Pre-War Personalities and Their Best Players

Oh, hey, if it was not enough to show the results against the main powers, I will show the results against the others:

Belgium - England 1:4, 1931, Belgium - England 3:2
Yugoslavia - England 2:1, 1939
Switzerland - England 0:4, 1933, Switzerland - England 2:1, 21/05/1938

If we count with what I already published, England had the best results compared to others. Like I said, I was not like England was invincible, but they did have better record than the other continental nations. That is not debatable.

Well, then go ahead and post the quote, because I have a very beautiful one from Frederick Wall waiting.

So, you are telling me that they did not put their prestige at stake, but they faced Italy afterwards? They also invited Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and faced them on their own territories. That makes a lot of sense, don't you agree? Well, maybe England was scared, not because they frequently denied to join FIFA. Maybe they were also scared to face the National Teams at the VIII. Olympiad, not because there were sides with professional teams.

This is just stand up at this point, this guy is literally mentioning the 1934 World Cup when it was literally ment for the Italians to win it, even Raimundo Orsi admitted it to Geraldo Romualdo da Silva: - Until now, Spain was the favourites of the Championship. In its first match, it had disqualified the Brazilian team. The night before, Pozzo had received a message from Mussolini. It was a match that I don't even want to remember. We tied 1-1, but I won't even tell you the rest. It seemed like everything was coming down on us. The next day, we went for the tiebreaker. Thank goodness we won. Better to say, Monti won. In fact, we won by shouting. The goal came from a corner that I took. Demaria committed a gross foul on Nogués, Zamora's substitute, and the ball kept rolling towards Meazza, who headed it into the back of the net. Referee Mercet, from Switzerland, "didn't see anything." Then the Spanish got furious; they threatened to scalp him. Mercet must have thought quickly: "If I disallow this goal, the Italians will certainly kill me first..." And he gave the goal. He was afraid, but he gave the goal. I went and hugged Meazza furiously. Besides winning the match, I was saving my skin. Mussolini was doing his bidding.

Oh, you just forgot one thing: I never said that the 1934 English side was weak. However, didn't England win the match? Thank's to remember me — like it would happen haha — that Arsenal won against the Wunderteam and an almost Arsenal won against the 1934 World Cup champions.

Well, from what I know, I was mentioning the results regarding the 1930s, not even related to the other generations, but to that England was superior on 30s.

"the difference in England's favor being made exactly by the Highbury match".

Then who achieved better results?

At this point, I am just having fun. It is possible to use his own comments against himself.

Here we go. I was not the one who said this, but I will answer because it reached a different level of lack of knowledge. Although both episodes were different, there is one logical problem with this: Lazio still had teams to play against, while Bologna didn't. Who would Bologna face in the finals? DFC Prag?

It is also clear as water that you have no idea regarding what were the discussions in each meeting of the Committee.

 

I wonder, why exactly would I pay for an opinion of someone who doesn't even have basic knowledge? Just look at you, dude, you were not commenting to reach a logical point, but to validate your own opinions. You were limited enough to not answer back, but tried to disdain, while could not be able to reply to the quotes, images and results brought up to this.

Just basic argumentation, hypocrisy, cherry picking and fake comments regarding some players. Oh, yeah, I noticed that you brought up some fake comments to validate your own opinion.

Funny how your granddad's opinion is validated by you, but the opinion of the ones who saw the players mentioned isn't, right? Or maybe, just like an Austrian choosing an Austrian, and Italian would not have his argumentation being valid because of the nation, right? Haha.

I have a challenge for you, why don't you stop posting fake quotes and bring it here, directly from the source, where the FA said: "our players are tired after a long season and we can't take part in a tournament where our prestige is at stake"? I will gladly publish a letter by Sir. Frederick Wall.

You got schooled, dude. It is here so everyone can see you being disproven by what the past really was.

I am not gonna waste my time with this discussion anymore. Just another random who wasn't even able to answer back due to limitation.

Challenge is up.

 

No, I do not have his best XI, but he said that Schaffer and, especially, Orth were the two best players that he saw.

 

Here it is: https://arfsh.com/article?id=2190

 

Ok thanks, when did he say that and do you have a specific full quote or passage?

 

Thanks, that looks very extensive and interesting, so if it's ok I'll return to reading it tomorrow.

 

Actually I had a look today already, and yeah it's for sure interesting as an addition to his 1960s choices and write-ups (of course with some significant overlap).

It's probably fair to highlight him saying this about Meazza:
"I thought I had found the ultimate star of football, and I doubt actually that I haven't", but clearly he is not committing to answering the question definitively and in the end summary he also mentions Nolo Ferreira and Sarosi indeed, who like you say he has suggested could have been his outright choice with more focus/determination or whatever he is alluding to exactly (to name those who were in his 15 in the 1960s, where he had picked out Nolo among players from early days). He seems to know Sindelar better in the 1960s write-up but I guess he just used more descriptive words, and anyway probably hadn't seen some extra footage since the 1940s, of Sindelar playing. He alludes to Moreno I see (as superior overall to Seoane, whether Orsi would totally agree or not - I still wonder whether Orsi speaks of Seoane as a 'team-mate' as in club team-mate in a different category in that respect to Nolo, Cherro and Meazza though, given he puts SIndelar in his all-time XI as we know and doesn't differenciate between him and those guys or Sarosi in his answer and Falcao76 has suggested at other times he did pick out Meazza), but is leaving current players out of the discussion in general he says I see, even if with Brazilians he kind of goes against that rule....

Puc seeming extraordinary and Planicka being fuori-class are notable comments that couldn't have been guessed from his 1960s piece (neither being included) for example too, so yeah overall a very worthwhile piece to see (albeit just one guy's views I know of course)...

 

LOL there we gooo “Zidane, Bergkamp, Pelè, Garrincha” let’s come up with everything popping out of our head folks, it’s showtime! That’s the fruit of nonsense claims such as “previous generations were better” and that’s the gist behind them: fabricating a fan fiction where “muh player” becomes whatever I want him to be and cursed be the ones who dare to dissent.

Hey there is the “RETINA” of people which is impressed!

Funnily enough, this retina thing seems to be only intermittently photosensitive, since the act of mentioning the opinions of people invariably comparing Meazza (and the same applies to other true all-time greats of the time as well) to certain players whom these people have actually seen, unlike say, Meisl to name one, automatically summons folks out of nowhere like that Scandinavian guy, who seems to have found his place in the world by diligently following me like a good puppy, who start barking and asking Google AI lol.

Apparently, not only were those “former generations” better, they also had a retina unlike the later ones lol. Maybe that human feature was lost somewhere around 1925. Let’s try ask Google AI.

Or maybe we have two sides of the same coin here.

One getting all mad when being challenged on the absurd claim that people being demolished by british amateurs, pros, and South Americans were “better generations” of players than those who faced these on even level, because their “muh player” belongs to those generations and so is unilaterally better despite no other support to this fancy assumption.

One getting all mad when any player before date X, date X being obviously of his own choice and preference without further explicitation nor explanation of this assumption, gets compared to any player after date X, because before date X players are just a folklore nuance and are unilaterally declared as worse than anyone after date X.

Opposite sides, totally at odds with each other, zero arguments, same childish tantrums and uneducated tone, same inability to stop replying for want of the last word, same chronically online behavior, same collection of fallacies. Particularly, other than the obvious ad personam, the use of “argumenta ab autoritate”: in one case a self-proclaimed “expert” status; in the other, a search engine algorithm.

Both admitting no disagreement and no question. Too bad they say opposite things lol. Can’t wait for the final battle between the Mystique and the Machine.

Meanwhile, unleashing identical meltdowns from opposite sides by virtue of very simple and straightforward opinions such as 1) Continental level of 1900-10-20s was not superior to that of the 30s and 40s because of these reasons 1,2,3, and 2) These people X,Y,Z compared Meazza to these more recent players A,B,C, would be enough to confirm I’m in the right although confirmation is not even needed.

And in fact, it’s 2 weeks lil bro Isaque Argolo is scanning the internet like a lemming to throw out everything he can cherrypick and which is totally unrelated to my reply just to make noise and muddy the waters, with the help of CristianoPuskas. So now after the oriundi, me being italian, the Mitropa cup and so on with the papyrus of Egypt (uh, did I mention Egypt? Sorry lol), is the long awaited time for Italy stealing the 1934 WC, for which I again direct to the articles I wrote on Medium and whose last two of the 11 chapters are dedicated to the confrontations between England and the continentals, particularly the two games against Italy in 1933 and 1934, and where the motivations for them not taking part in 1934 despite a wild card kept up until the last minute can be found too.

Not a big deal.

To wrap it up, we have assessed that the results speak for themselves and the “previous generations” were not better, and that a commesurable level of competition was established thanks to widespread professionalism and a few other things: after that, we have a demarcation line to compare any generation with the others, with the successive intervention of other factors to take into account, such as equipment, doping, rule changes etc, which in some cases favor those very “former generations” of the 1900-10-20s over other generations. Which is why I’m doing a better service to the Schaffers and Orths and many more, than those turning them into mythological creatures to feed their own imagination or sentimental bias.

And also we have seen how many teams, by virtue of this level raise, could aspire to challenge and possibly beat England, which means competition level was homogeneous; as a side note, it might help to repeat for the n-th time that even taking out the Home Championship and limiting to continental teams, England has more defeats than Italy in way less games against continental teams, never beat the best 4 in away games (which raises further doubts of them being favored for a WC), and had better results in the late 40s than in the 30s, even against the Rest of Europe selection beaten 6-1 as Great Britain in 1947. Still was kicked out of the 1950 WC by the almighty USA and Spain.

So now, first I declare USA and Egypt as the best teams ever before 1950 LOL.


Then, I thank CristianoPuskas for denying that he considers the “former generations” better, just he prefers a few players, and accuses me of putting those words in his mouth. Well buddy, I’m pretty sure you wrote those words yourself, but no problem. The point is that my reply to which you keep fighting about since two weeks, was precisely about “former generations” taken as a whole, not individual players. So basically you’re keeping on replying to something you agree with.


Finally, I thank Isaque Argolo for proving me right on yet another thing, although my reply was directed at the former subject and not a personal battle against Orth which is something not caused by me, far from my thoughts, and unrelated with this tread.

Directly quoting him,

“[…] Orth is, by far, the best footballer I have seen, but I have to consider the career of the players […]

[…] I respect the level which the player achieved plus the constancy — that is why I place Puskás aheas of Orth, for instance […]

[…] However, what did really mitigate Orth was his lack of ambition, vigour, determinion to play football […]”

Well I’m afraid the latter are precisely the qualities that separate the champions and the greatest from the rest! No matter how talented the latter. And those qualities are precisely those that make players capable of grabbing victories, making the difference at the hardest competition level, be natural leaders, and raise the level of their own teammates and the performances and results of the teams they play with. And the successes and achievements they reach, both individually and with their teams, and the consistency of these, are the fruit of that and a testimony of that.

Which is precisely what I defined among the criteria and parameters for assessing the value of players and ranking them, and is what dear Isaque is implying also in the comparison with Puskas.


Adding a former quote by friend Isaque going along the lines of “Orth having frequent injuries even before his grave injury” against Blum in 1926.


To which I personally already added the facts that 1) Many jewish players have to fled Hungary after WWI, and MTK was the Budapest’s jewish club; 2) Many hungarian players fled Hungary to play in Italy since 1923 when professionalism was no longer hidden in this country, despite not being officially regulated until 1926, and before the close of the borders which would require foreing born players, except oriundi, to not stay beyond the end of the 1927/28 season; 3) Hungary’s only international tournament ended prematurely by the hands of Egypt 3-0 at the 1924 Olympics 4) At the same olympic games and in successive tours by Nacional, Boca and Paulistano, South Americans proved to be generally ahead of continental football, and at least Uruguay and Argentina had unofficial and unregulated professionalism, famous the case of Nasazzi throwing away his blacksmith equipment upon signing for Bella Vista in 1922; 5) British football being still above continental level, mainly in terms of player base and professional training and tactics.


We complete the picture of a lack of physical and mental consistency, in an overall non-top level competition, both internationally and on domestic context, for a player of talent who didn’t manage for one reason or another, to fulfill his potential. Therefore it’s totally unbased to place him as the best pre-1950, and it’s a wrong way to evaluate players no matter who they are. Just as it’s unbased to say that the “former generations” were better than in the 30s and 40s.

Which is exactly what I wrote in my replies, as well as in the other thread, and what seemingly unleashed the emotional incontinency of a couple users.

So thanks for proving me right yourself with your own words, once again I repeat that I do a better service to these old players and the memory they deserve than you, by treating them with a scientific approach which I hope to dedicate to, instead of having to wast time to reply to the tantrums of people with apparently a lot of free time in their hands.

So I guess we can end it here and dedicate to other things.

 

@CristianoPuskas at this point we are just wasting our times. Just read this:

"Against Blum in 1926". This is just another random who believes knows something about the old times. He wants to act like he knows something, but just makes fun of himself when trying to comment about old football. "Blum", "1926". Haha. Just a waste of time.

Writes like he is certain of what he is saying, but does not even know who mitigated Orth's career and when it was.

He was not even able to publish the quote which he mentioned regarding the FA. You know why? Because it is not the reality with what really happened. He just came up with this to try to support his own narrative, just like some fake quotes which he posted here.

I am still waiting for the source regarding what the FA said, because I have the letter of Sir Frederick Wall and I will gladly post it right here. Just like, well, this:

https://prnt.sc/fW2o7nahW3O7

 

I see you both keep saying nothing but trying to make a lot of noise.
Good. Let's see if we can call it a day.
Let me repeat the state of affairs: the "former generations" were not better than those of the 30s and 40s.
Affirming the opposite is objectively unbased and wrong.
Precise as my reply. Curb your meltdown and cope lol.
In his own words, CristianoPuskas agrees with that, and protests if I say he said otherwise so I won't say he said otherwise.

Secondly, a reasonable criteria for commensurability of any generation from any country is the widespread adoption of professionalism, with a few other factors such as job laws as additional elements of influence. In perfect accordance with the same process having happened in England in the 1880s.

Thirdly, my criteria and parameters for the evaluation of players are correct and based on measurable facts (in accordance with the commensurability principle as per above), and lil bro Isaque Argolo perhaps inadvertedly confirms that in the quoted comments on Orth.

Before wishing you goodnight, since some of us have to work tomorrow lol, let me add once more that both the whole subject of the 1934 WC as well as the games between England and the continentals, with special reference to the 1933 and 1934 games with Italy, are treated by me in a series of 11 articles on Medium Mussolini's World Cup I already directed to.
With specific regards to England's ducking of the 1934 WC and their successive, and unsuccessful, attempt at claiming the title without participating, the relative quote can be found there and is taken from the newspaper Il Littoriale.
Il Littoriale, based in Rome, was incorporated by the FIGC and therefore became its official press organ since 1928, when the Italian Football Federation moved its headquarters to Rome.
Therefore Il Littoriale refers the official position and statements of the Federation, especially on such matters. Maybe you can use your letter to wipe some dusty surface.

So, goodnight and best wishes to grow up, staying kids for life is boring and gets you bitter.
See ya (not)

 

Oh and by the way, reach an agreement between the both of you on that 1934 England team since it's still not clear whether it was trash like CristianoPuskas said, and therefore so were both Arsenal and Matthews and Brooks or it was amazing and let's not even imagine what would happen if they played against continentals like Isaque Argolo said? LOL How come the cream of the crop of the so superior English football was that bad and they barely grasped a narrow win on the club's home ground and being one man up the whole game, when it should have wiped out anyone in world cups? LOL you might want to chat about that privately.

Buh, bye

 

Is this the same guy who said that "England's team in the 1934 match was very weak and the worse they had since 1928" a.k.a. 3-times-in-a-row, 5 in a decade league champion Arsenal plus Matthews and Brooks, on Arsenal's ground and 11 vs 10 the whole match?
Yeeeessss it's him it's CristianoPuskas! LOL

Obviously, apart from Orsi apparently only picking Matthews out of all the english players among those he rated the best of those times (and certainly not for that game, nor for those years before 1937 when he started really establishing himself), once again this is totally unrelated with the subject, which you have no arguments about despite going on screeching for two weeks, and which I wrap up once again until it sticks into those "retinas".
So you may quit monopolizing the thread with your personal war against me for daring to disagree with self-appinted "expert" Isaque Argolo, like the immature spoiled toddlers you seem to be, since I don't think people are particularly interested in following the out of topic online meltdowns of some chick on their period (and a long ass period by the way! don't they last 5 days anymore? Lol).

So here we go:

The "former generations" were not better than those of the 30s and 40s.
Affirming the opposite is objectively unbased and wrong.
Precise as my reply. Curb your meltdown and cope lol.
In his own words, CristianoPuskas agrees with that, and protests if I say he said otherwise so I won't say he said otherwise.

Secondly, a reasonable criteria for commensurability of any generation from any country is the widespread adoption of professionalism, with a few other factors such as job laws as additional elements of influence. In perfect accordance with the same process having happened in England in the 1880s.

Thirdly, my criteria and parameters for the evaluation of players are correct and based on measurable facts (in accordance with the commensurability principle as per above), and lil bro Isaque Argolo perhaps inadvertedly confirms that in the quoted comments on Orth.

And the above is confirmed by the progressive erasure of the gap with England, as clearly shown by the results, compared with the self-explanatory ones involving the "former generations".

Welcome in the world of adults, where you have to respect other people's opinions, learn to argument on topic, and respect the other people reading the forum and the thread, which is not about your personal tantrums.

See ya (not)

 

Rather you are allergic to what you say yourself lol.
Ok however, it takes patience with spoiled kids so yeah sure, again you "never said that was the weakest English team they fielded since 1928". Fine. In fact the English themselves judged that team as the strongest ever fielded by them, or at least since WWI. And so do I.
In fact that proves precisely that unlike the "previous generations", the new ones, professionals, had filled the gap with british football and could almost equalize in a situation where any pre-1930 team would end up with a double digit defeat.
And it also confirms that it's this sort of games that represents the top level of competition, and that makes football history, and builds the figures of the all time greats. The level was so high that Matthews, who would shine until the late 50s, was the weak spot.
Still they hardly grasped a win, one man up for 90', and the next world cup they didn't even try to set another trap to claim the world title without taking part, and preemptively arranged a safe representative game.
Still Orsi's picks are clear.
Of course Meisl is your and Argolo's version of Google AI. I recall reading of him saying that the continentals had nothing left to learn from the English, but it doesn't matter.
The fact that he's mainly remembered for Austria's performances in 1931/32, which are mostly due to Hogan being his assistant while Austria Wien's manager, and his suggestion to include Sindelar which Meisl had sacked years before and didn't like, poise some doubts on his "football mind" and judgement ability. But this doesn't matter either.

What matters is that this all has nothing to do with the subject, as usual since 2 weeks.
Because you don't even know what you're saying anymore, you just keep replying to make noise and have the last word.
And that perhaps one day you'll grow up and see what a poor display this is, although this seems not to be the day. It's the day however, to end this nonsense for good, and the task must be dutifully undertaken by apparently the only adult male in the room.

So I wrap it up once again, here we go:

The "former generations" were not better than those of the 30s and 40s.
Affirming the opposite is objectively unbased and wrong.
Precise as my reply. Curb your meltdown and cope lol.
In his own words, CristianoPuskas agrees with that, and protests if I say he said otherwise so I won't say he said otherwise.

Secondly, a reasonable criteria for commensurability of any generation from any country is the widespread adoption of professionalism, with a few other factors such as job laws as additional elements of influence. In perfect accordance with the same process having happened in England in the 1880s.

Thirdly, my criteria and parameters for the evaluation of players are correct and based on measurable facts (in accordance with the commensurability principle as per above), and lil bro Isaque Argolo perhaps inadvertedly confirms that in the quoted comments on Orth.

See ya (not)

 

Don't forget he just after also says "If it wasn't for all the names I have here." So Meazza is a great player for him but not above the other names he list.

I read it like he probably rates Moreno the highest (as you also touch upon a bit) – Moreno much superior to Seoane he says, and Seoane was exceptional like Manuel Ferreira and some others.

Manuel Ferreira the best player he had seen, in the past, but now he won't commit to a name.

I don't think his opinions about football pre-1934 should be given too much weight though. He says himself he doesn't know Austrian football well, and have only seen Sindelar play in the 1934 World Cup – and Scopelli only moved to Europe himself in 1933.

Collins is a weird choice, maybe he is talking about Cullis.

Padrón from Spain seem like a bit weird name to highlight too, but they both played in France so I guess that's the explanation.

 

How does your best pre-WWII XI look like, @Falcao76? Could be interesting to see, and on topic.

You're right I disagree with Isaque on older players, I'm generally very much a modernist regarding football, and I think he underestimate how much football have evolved over time. Crabtree I'm pretty sure can be ruled out. Orth, on the other hand, is hard to say with so little footage pre-1939.

It's 10+ years since Messi's prime, but we still consider him best for example, so I wouldn't rule out Orth – although I personally don't think Orth is best pre-WWII player.

Meazza on the other hand I have seen a decent amount of footage of, and it's safe to say he is no Baggio, Ronaldo or Messi. I feel absolutely certain about that, so that's why there was a strong disagreement there. Hyperbole comparisons. And I didn't get "all mad" – that was you actually, when you started making threats. But water under the bridge etc.

I think you can be right when you say former generation is not better than the new one (30s vs. 20s) – but I don't know, and certainly you don't either. It seem logical, though, I think – although there isn't sufficient video footage to be certain.

The other stuff (England/British, Italy 30s) you're pretty wrong about, but you can have your opinion – which seem like a result of not researching properly btw. You have got many details wrong, so you're probably not convincing many that might care about the subject.

And you don't come across like the "only adult male in the room", should be said. But moving on is a good suggestion.

 

Yes, there is a theme he uses throughout I think, that makes it clear he is unclear about selecting one choice. Nevertheless the closest he gets to it seems to be with Meazza and Sarosi I think (remembering he knew Nolo Ferreira very well when he first saw Meazza of course too), other than possibly Moreno who he mentions fleetingly and perhaps doesn't consider when it comes to the final summary at the end, due to being a current Argentinian player.

After translating much of his 1960s write-up (I'm probably going to do that with the passage about Jimmy Hogan/Orth/Schaffer that CP provided too soon) - although a few other guys like Buyo and Falcao76 did post some more educated and clarified translations after this point - I was feeling his vague order could have been like this (with Pele top current player but in the bottom 5 for him as he'd alluded to):
Moreno, Di Stefano, Puskas, Meazza, Sarosi, Sindelar (maybe he indicates only a few would be above him in effect it seems like), Matthews, Ferreira, Kubala, Scarone, Pele, Erico, Eusebio, Law, Garcia

I still think pretty much the same if I guess, but yeah his theme is to not commit to a number 1 choice (perhaps in the 1960s write-up he can be saying he doesn't disagree with those who choose Moreno, but although unclear it could also be read like he chooses Di Stefano as we discussed at the time - I'm perhaps now again a little bit more inclined to think he meant Ferreira was best of the earliest years (with only Scarone and him from that period in his 1960s selection), distinct from when Sarosi, Meazza and Sindelar played; and Di Stefano of the latest era but not current era as such (where it would be Pele as mentioned), distinct from Moreno's peak years probably (and Matthews' too perhaps - I guess he saw quite a bit more of Matthews after than 1943 than before, but the Wembley game with Italy would be one he saw Matthews in - perhaps he didn't see any games from Matthews late 30s but I don't know that for sure as he just says he's seen England playing several times, albeit mentioning Drake and not Lawton, and highlighting Bastin more than Matthews despite still mentioning him).

Perhaps he doesn't categorically rate/vote Moreno 1st as much as some other Argentinian fans or pundits, but he seems to potentially do so a bit more than Stabile did, and maybe also more than Raimundo Orsi (that's a bit less clear because he ends in his all-time XI in the 1970s, but he also presuming he meant Cherro indeed didn't name Moreno in his run down of great players, let alone put him 1st, in the earlier citation which I'd think came after Moreno's peak albeit not after all of his relevant career as such).

That said, Scopelli seems to link Kubala and Moreno as similar players in his eyes, and with that in mind it could be that I should be swapping Kubala and Sindelar in my guesstimate (given yeah he surely doesn't know Sindelar as well as most others he names...but I had thought he'd said in effect in the 60s write-up that not many would be above him, and perhaps overall he alludes to expecting that Sindelar had a higher level than he himself witnessed based on what others said....).....and/or a guess that he might be agreeing on Moreno being 1st (if anyone) could be misguided - suggesting he puts him categorically/clearly 1st would seem to be incorrect perhaps anyway.

16th to 20th (looking at his 1960s write-up plus his final summary from 1943) could be Sastre, Suarez, Cherro, Veinante, Samitier perhaps....

 

"Between 1920 and 1926, football in Hungary was at its peak. During this period, the Hungarians were said to have had the best players in the world. For example, Jorge Orth, currently in Buenos Aires, and Alfredo Schaffer, whom the skilled English coach Jimmy Hogan mentioned in a recent issue of World Sport in London as the most extraordinary players who ever lived, in his opinion. These two famous veterans of Hungarian football were presumed dead in the last war."

Of course Orth had not died (Braun had done and Hogan got emotional about that I know, and he along with Schlosser is another player that Hogan seems to have praised and remembered a lot in general, but yeah surely he named Orth and the publication made an error which they'd realise about when he became coach of Peru at least I'm sure!).

The first sentence does look dubious, but that is not from Hogan's mouth I guess, and so yeah this is a clear reference to him giving Orth and Schaffer as his answer, and after he watched England-Hungary at Wembley, although whether the question was about 'past players he knew in his career' is possible ("ever lived" maybe suggests not though?). He surely knew Alex James, Matthias Sindelar, G.O Smith among others well enough to consider, for example (and Stanley Matthews, albeit still a current player actually).

It reminds me again of the World Sport polling result (maybe I thought of well-known figures including Hogan, but now I think it seems to say a public poll separate from one about players in English football only that produced some contrasts) from around that time

I did now translate part of the commentary and it says this!
"There's no debating it: they're nine great geniuses. But we still believe that these surveys could be very useful for commercial purposes, in order to find out if the housewife uses which oil and which soap, if the radio listener tunes in more to the "Z" than to the "H." But in sports... they're useless."
I think such polls could be considered more useless in olden days so to speak when there was more limited viewing of players in different countries, but anyway yeah it is still notable that Orth managed to appear in 2nd place there (perhaps the polling was done in Europe too, not only UK?).
The actual World Sports staff were perhaps more modernist though, referring again to their 1954 XI submitted in this poll:

Another World Sports project at a later time was an All-Time XI poll, using a shortlist they'd made, at the end of the 1960s, going into 1970s - copying over the results here now:
First XI: Yashin (69); Djalma Santos (57), Facchetti (38); Bozsik (45), Wright (38), Beckenbauer (44); Pelé (76), Puskas (44); Matthews (40), Di Stefano (68), Charlton (37)

Second XI: Banks (5); Nilton Santos (25), Schnellinger (31); Masopust (24), Ocwirk (18), Moore (26); Didi (16), Best (15); Garrincha (31), Eusebio (17), Gento (22).

Goalkeepers: Yashin (69), Banks (5), Grosics (3), Gilmar (2)
Fullbacks: Djalma Santos (57), Facchetti (38), Schnellinger (31), Nilton Santos (25), Hanappi (4), Shalamanov (3), Troche (2), Matrai (1)
Half backs: Bozsik (45), Beckenbauer (44), Wright (38), Moore (26), Masopust (24), Ocwirk (18), Blanchflower (12), Voronin (10), Rattin (7), Charles (5), Baxter (3), Zizinho (or perhaps Zozimo - it may have been unclear IIRC) (3)
Forwards: Pelé (76), Di Stefano (68), Puskas (44), Matthews (40), Charlton (37), Garrincha (31), Gento (22), Eusebio (17), Didi (16), Best (15), Finney (7), Riva (6), Hidegkuti (5), Kopa (5), Rivera (3), Suarez (3), Schiaffino (2), Albert (1), Sekularec (0), Sivori (0)

N.B. Vote count of '0' is, as said above, not a typo and mentioned as such in the magazine.

So again they focused pretty much exclusively on TV era that time I suppose (because they were more familiar I guess, though they could have been perceiving that the best players had come from 'recent' times - how many older guys were among their staff is hard to know maybe)....

 

Of 80 football writers, who couldn't pick players from their own nation, I should have added earlier.

Looking again at Scopell's 1942 write-up another time, maybe it was hasty to suggest he was erring to a Meazza or Sarosi over Nolo Ferreira (and by extension that in the 1960s he didn't mean to highlight Nolo from the wider earlier period, and Di Stefano the wider later one - it still seems uncertain, but perhaps Buyo's idea could be right, that he didn't disagree as such with Moreno as number 1...worldwide as opposed to just in Argentina I guess...but seemed to lean more to Di Stefano overall or something like that....).

 

I would like to clarify something, I first commented this regarding "other generations":

If it was not enough for me to mention the players names, I even posted this right here to make it even more obvious: https://arfsh.com/article?id=927

The lack of important names who trained or played with Dr. Sárosi, Sindelar and Meazza not mentioning them is just impressive. However, there are many shouts for György Orth, for instance, even after his death.

Football is not a constant. The Brazilian side of today is not better than the ones of late 1950s and 1960s; the modern Spanish side is not better than 2012 Spain; current Austria is not better than the Wunderteam. Just like 1920s Czechoslovakia was, by far, superior to the sides of 1930s. It got to a point where the desesperation and limited knowledge began to propagate that I was saying that Hungary, Austria and Czechoslovakia of the very early days were superior to the times of, for instance, Meazza. I never said this, and the difference is clear in termos of the early stages and development.

However, yes, there were some continental players who could play on British soil, I even wrote this:

Therefore, no, I never said that the "Former Generations which got beaten by British sides were better than the 1930s". Of course our Italian friend would, once again, lack interpretation and act like it was being said.

However, I am not even surprised that it even occurred, since the Italian brought up some fanfic to put words in my mouth saying that I even commented that the 1934 English side was weak.

How surprisingly this guy would just come up with another fake quote, right? Out of nothing he cames up and starts putting random words in people's mouth.

Jesus Christ. This one....

It is just like I had to read above that you get many details wrong and that you do not research properly.

"Nilton Santos scored in the 1958 World Cup final", "Reguzzoni top scorer of 1932 Mitropa Cup", "James was a semi-unknown player", "Orth was barely even remembered in Italy", "Orth suffered a grave injury against Blum in 1926".

I would go even further: you post fake quotes regarding the past just to validate your opinion.

I saw by your last comments that you got a little mad with what was said before, shouting that you are the only adult in here. Well, if it got to this point so you could feel better and validate your own opinion, then it is pretty sad, because you were the one who got schooled. It is very clear that you can't sustain what you say, and even have to create your own narratives. You just could not be able to answer back most of the arguments brought up to this.

It is like I said and other people even commented: You have a lot to learn. You do not have enough knowledge to debate this.

By the way, I am still waiting for the direct source regarding what the FA said. Challenge is still up. I will gladly post the letter from Sir Frederick Wall.