Pre-War Players in the All-Time Rankings

Yeah, I see your point about the video-quote. That was too hasty, just before going to sleep.

But it isn't only equipment and 'environment' that have improved, but general skill of players, tactics and training too.

You deliberately misquoted me. But yeah, I wanted to end it (in post 108, really). But your replies make me change my mind.

And you keep dismissing the answer from AI, but it's understandable, if not you have a hopeless case.

--------
I was planning to let it pass, but no, let's not do that: It's weird to claim "Matthews is remembered thanks to starring in the very first broadcasted games [1953]".

1) he was very much known before WWII
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/t...s-best-ever-game-vs-ireland-nov-1938.2134497/
2) the first matches were broadcasted before WWII
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/anniversaries/april/fa-cup-final

He was a teenager in 1934. How many England players got caps as teenagers before WWII?

And what kind of assessment is this: "[...] always went head low for the dribble, and wasn't able to stand head high and see the play and the options and play simple and direct, which Meazza can be seen doing in several videos including the Central vs Western Europe one." "[...] This is what divides the great soloists from the all time greats, and this IMO includes Messi who always tried to dribble head low, often hampering his team at highest level, especially with Argentina."

Also: "At 2:45 a dribble at high speed with quick change of direction and close control (another thing for which Prisco compared him to Ronaldo)" Ridiculous comparison.

"[...] no doubt that Meazza was a Cruyff or Platini type player, even more skilled or at least more elegant. I agree with that" Insane ridiculous. Hyperbole comparisons as mentioned previously.

I have, maybe, never seen anyone I disagree more with than you.

"Which means that players from at least the late 20s (and earlier, for British football), when professionalism and systematic training became the widespread norm, can be perfectly compared to later ones."

There is a reason pre WWII players don't do great on GOAT lists. It's not because of TV, it's about quality.

------------
Orsi: "[...] 1968 TV special made for the Euro finals to be held in Rome, and where he replicated his goal in the 34 final"

"This was widely considered a fluke by the journalists covering the final. A furious Orsi bet them he could recreate the goal if he tried — so the next day, in front of assembled photographers, he had 20 attempts at replicating his strike, and missed every time. The journalists doubled down: it was a fluke"

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6238520/2025/03/30/world-cup-winners-italy-1934/

--------
And ManiacButcher it's good to see you have really taken these 'paying attention'-messages from a long while back, to heart. Keep it up!

 

If you happen to be in Rome or Miami sometimes, give me a whistle so you'll have the pleasure of calling me ridiculous to my face, bet you we'll have a good time, promise.
For the rest, just a couple specifications before this non-conversation has its due end, since I'm used at talking to adults not kids or bots.

1) I think I clearly wrote that the first global stars were the televised ones like Di Stefano and Pele, and that having lasted until the TV broadcasting age, particularly starring in the first two broadcasted games, is what separates Matthews in terms of "modern" memory and popularity from players of his same age group eg. born in the 1910s, both before and after Matthews, and of similar status, value and "era", both European and South American. Nowhere was said that he wasn't popular before but that's what happens when kids can't comprehend a written text. It's called "functional illiteracy".
Matthews was 19 in 1934, by far not a record for England back then: at the time Matthews was the15th youngest player to debut for England, against Wales in 1934. Age 19, Meazza scored the first 3 goals in Hungary-Italy 0-5 which gave Italy its first ever away win against them and its first ever title the International Cup.

2) You won't believe it kid, but italian newspapers have covered that event with Orsi too and surprisingly in larger number and more extensively than US ones. Incredible huh? And each have their own version. Some say he did, some say he didn't, some say he said he didn't want to do it because it was a shot done by instinct. Try to ask google AI. As in other cases, that has however nothing to do with the subject of the episode, which was Orsi stating that Meazza was the greatest player he had played with or against.

Now I'm afraid our paths have to part. Have a good one

 

Well, I didn't call you ridiculous. I called some of your comparisons ridiculous. Not all made by yourself either.

Still, I understand I should be careful if crossing paths. That very much sounded shady.

I think you have more depth in football history knowledge than me, and far better at producing words, but not entirely accurate in information you provide – and your comparisons across eras is obviously hopeless.

Yes, Matthews 15th youngest at the time. http://www.englandfootballonline.com/teamplyrs/PlyrsYoung.html

The point was only that he would likely have been remembered regardless of games being broadcast – and more important that first games were broadcast before WWII, so that's a factual error what you said about very first broadcasted games.

On the other hand you write a lot, so 100% accuracy is maybe expecting too much.

Are you sure Orsi replicated his goal in 1968, nearly 70 years old? Have you seen it? Failed in 20 attempts.. Sounds like a difficult goal, and that was in his prime (I expect the author to have done proper research on that info, and I have heard it before too).

Do you have a YouTube link to Piola's handball goal against England btw? I have seen it before, but don't remember where to find it.

You say have a good one, so I'll say have a good evening (or good afternoon if Miami).

 

Don't know if this is completely correct, but it was a funny trivial story and reported in many different newspapers (from a news agency).

Not so informed after all?
Rome. (IP). «All time best» Italian football player, the famous and popular Giuseppe Meazza, was last week launched as a betting expert in one of the largest Italian sports newspapers, and got his own column «Full Hit». Already after the first league round, the newspaper has released Meazza from his engagement. All 15 matches in Meazza's «Full Hit» tips were namely wrong.


Oppland Arbeiderblad, 06.01.1959.

Thanks to the useless 'Google AI' for quick translation (just a couple of changes in wording made personally). I found a match report from Jørgen Juve about the England–Italy game in 1934 too, maybe I'll get it translated some day.

 

Anyway, for the overall topic I would lean to saying I can't properly factor the players into any 'top players' attempt, or be sure whether I do or don't include any within 100 names (potentially with reasonable allowances, but it would need to be that the players compared pretty well in basic terms at least, not just strictly being good for their era).

If I make a guesstimate, leaning to benefit of the doubt, maybe I would go with this as my attempt, scattering half a dozen names among the list, but obviously while the list I'm fitting them into (containing players who on balance of peak and career had a case for post-1945 inclusion, even though that includes Stanley Matthews who would also be a candidate for best pre-1946 player I'm thinking) is already uncertain and lack of footage for some players being relevant there too, it's overall more a case with that that others will disagree/vary from my list somewhat because of having different criteria (more bonus to full career perhaps for example) or seeing some players a bit more or less favourably....but for pre-1946 players of course I don't know if even really agree with my own ordering of those players, let alone where I'm placing them overall!

1-35 (open) 1-35 (close)

1 Pele, 2 Cruyff, 3 Maradona, 4 Platini, 5 Di Stefano, 6 Beckenbauer, 7 Messi, 8 Best, 9 Van Basten, 10 Eusebio, 11 Puskas, 12 Zidane, 13 B.Charlton, 14 Ronaldo, 15 C.Ronaldo, 16 Zico, 17 M.Laudrup, 18 Baresi, 19 Moore, 20 G.Muller, 21 Garrincha, 22 Figo, 23 R.Baggio, 24 Ronaldinho, 25 Dalglish, 26 Rivera, 27 Finney, 28 Rummenigge, 29 Matthews, 30 Gullit, 31 Matthaus, 32 Bergkamp, 33 Henry, 34 Neeskens, 35 Yashin

36 Giuseppe Meazza

37-48 (open) 37-48 (close)

37 Maldini, 38 Savicevic, 39 Weah, 40 Hagi, 41 Shevchenko, 42 Cafu, 43 Schiaffino, 44 Rijkaard, 45 Klinsmann, 46 Romario, 47 Kopa, 48 Dzajic

49 Silvio Piola

50-61 (open) 50-61 (close)

50 Jairzinho, 51 Kempes, 52 Kaka, 53 Rivelino, 54 Totti, 55 Schmeichel 56 Raul, 57 Cantona, 58 Vieira, 59 Fontaine, 60 Edwards, 61 Redondo

62 Matthias Sindelar

63-74 (open) 63-74 (close)

63 Socrates, 64 Didi, 65 Banks, 66 Hidegkuti, 67 Greaves, 68 Krol, 69 Nedved, 70 Lineker, 71 Scirea, 72 Sammer, 73 Kubala, 74 Pires

75 Gyorgy Sarosi

76-87 (open) 76-87 (close)

76 J.Charles, 77 Hoddle, 78 Carlos Alberto, 79 B.Laudrup, 80 Beckham, 81 Rivaldo, 82 F.Albert, 83 Giggs, 84 Law, 85 G.Buffon, 86 Bozsik, 87 Deyna

88 Adolfo Pedernera
89 Josef Bican

90-106 (completing 100 names without pre-1946 players (open) 90-106 (completing 100 names without pre-1946 players (close)

90 S.Kocsis, 91 Liedholm, 92 Batistuta, 93 Gerson, 94 Tigana, 95 Xavi, 96 Iniesta, 97 Rensenbrink, 98 Neymar, 99 P.Rossi, 100 Stojkovic, 101 Paolo Roberto Falcao, 102 Rui Costa, 103 Ceulemans, 104 S.Mazzola, 105 Tostao, 106 Scifo

Then maybe I could be scattering half a dozen (perhaps Moreno, Friedenreich, Scarone, James, J.L Andrade, Orth for example - the earliest I might think of would be Bobby Walker I guess but then it becomes even more impossible going that far back!) in the next 100 in theory I guess. I was thinking of Valentino Mazzola being more applicable for post 1945 than pre 1946 most likely, but lack of footage hinders him still, even moreso than his early death (which I would make allowances for in theory, even if Sandro's good longevity would still count for something in the Mazzola comparison I'd think, albeit that's not given huge weight in my estimations in any case)

 

I would say, based on quite limited footage of Sindelar, that Sindelar, or Šindelář if you like, were a better player than Meazza. I also have the impression Sindelar were more dominating than Meazza in the Mitropa Cup.

I think I would rank Bican ahead of Piola. Probably Tommy Lawton too ahead of Piola. I agree ranking Meazza and Sindelar ahead of Sárosi, though.

If including the war as well, so up until say 31 July 1945, maybe I would say Fritz Walter as best player. Maybe. I think he was surely (whole career) better than Meazza at least.

You forgot Seeler too on your list, pretty sure you rank him above Greaves.

I'll add a video of my two probable candidates for best player before 1945.



Edit: I'll change video to Harms's of Walter even though it's post 1945. The one from VM have some footage of other players.

 

Tommy Lawton is one who I would have had in the mix possibly (which slipped my mind when posting probably - at some stage in the past he'd have been more in my thoughts than Piola but then it would be expected since he was English, as well as playing for Notts County so I'm well aware of his legend), for among those slotted into a second 100 in theory, as pre-1946 player (I did see a bit of post-1945 footage including goals for Notts County, but he surely seems more a player for pre-1946 overall - for what it's worth, because you possibly started posting after I posted it previously I'll re-post the link to Brian Glanville's list - he had him and Piola in a similar area of his predominantly British-favoured list (and older players-favoured) in 1997, albeit due to age and location he'd have seen more of Lawton than Piola I'd assume):
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/platini-top-ten-all-time.619847/page-10#post-19039651
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/platini-top-ten-all-time.619847/page-10#post-19046912
Maybe I have an impression now (from a little footage, but also reading things here and there maybe) that PIola seems to have been a bit more mobile and nimble, and when he'd fully developed the technical side of his game it could have been better than Lawton's (who was I believe a decent passer, but mainly an excellent scorer, via headers but also shots with both boots).

Walter seems like he could have been great as a young player (though he wasn't tested at high levels I guess as such), but I'd have had him and Zizinho as players who on balance of peak and career could be considered for post-1945 anyway.

Maybe you mistook me for somebody else but no I haven't said I rated Seeler over Greaves tbh.

 

But yeah where to begin comparing Tommy Lawton to Bobby Walker for example? What is kind of certain is they were different types of players seemingly (Lawton more comparable to Piola indeed; and I guess Walker to Meazza in theory) but it's not like comparing say Shearer to Zola and making our call (players from same era, different types of forward players). Some people who lived during Lawton's time were probably still of the opinion Walker was the best British player I guess, but how to either agree or disagree with that?

Another couple of players vaguely in mind were left-side attackers, the aforementioned Orsi, and Puc of Czechoslovakia, but again it's hard to begin to make our own verdicts (funnily maybe Puc's case is put forward the most in Orsi's own XI we discussed, and Orsi's in Meazza's perhaps though!), then to compare them to a Loustau or a Czibor....

 

Walker vs. Lawton is almost impossible comparison, really. No footage of Walker, and comparing players from different eras on words is not reliable – probably what was considered impressive play in 1905 would not be considered so impressive in 1935, for example.

Someone comparing Lawton in 1939 to Walker could be useful, but could be based on sketchy memory having not seen Walker play for 20–25 years, so again likely unreliable. If many say the same it's getting promising, though – especially if they are known as experts of course. I would not necessarily consider a former great player an expert though btw – the knowledge and understanding of ex-players can vary a lot.

Also different type of players (Walker a playmaker (inside) forward, I guess we can call him, while Lawton was a classic striker) makes the comparison harder to do with any accuracy too.

General level of football surely higher in Lawton's time than Walker's though, so likely Lawton over Walker, I think. But if you're skeptical to that premise it's not much to tell. Maybe just have to go with reputation then – Lawton should still take it on that account (but the question then could of course be if that's because Walker got a bit forgotten).

I could try giving a couple of examples to convince the game improved, though:

• Looking at Sheriff of London Charity Shield it looks like the amateur Corinthian is competitive with the best league clubs until 1900 (1904 is an exception, but against a weak Bury, 12/18 in league, three points above relegation, same goal difference as Liverpool who got relegated, and joint fewest wins alongside WBA in last place). The difference growing between amateurs and pros is a sign of the game improving, I think.
• Also you were not so impressed with the 1912 Olympics, which was in Walker's time (although that was amateurs, not professionals).

I think for sure the amateurs got hyped a bit btw, since being an amateur was the 'honourable thing'. I seem to remember reading Herbert Chapman was not so fan of the old amateurs.

--------
Yeah, hard to say re: Puč–Orsi. I chose Puč (maybe Pepe in Pelé's Santos could be a somewhat decent comparison) over Orsi in my Team of Decade, though. I just got a small impression Puč might have been a stronger player, and he was a bigger goal threat (he was purely inside forward until 1932, I think). I also have 'Dally' Duncan and Brook as the British contenders for that decade.

 

I think it would for sure be easier for me limiting it to pre-WWII, so until 1 September 1939. Then I feel quite confident Sindelar is the best player, although footage is limited.

Thinking about it a little bit more: extending period to end of war makes it impossible for me to say.
Could be peak Sindelar is still not surpassed, could be Walter is better, could be Matthews, Moreno or even Pedernera – which you mentioned.

Probably not Pedernera, though, since I have Moreno in my team of decade, while Pedernera is only on my shortlist. You have Pedernera down in 88th too of course, not in the top spots.

I remember from my study of players starting their careers in 30s that I found it likely with Bican, Lawton, Piola (then maybe Erico) in that order of strikers. But it's very uncertain, more an estimate, since there is little footage (of Erico and Bican especially).

Maybe Piola a little bit more skilled player than Lawton, but Lawton probably an even better goalscorer than Piola (so quite the same impression I think we have). Lawton probably a bit dependent on the British way of playing to get the best out of him, though.

--------
Hmm, I think I saw you made a selection with Seeler in it, where you could have selected Greaves, but I probably remember it wrong then, since you disagree with that. Personally my impression always were Greaves > Seeler, but I changed it around some months ago, after studying the players starting their careers in 1950s.

I still have a bit of studying of the debutants of 60s and 70s left to do. No progress really, because I spend much free time on this forum instead.

I'm sure I have seen that Glanville list/posts before. Although his ranking is not something I remember at all. He thinks Sindelar > Meazza too, I see, and Lawton > Piola. But Bican not in top 100, and Meazza > Walter. Seeler in 60th, Greaves not on the list. And Sindelar & Meazza > Sárosi. He probably ranks Alex James as best pre-WWII player – I guess Matthews would not make it to 6th place only on pre-WWII performances. Sindelar second best pre-WWII for Glanville, then.

So agree with Glanville on 4/7 'subjects'.
Edit: Orsi in 70th on Glanville's list. Puč not to be seen. So 4/8. I guess becoming World Champion might have something to do with that.

 

A couple insights:

- In Walker's time (old offside rule), forwards line usually play in a flat-line, and behind/close to Half-backs, in order to don't get off-side easily. We can say, they started their action close to mediapunta's role in nowadays, so, Inside forwards, as Walker, were not Playmakers as we know today, not even close as IF in Meazza's days (W formation)

- Another thing is, as years gone by, and the League competition and clubs involved on it, became popular, more players and next generations prefer to play in pro-clubs instead of amateur clubs, so an important factor, is the increase in number of players prefering playing in pro-clubs than amateurs, something different that the type of play/system/training that used to have Pro-clubs vs Amateur clubs.

 

I think I have pre-1940 as Meazza vs Matthews possibly in my mind most likely, but like I said "I don't know if I would agree with myself" in effect lol (I suppose that's the best way to phrase it). In terms of 'best' as opposed to 'greatest career to date' my inclination might be in that direction anyway.

Maybe Guillermo Stabile's calls, as a collection, are interesting (see the piece about Pedernera via one of the links, along with Isaque's confirmations about the Stabile quote about 'skilled players' and Torsten Tegner's opinion on Friedenreich - maybe Stabile didn't rate Pedernera as high as some others and/or they didn't even get on very well I sense maybe)
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/player-of-the-decade-1920.2129035/#post-42394604
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/p...eir-best-players.2126578/page-5#post-41639209
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/p...eir-best-players.2126578/page-5#post-41648349

Re: Matthews I guess it's natural for a player to be more nimble, agile and mobile at a relatively younger age, but on the flip side it's possible his cleverness and precision hadn't yet peaked (I'm not sure). He was obviously more of a scorer in the 1930s than later. The trouble is even the highlights available are very minimal - for example this is the game after which apparently Braine said he was the best player he'd seen I believe, but we see one cross by Matthews in effect here:

You've noticed the report about England vs Germany and Matthews' significance in that game I know, and there's this one too for example:
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/british-football-best-xis-1863-1939.2124483/page-5#post-41190722

I expect that for example Figo's physical decline was steeper, but potentially similar a little bit in terms of being able to twist and turn quicker and more fluently when younger. Maybe 0:34 here gives an indication of how easily Matthews could go past players on the run, though it might be suggested an older Matthews would 'always' pass the ball and set up a goal I guess in that final position:

Albeit in a loss to Scotland this at 2:37 is perhaps another little indication of what he was doing in the 1930s, making space easily and playing a left footed accurate cross that time

On that note maybe it's slightly similar to getting a quick view of what young...ish Finney could do at the end here, also in a game Scotland won, in 1949, with the pre-assisting involvement on the left:


Maybe this gives as good an idea about Bobby Walker's play as anything:
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/a...complete-version.2132106/page-2#post-42474312

This kind of quote is interesting (akin to perhaps similar things that could be said about today's football vis a vis 80s/90s, not in terms of 'kick and rush' but perhaps in number of star ball players in the world or something...though I would acknowledge for sure that there are still many players who are in general very good with the ball playing now such as Pedri, Musiala, Wirtz etc and in PL even not so high profile players such as Eze, Mitoma, Harvey Barnes etc are very comfortable with the ball - the counter arguments being similar I guess as in progression in speed of play, fitness etc, and in organisation/structure):
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/british-football-best-xis-1863-1939.2124483/page-4#post-41170100
Maybe it seems harder to trust that pre-1900 football had a higher quality (as we would look at it today) but it seems like there was at least a perception in regression in Britain in the early 1900s. Msioux's point about regression in Corinthians for example as the professional game took off is valid in terms of their reduced standing in the British game though I think yeah (they no longer had some of the best players playing for them).

https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/british-football-best-xis-1863-1939.2124483/page-4#post-41163104
"I'm now 81 and the greatest player I can ever remember was Bobby Walker.
A true prince of football"
William McLuckie - 1965

https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/british-football-best-xis-1863-1939.2124483/page-4#post-41185830
"My best ever forward is Bobby Walker. He was better than Buchan or James - and I'm not a Scotsman"
J. Thomas 1955 ish it seems


But yeah, apparently as we've discovered Kubala picked Bican as the best, Meazza picked Braine etc.....

 

Not to forget that there are quotes in the opposite direction too including that one CristianoPuskas found about Sindelar being G.O Smith, Woodward and another player rolled into one (i.e surely an upgrade on any one of them I assume).

It wasn't only 'the older players were better' from guys who saw them obviously!

 

Maybe this 1954 survey suggests a definite familiarity with and/or appreciation for British football in Nordic countries re: the first half of the 20th century @TerjeC ?
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/interesting-best-xi.325564/page-58#post-39286727
What's not known is which journalists picked the XIs, how old they were etc, as far as I'm aware.

Maybe in this video for England-Scotland 1943 there's a bit more to appreciate re: pre 1946 Matthews too (also in what is being said about him - "star of many Internationals" included):

 

See remarks such as these on this thread too, re: 1930s:
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/t...me-vs-ireland-nov-1938.2134497/#post-42850483
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/t...me-vs-ireland-nov-1938.2134497/#post-42850472

 

I made career statistics for some South American players from the period. I'd put Leonidas one level higher as a centre-forward than Arsenio Erico and Ademir Menezes. Leonidas was a better assistant, and had the talent of a street player, with lots of feints and movement. Arsenio was a great acrobat and Ademir had an athletic condition that was praised at the time. Arsenio and Ademir had great peaks, better than leonidas. But I think Leonidas was the most unique of the three.

Pedernera was the first false nine, so it's a separate category. Moreno, Sastre and Zizinho were great midfielders in their time, but g+a might not show what a player they were.

In the future maybe it will appear the g+a of Sindelar, Josef Bican, and Meazza among others. all played in the Mitropa Cup, for example.

 

Back in the day, Tegnér really did move the press with this one. I am not quite sure what were his expectations, but it worked. His quotes were commented all around the world. However, it does not match with the opinion of the great French columnists of the day — Lucien Gamblin, Gabriel Hanot, Maurice Pefferkorn, Gautier-Chaumet.

I remember that Lucien Gamblin mentioned that Brazil(Paulistano) had only one extra-class footballer, which was Friedenreich, but nothing more than that. I find it interesting that Tegnér said such words regarding Friedenreich, although he was no longer at his peak and the opinion was not shared with any other person who saw him playing in France.

József Winkler, who played with Orth, faced Friedenreich on 13/04/1925, and said the following: Tegnér allegedly said that he had seen many great centers in his life, he had seen Orth, Woodward, G. O. Smith, Petrone, Kaufeldt several times, but he had never seen a player like Friedenreich. I don't know what the serious basis for this advertisement is, but it is certain that after Friedenreich's play, I can't consider him the best, but I can't even rank him among the best. He couldn't take a single healthy shot on goal in the whole match. It's true that he played well in the field, but he has neither breakthrough ability nor shot.

 

Re: next generations prefer to play in pro-clubs instead of amateur clubs.
No, I don't think so. The amount of amateurs pretty stable, I think. It was a class thing. The amateurs were usually from upper class families in South. But the game grew in popularity among the working class, yeah, so more professional players it became. And of course the level gradually improved – for various reasons, including more people playing professionally.

Probably this was first real indication amateurs were falling behind:
Thursday, 28 March 1895 - Professionals 7 Amateurs 0 [3-0]
http://www.englandfootballonline.com/matchrsl/MatchRslTrial.html

"The late nineteenth century was dominated by the growing split between the amateur and professional teams, which was roughly aligned along a North-South divide. Northern clubs were keen to adopt professionalism as workers could not afford to play on an amateur basis, while Southern clubs by the large part stuck by traditional "Corinthian" values of amateurism. Eventually, in 1885 the FA legalised professionalism, and when Aston Villa director William McGregor organised a meeting of representatives of England's leading clubs, this led to the formation of the Football League in 1888."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_in_England

Re: Walker.
I didn't really say much, other than he was a playmaker – he was that type of player. And he played inside right. McMenemy another example of that type, before change of offside rule in 1925. McMenemy also played inside right, but started moving to inside left, to accommodate Patsy Gallagher, in 1911–12.

Yeah, the 2-3-5 was different to WM and Metodo. And different offside rule affected play.

I guess this is nice to use to back up playmaker claim of Walker:
"I never saw Walker play his own peculiar style of game so well as in the International match at Sheffield in 1903, when the Scots won by 2 goals to 1. Templeton was on the extreme right wing, and it is marvellous that more goals did not accrue from Walker's long, easy passes beyond the back, after he had himself drawn out and beaten the half back."
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/a...complete-version.2132106/page-2#post-42474312 (thanks to @PDG1978 for the link, I have seen this before, as I have liked post 31, 33 and 41 earlier, but it got useful here obviously.)

 

He played against him for Auto Tour I guess (or a 'Switzerland' select team on the 13th itself despite being Hungarian - I'm doubting that one)?
European Trip of CA Paulistano in 1925

I suppose it could be like if a Bosnian in theory couldn't see any footage from outside Bosnia (except Bosnia World Cup games) and after watching Bosnia-Argentina in 2014 said "I don't see the fuss about Messi. In the second half he did ok and scored a decent goal but for 45 minutes he was sluggish and sloppy and he never reached the level of Safet Susic" but then a Swiss guy might say a few days later (even if a minority view basing on that game at that time) "I knew Maradona, but this little guy is better for me. Impossible to stop him in the crucial moments"

I suppose Friedenreich playing much better vs France is the most likely reason for the different analysis between them anyway.

I knew there were references to him being called 'King of Football' in French media apparently (I know this page is a retrospective one, not a primary source, but I assumed that label was given to him by some French voices at least since it's pretty well known):
Arthur Friedenreich

Stabile has a very high opinion of him too of course, and seemingly Uruguayans acclaimed him in 1919.

 

I see here is the article by Gamblin, as alluded to by Isaque, with him saying Friedenreich was the one big star in the team (though some other high class players named as the full backs and the inside forwards apparently it seems):
15 March 1925: France-CA Paulistano - Blue Chronicles

 

What? Auto Tour? Winkler played for Young Fellows, and the team itself was a combined XI of Young Fellows and Grasshoppers. How could you doubt this one since RSSSF even provides this information?

https://www.rsssf.org/tablesp/paultrip25det.html

The same could be said about Torsten Tegnér because he only saw Friedenreich a few times or even once, contradicting the European view of the others, literally swimming against the tide. Just to clarify: I am not saying Friedenreich did not reach the first level of centre-forward, I am saying that what he performed on European soil, according to what Tegnér said, does not match what was seen by many others or played against him.

The Paulistano side was called "Kings of Football".

 

"What? Auto Tour?". Apologies for my mistake/oversight, but it'd be nice if you spoke to me like you used to do mate (with respect). Twice now you haven't (using the word absurd IIRC the last time, although I know there was a bit of a misunderstanding between us about the words being used in that instance regarding who would be "placing Meazza there" and the inferences that might be drawn from it in theory).

 

Maybe I shouldn't mention it though, I dunno.

Another time when ManiacButcher (making a valid point and pointing out something I wasn't properly understanding arguably re: Rai and/or Ponta Da Lanca terminology for role as opposed to position, and applicability to a specific era) seemed to be a bit more blunt with me than he used to and I just let it go then repped another reply of his to me. Maybe I should have just done that here too.

On the other hand Terje is always pretty nice to me like I said, but maybe you could be a bit easier on Falcao76 Terje mate (and consequently vice versa). If we start talking in a disparaging way to each other we'll all end up really annoyed! Maybe you took exception to something I said to you first though Isaque, which I wouldn't have intended (maybe it could seem like I'm doubting you re: Friedenreich or Meazza not being in Orsi's team...but I wasn't trying to be annoying, just exploring my own ideas even though I know you do have a lot of info I don't).

 

A)
"it does not match with the opinion of the great French columnists of the day — Lucien Gamblin, Gabriel Hanot, Maurice Pefferkorn, Gautier-Chaumet."

"I remember Lucien Gamblin mentioned that Brazil (Paulistano) had only one extra-class footballer, which was Friedenreich, but nothing more than that."

"The Paulistano side was called "Kings of Football"."

Gamblin kind of seem to agree with Tegnér about Friedenreich, it's more the team he seem critical of if anything, based on what you write.

The only thing I got from this was you contradicting yourself trying to have a go at Tegnér.

Good balancing view from Winkler, I guess. Very well researched, though, I think.

-------------------
B)
I'll be friendly with Falcao, but I'm probably going to take a break from here. I spend too much time thinking about discussions recently, and as I have mentioned sometimes earlier I get shortage of time, because of spending too much time here. It's spring outside, and need to rest my mind more and free up time.
I'll get email alert if anyone sends a direct message if anything important, I think.

 

Yeah, it definitely can be addictive in a way easily I think!