Some odd choices: - Garcia (argentine vote). I guess is Enrique Garcia, argentinian LW from 30-40s, arguably top-3 among argentinian LW. - Alfredo Perez (argentine vote). He was an argentinian CB that played in River Plate in the 50s. A very technical player instead the toughest and athletic Dellacha (captain in NT). - Francisco Marinho (spanish votes). He's Marinho Chagas (brazilian LB in the 70s) like someone said earlier. - Ciriaco (italian vote). I assumed is Ciriaco Errasti (spanish RFB in the 30s). I'd expected picked Quincoces instead. - Azevedo (portuguese vote). I guess is Joao Azevedo, former Sporting's GK from 30-40s I'm really surprise for the many votes received by Castigliano and also by Parola. I'm also surprise by peruvian journalist voting for Law (how many timed, did he see law for such impression?) btw, who's the CB chosed by Helio Fraga??
Like I said, I don't know why three Italians selected Maradona (with the other four votes coming from four different countries). Would be good to know a plausible explanation. But in case of the Mundialito, that was televised all over the world with also journalists from many different countries attending the event. That is not the case with World Cup qualifiers. Exposure does matter and yes, I agree that many were impressed with Maradona his skill and level, certainly for his age. Personally I've doubted at times whether Zico his standing as uncontested top 10 player of all-time is justified.
While this is an excellent find, I have issues with it. I'll address the source of El Grafico (Arg) because I'm mostly familiar with it. It's inexcusable that a magazine that so highly praised the likes of Sastre, Pedernera, Garcia, Moreno and others throughout the 1930s, 40s and 50s omits anyone of their names in the list. It's clearly evident that something is not right. Di Stefano and Passarella ahead of Moreno or Sastre? This would not have passed had the poll been conducted in the 1960s or 70s. In fact I personally have well documented by El Grafico that Moreno was voted as the best Argentinian footballer in history by Argentina's sports journalists in the late 1970s. In 1980 El Grafico also spoke about the top 5 greatest Argentinian footballers in their history and the conclusion of those that witnessed them is that Moreno and Sastre were at the very top. That top 5 list was composed by Sastre, Moreno, Pedernera, Di Stefano and Maradona. In 1964 El Grafico made a direct comparison with the main star in the game at the time (Pele) with what was considered by many as the greatest Argentinian player ever (Moreno) and the conclusion was that it was very close to a draw. It is obvious by 1999 that the generation of reporters had changed for El Grafico, but the top 10 list compiled seems perhaps to be politically motivated. It totally contradicts with the past history of El Grafico's football reports. In essence, it shouldn't be taken serious.
Maybe Pele's accolades he accumulated after 1964 (WC 1970, and 5 more Campeonato Paulista trophies to name a few)is what later persuaded the journalists to vote this way in 1999. Since by 1964 Moreno was already retired, according to wikipedia anyhow.
More than one of the Argentine reporters that voted in this list had never witnessed the likes of Sastre, Moreno, Garcia, Pedernera, etc. They started covering football in the 1960s onwards. This has to be taken into account. But he had already a youth WC title which was highly valued at that time. No, it has nothing to do with that. And I'm not disputing Pele's standing in these lists. What is in question is the blatant discrepancies in the source of El Grafico because it contradicts with its past history. It is evident that by 1999 no one from the past had any influence in these polls and it's clear that the new generation (politically influenced from modern times) has followed in the footsteps of other publications from different countries. It is easier to please players that were still alive and omit others that were dead or had no political power in the upper classes of the establishment. Here again maybe some propaganda played a part. By 1980 Maradona was the main star receiving a massive amount of praise from all parts of the globe. Europe wanted him, South America hyped him, but El Grafico measured him not solely for that, but for his abilities. Players were reviewed for their skill and aptitude, not necessarily on the silverware that they obtained.
As they should, for the most part at least. This beats the method of handing out players who are on World Cup winning sides but clearly don't match the skill level of their contemporaries.
Well between 1962 to 1963, Pele was worldwidely perceived as a KING (uncrowned) in football (after he won 2 libertafores, then 2 great Intercontinental cups and few top tours in Europe with Santos) - At times of course El Graffico could not accept such thing (Argentinian rivalry) After WC1970, Officially the KING was crown and MOST accepted the fact including El Graffico
Pele was regarded by a journalist (Juvenal) in El Grafico as the best player of all time by 1966, not after WC70. So no rivalry played any part, but on the contrary, it's one of the first sources (if not the first) that claimed he was the best. But bear in mind, when El Grafico made certain claims of Pele being the greatest of them all, it was a journalist that had not fully seen all the greats prior to 1947, let alone those that voted in 1999. What you didn't understand, which Jaweirdo eventually did, was that accomplishments were not the deciding factor in the comparison with Moreno in 1964 - which btw, Moreno's accomplishments along with his longevity is rivaled by few and he did not need to envy anyone - but the overall qualities in their game. In this regard, even some Brazilian old-timers that witnessed both wouldn't give Pele the entire edge. Like I said, it was mostly a stalemate. The same conclusion was drawn when Pele was compared to Di Stefano more than 10 years later. In such comparisons, the verdict is uncertain.
After 1970, Pele was officially crown as KING of football (meaning best ever, not just best player of the world, which he already got since 59/60). Results, Stats, biographies , records , opinions of different sources and some footages are all evidence to back Pele up. Most of us did not know much (lack of info) about Moreno - but he did not leave much records, stats per se ... so it's hard to be on his side. for Di stefano, I had some old video's and he never impressed me in talent (not up to Pele/Maradona level) I think he was on par with Puskas, Cruijff Garrincha ... and the likes ...
James, we've been discussing football for nearly 10 years now (we used to be on another forum) but I think you take too serious what the established people in power say when they select officially who was the greatest. You must have known by now that it's all political... and marketing. Back to Moreno: what stats do you need? His game was not predicated on just filling the scoring charts. His game was considered more 'versatile' and 'total' than Pele. The same with Di Stefano or Sastre. But the longevity is also an aspect that they had which they did not need to envy from others. In terms of rankings, ofc the 'conventional wisdom' will pick players that are still alive or more recent in memory. But rewind back to the past and I know for a fact that people that saw these players in person would never give without hesitation an edge to Pele: on the contrary, it was an honor to Pele to be compared to them when he was playing.
There was some moments where it's clear he's not viewed as the same player, but after the 1970WC resurrection his reputation goes up again.
So then those that are not well-informed enough, cannot negate the possibilty that there may have been players equal or superior to Pele before he kicked a football...
Do you know of any comparisons between Giussepe Meazza and Moreno? Perhaps there would be massively divided opinion between Italians and Argentines and perhaps there would not be enough viewing by one nation's people of the other nation's players (moreso Italians lacking experience of Moreno than vice versa I should think). Anyway, I'm not sure how trustworthy the source is (think it's on his Wikipedia page) but I read that a lot of Italians saw Meazza as the best before Pele (not to say Hungarians wouldn't say Puskas, Austrians wouldn't say Sindelar, English wouldn't say Matthews or maybe Finney, Brazilians themselves wouldn't say Leonidas, Zizinho, or Ademir for example). From what you've written (although you and other sources I've seen posted on Big Soccer acclaim other Argentine players too; somebody posted an all-time Argentine team from the 40's within the last few months that IIRC didn't include Moreno and neither Pedernera - that could have been just as controversial as a Brazilian all-time XI without Pele would be though) it seems Moreno would be seen in a similar way in Argentina. I don't know whether El Grafico for example ever did such a comparison or said much about Meazza and other European players.... Position wise it would be sort of a like for like comparison I think anyway (though Meazza was probably more of an attacker and played for a decent amount of his career as the centre forward - perhaps when the centre-forward was not so much of the target man as they became in the WM system though?). Meazza did have the exposure of playing in World Cups of course and also competitions that were quite high profile in Europe so within that continent many fans and journalists would be very familiar with him at the time I suppose (RoyoftheRovers also mentioned that footage was shown in cinemas and he saw Meazza that way).
Puck, I just noticed that Sindelar was included by 1 Italian journalist and he wasn't in your summary (don't think he got another inclusion though so shouldn't have been in your list of those with 2 or more anyway). I just thought I'd let you know in case you were under the impresssion nobody picked him - maybe you did originally see his name when you read through the selections though....
Interesting to look through the selections again and assess what formations were being chosen: Bernard Joy has picked a 4-2-4 I think with Di Stefano in the middle of the pitch. Donald Saunders has picked more of a 4-3-3 with Bozsik as deep-lying playmaker/attacking wing-half and Hidegkuti and Bobby Charlton as what could be termed deep-lying inside forwards or attacking midfielders I suppose; then with Pele in between Garrincha and Cruyff. So in both those teams Cruyff is nominally put as left winger (I don't think that is unusual in all-time XI's because of his versatily and also what he did down the left wing even when he was playing in a different position as he normally did). In other teams he seems to be put as more of a midfielder, or central forward I think though. One Brazilian journalist Saldanha decided to include Yashin, Beckenbauer and Moore and then fill the team with attacking players, either as he just wanted the best players all included or because he would see Di Stefano and Cruyff as playing from deep. He included Meazza in his team.
I think we need to be careful with some things like this in terms of reliance I've said before on here quite a few times that G.O. Smith (supreme inside forward of the turn of the 20th century) said in 1943 that the best player he ever saw was Nuts Cobbold. So was Cobbold better than the likes of Meazza, Sindelar or Dean who had come before that point in time? There will always be those who are willing to claim that someone of years before was better than another player, particularly in an era where no footage remains and before particularly reliable records existed. There are those who think that Shevchenko was better than Ronaldo. Others that think Ronaldo was the best ever. We shouldn't presume that they were right.
I understand. But we shouldn't presume that anyone is right, then... We can also question the reliability of the official version (especially in an era when propaganda was more prevalent than ever). And bear in mind though, while video footage does not exist (photos does) from that period, match coverage of these players does exist and, I presume that info from other Brazilians of that time can also be tracked down. We are not discussing an era that cannot be investigated; it was an era that reporters/players gave their testimonies of some of the best players prior to Pele. Besides, right or wrong, Moreno was widely viewed as the best of his time in South America and generally considered the greatest Argentinian until a new survey was conducted in the 1990s. It was argued by a reporter in 1964 that lived and covered the era of the 1930s and 1940s that Moreno was the Pele of his generation, but with obvious less exposure and the lack of participation in a WC. However it's also stated by these reporters and ex-players that spoke, that it's very difficult to make these types of comparisons.
I don't know of that comparison and my feeling is that it was not done. And I believe these comparisons were not common before the 1960s. But I cannot rule it out either since the magazines of the 1930s and before are harder to obtain. From the 1940s onwards it's easier to find.
Ok thanks. Another factor I suppose is that a comparison between Pele and Moreno would not then be followed up with for example "so how does Moreno compare to Roberto Baggio?" as of course Baggio didn't exist in the 1960's if you know what I mean. I know of one quote from early in Baggio's career where an old-timer puts him at the same level as Meazza and above Rivera in his opinion and cites his fantasy, although Rivera fares slightly better than Meazza in the IFFHS poll (we don't know the proportion of Italian/non-Italian, old man/young man votes for each player though or indeed ex-player/jounalist). So many new candidates have emerged over time that old greats were never compared to...although as you say memories of old greats die off with people and they are at a disadvantage in that sense (old-time Argentinians would know plenty about Sastre, Garcia and various others for example).
I suppose Valentino Mazzola might be a more contemporary comparison for Moreno anyway (a 1940's player). I think he was quite well known in South America - Jose Altafini played under the nickname Mazzola while in Brazil of course and River Plate took part in the tribute game for La Grande Torino.
The best way to compare players is to assess multiple sources from multiple countries ('triangulation'). In case of Moreno that will be difficult but in case of Meazza, Andrade, Sindelar etc. we know how well they were rated in multiple countries (my namesake too, hehe ) . But it is also sometimes the case that 'propaganda' plays a part ("Garrincha best dribbler ever") and in some cases I just not feel that 'legends' had decisive moves/actions for their team (Pelé was obviously still important in 1970, I don't have him in mind - don't worry). Sometimes a snowball effect appears that cannot be stopped. It becomes a recurring common wisdom (and sometimes widely held beliefs are simply false; either outright false or too simplistic). In past times the quality between various players was close anyway; Di Stefano was no doubt a great performer and all-rounder over multiple years but within Spain others received plaudits as well and were for a prolonged period seen as the equal or maybe better player (ofc often not with the same durability and longevity). That makes it also admirable that Pelé was for some while a class on his own in an era of parity (I see that Eusebio made that point too in an interview, which is posted in the 'what if Eusebio' thread). He was at least seen in that way.
In fact I found a comparison many years later between Di Stefano and Pele (I think around 1980) which also incorporates opinions of those that witnessed them. And you are right when these comparisons take place that the current player may have the edge: he's fresher in the memory, people observe him and judge in the heat of the moment. In the mid-1970s Di Stefano made this observation when he was speaking with Czibor about the comparisons that he (Di Stefano) drew with Cruyff and he stated something like, "you know how the new generation goes with what's new and fresh in sight at the moment". It was something along those lines or that was the meaning. Obviously he was not agreeing with this comparison because Czibor said to him that it was ridiculous. Another thing about that Moreno-Pele comparison: some made the observation that it's harder in Pele's time to excel due to rougher markings, which I find ironic, because this has been many times viewed in the same way of Pele's era (that it was easier) from generations that followed. It's possible, but I cannot say because most of the info I have is (unfortunately) stashed away abroad.
I agree. But at least I read both Brazilians and Argentinians take part in the Moreno-Pele and Di Stefano-Pele comparison (for what it's worth). And remember the Hungarian Platko's opinion (which I provided in the past) of some of these players he witnessed? He may have had his agendas, but he was well qualified to give his opinion.