Meazza, Piola, Giovanni Ferrari etc.). 1952, IIRC, was the last tournament in which full "A" sides (again, severely cut) participated. But that was not my point. I don't think Puskas and his teammates were great in 1952 because of the Olympics. I think he was great because, from all I can gather, he was the best footballer around, was beating the hell out of every other national team (and would have continued to do so until 1954) and he wsd the best player of a very strong Honved side.
Personally, I feel in 1952 Kubala had a good case for top 5, definitely top 10. He was part of the team that won five trophies and he scored nearly 40 goals in all competitions. So called international friendlies were more of a big deal back then and Hungary were dominant, admittedly the Olympics was not what it had used to be but I feel Puskas would definitely be top 5, and probably Kocsis two, maybe Boszik and Czibor top ten. Ballon d'or did have voters from Eastern Europe and that team were superstars not just in Hungary so they would get votes from other communsit countries (i.e Czechoslovakia, Yugoslovia and Hungary themselves). In 53 and 54 they would receive much more votes from other countries and would have dominated even more arguably. You can compare that with say 1956 voting, where Puskas was 4th, Bozsik 6th and Kocsis 8th and this was after not a great year for the team. Previous three years especially Hungary had achieved more (52 - Won Olympics, 53 - sealed Central Euro Champs, destroyed England in much publicised gane, 54 -Destroyed England again even heavier and then WC runner up).
Interesting. So you (and possibly @PuckVanHeel ?) think that this imaginary award should have been given to somebody else in 1952? To whom? And maybe I got it wrong: do you mean that Ballon d'Or voters would have (perhaps wrongly) awarded the trophy to somebody else or that you would? Re the 1956 Ballon d'Or, I've always thought it was really strange. Not only because Matthews won it when he was 41, but also because of the ranking of other players. Puskas was 4th even though he didn't play. What the hell? I think the award that year was just meant to be somewhat honorary, with voters judging the players' status and not what they actually did in that given year.
Couple of points to clear up, Puskas did play a lot in 1956, a full league season almost (Hungary played Spring to Autumn), played in the European Cup for Honved and also he played ten internationals scoring five goals. As for Matthews winning, yes I agree this was the almost an honorary award as he was a very big name and in my view Di Stefano deserved it. However Matthews did have a very good year and was a good shout for a decent stand in the voting, Blackpool finished runners up to the Man United's Busby Babes in their highest ever league finish, plus Matthews had a very good game versus Brazil that year at Wembley and was lauded over that. In those days a couple of big games caused huge swings in voting (like Yashin in 63). Back to 1952, if I was giving out the award I personally would give it to Puskas, Kubala would make my top five probably and top ten definitely.
Damn you're right. Puskas did play in 1956, the statistics on wikipedia are wrong, I went back to check on my personal database and indeed he played in the 1956 Hungarian championship. Wikipedia must have omitted it because that championship was interrupted because of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and never finished. However, Puskas played only 13 matches (and scored only 5 goals, a low ratio for his standards), plus, yeah, 2 matches and 1 goal in the European Cup and 10 matches and 5 goals for Hungary. His form might, technically, have been very good (though I doubt that in those 13 + 2 matches he was so good as to deserve a 4th place). Good, so you would give the 1952 award to Puskas. Me too and who do you think the judges would have voted (unless I misinterpreted your comment above...?)?
Good shout, if we are played this game fr the early 50s (which I like !!!) I would go as follows: 51 - Nordahl - Absolute machine in the early to mid 50s and this was one of his best if not best year 52 - Puskas 53 - Puskas 54 - Kocsis - Not only was he the top scorer in WC with 11 goals, he was a real clutch player in the tournament, two goals versus Brazil in the quarter finals and then two in extra time versus defending champs Uruguay, all in all 11 WC goals plus 12 outside the WC so 23 international goals in one year, that is immense. 55 - Di Stefano 56 - Di Stefano - As mentioned previously in the thread.
Wow we must be telepathic or something, this is like the fourth time in two days that I think exactly the same as you. One possible difference is that yes, I'd probably give the award to Kocsis in '54, but I'd think a lot about Puskas, too. He was just too legendary in that team. It's true that at the World Cup the star was Kocsis (though it was obviously not Puskas' fault, with the injury he suffered). Fritz Walter is much talked about for 1954 as well obviously, but I don't think that on the pitch he was at Puskas' or Kocsis' level. Another possible name for 1951: Nils Liedholm. And Schiaffino would deserve a high placement in each of those years.
I can see your point in 54 but the big games by Kocsis and crazy scoring rate would give him the edge. Re 51, also agree, Liedholm would be second and very little between the two Swedes. Good comment re Avatar, there is not many conversations on here re Hugnary in 50s and I ahev had this pic for ages. On a similar note, if you have not read it already, try reading the book "Puskas on Puskas", a great read.