How exactly did he "seem to agree" with Tegnér? He mentioned that Friedenreich was the only big star of the team. That's it. How is that even close to what Tegnér said, since the Swedish commented that the Brazilian was the greatest centre-forward — above, Orth, Woodward, G. O. Smith, etc — he had seen? ???
I see that Gamblin played in a game where Buchan was in the England team, so in theory albeit on a sample size of 1 game each potentially (unless he continued to follow Friedenreich's games on the European Tour or had seen him previously somewhere and/or watched Buchan play other times) that's a comparison he could have commented on (probably he didn't though I'm guessing?): From rssssf FRIENDLY INTERNATIONAL 10/05/1923, Paris, Stade Pershing, 30.000 FRANCE 1-4 ENGLAND [HT 0-2] Scorers: France: Jules Dewaquez 89' England: Kenneth Hegan 9', 84', Charles Buchan 35', Norman Creek 55' FRA: Pierre Chayrigues, Pierre Mony, Lucien Gamblin, Louis Mistral, Francois Hugues, Philippe Bonnardel, Jules Dewaquez, Louis Darques, Marcel Dangles, Henri Bard, Raymond Dubly ENGLAND: John Alderson [Crystal Palace] [1/0] Warneford Cresswell [Sunderland] [2/0] Harry Jones [Nottingham Forest] [1/0] Seth Plum [Charlton Athletic] [1/0] James Seddon [Bolton Wanderers] [1/0] Percy Barton [Birmingham City] [3/0] Frank Osborne [Fulham] [2/0] Charles Buchan [c] [Sunderland] [5/4] Norman Creek [Corinthians] [1/1] Frank Hartley [Oxford City] [1/0] Kenneth Hegan [Corinthians] [2/4] [COACH: Committee] Referee: Barette (Belgium) Note: First England goal attributed to Pierre Mony OG by French sources
Maybe I can try in a friendly way to explain what I guess TerjeC might have been thinking mate (especially as he wants a break - I also want a break from the tense atmosphere, and apologies again on my part if some of my previous comments irritated you as that wasn't my intention but it seems like they did a bit - I do appreciate all the info you collect and provide anyway though for sure I can say again and if I express any reservations about conclusions it's without any certainty like I've implied of course). I guess it was a kind of 'putting two and two together' of the Kings of Football label (not Gamblin's term or opinion presumably though) with the "one big star" comment. The calculator (brain) of Terje (and mine) can see that as an indication that Friedenreich was perceived as a really top class player. The quote isn't on a par with what Tegner said as such though no (whether it rules out Gamblin thinking similar is maybe hard to say I guess, but I don't want to make this another situation akin to Meazza not being in Orsi's team and what can or can't be inferred....). Please don't take this as a criticism, but I guess Tegner won't have known G.O Smith at least, as a player (it's not impossible though - he could even travel to England as a kid for example obviously and watch dsome games)? I guess we should remember too that there were some comments from older English guys along the lines of Sindelar being G.O, Woodward and the other guy who I wasn't 100% on about identifying the correct player..."rolled into one" so it's not that all older English guys were certain these older players remained unsurpassed or something, or were, realistically or unrealistically, inclined in that direction. I guess it could be like if after Euro 88 some older guys might say "this Van Basten is like Gerd Muller, Eusebio and Peter Osgood rolled into one" and some other guys might be saying Muller and/or Eusebio were better players than Van Basten - not everyone will think the same.
This was never in question. What was in question was, due to his performances on European soil, according to the people who saw him during the Paulistano tour, whether Tegnér's statement could have been sustained — and it clearly was not. Tegnér clearly swam against the tide. It was, as mentioned before, confirmed Friedenreich was star of the side — obviously —, but not that he was better than Orth, G. O. Smith, Woodward, etc. The fact that Gamblin said he was the big star of his team does not mean that he "kind of seem to agree" with Tegnér. How so? If I say Dr. Sárosi was an extra-class footballer, does that mean I seem to agree with anyone who says he was the greatest centre-forward of all-time? The fact that this was even used to pseudo-sustain that I was contradicting myself is, at minimum, laughable. I am not taking this as a criticism. However, why would there be a reason to doubt that Tegnér saw G. O. Smith? Smith was with The Corinthians in the tour of 1904(Central Europe). Many people saw him play during the tour. I even have matches of him playing against S.K. Slavia. I think, once again, I made myself clear. I am leaving this discussion.
Ok thanks mate. Agreed that Gamblin didn't say he agreed with Tegner. Whether he categorically disagreed is maybe where we see things different, if at all (or potentially could do anyway). I guess your feeling is if he thought he was the best ever he would say so at least though.
It would be past his prime I guess, but any footage you could show of Smith vs Slavia for example would surely be great to see I think though @Isaque Argolo (I'm not trying to drag you back into any discussion, but just adding this as an extra note)
OK thanks mate, I see he says it (greatest meaning best I guess in effect) about Hughie Gallacher on that occasion (which means he thinks Gallacher>Buchan I suppose too, based on when he saw them playing, and Gallacher>Friedenreich of 1925 in his view too indeed given this was in 1930).
The other comments on other players were nice to see too: I remember Frasermc who used to post on this board telling us about the legend of Thomson the Scottish goalkeeper of Celtic, and his story, before (probably as an introduction to him after he picked him in some all-time draft game we were doing).
A break from the break, it seems. It must be this guy: H. S. Stapley https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Stapley I had not heard about him before (though he was Olympic Champion 1908, so I have probably seen the name before). He had a brother – William; W. J. Stapley, a CH with only one match for England amateur national team, so not him. Two things here: 1) if Paulistano is "kings of football" and Friedenreich is their extra-class footballer he must be logically very good. It could seem Gamblin kind of agree then, which would be contradicting to what you said that Tegnér is swimming against the tide. 2) Gamblin seem a bit critical to Paulistano based on your wording (would be a bit contradicting too, to 'kings of football', although this not your words of course). So yeah, you're not really contradicting yourself as long as Gamblin doesn't consider Paulistano kings of football. But Tegnér swimming against the tide must be exaggeration anyway. My estimate of Friedenreich vs. mentioned players would be. Friedenreich > G. O. Smith. Friedenreich > Orth and maybe Friedenreich > Woodward. Friedenreich very likely better technically than Woodward, but Woodward surely a better header. If Tegnér say Friedenreich I'll go with that. The two English were clearly older than Friedenreich too, and only amateurs (Woodward did play in the professional football league, though, although not many goals in First Division – 22 in 73 matches, and 1 goal in 5 against the really difficult national team opponent Scotland). I would probably agree with Tegnér on all the matchups, but certainly not that he was best ever seen – A. N. Wilson, V. Watson, Buchan, Hampton, Shepherd; some of these very likely better than Friedenreich. Generally speaking 33 years is a bit past peak, which was Friedenreich age in 1925, but not very much past it. But Gallacher > Friedenreich, yeah. Gallacher one of the best of the superior English Football League (Jørgen Juve ranked him third best CF in world 1932, behind Sindelar and Dixie Dean – Dean the best in pure goalscoring). Tegnér was probably not aware of Gallacher in 1925 (moved to Newcastle in December 1925, and it was too early for Dean and Sindelar). Surely the Paulistano team were not actually "kings of football", though. They beat 'France' 7–2, but 'France' also went to Italy and lost 0–7 there. British football were far superior at this point, and Paulistano did not play English Football League teams, just some half decent, mostly French ones. ------------ I'll add a couple of articles from Swedish media too: Brazilians instead of Uruguayans? Ed. T. Tegnér negotiates in Paris with the São Paulo team about a Swedish visit in May. As mentioned in yesterday's issue, the Brazilian football team São Paulo [Paulistano] debuted in Paris on Sunday by defeating Paris' city team 7–2. The pitch was slippery and heavy, which noticeably bothered the Brazilians. However, they played excellently, didn't juggle as much as the Uruguayans, but had a perfect field play, which was followed all the way to the goal. Best in the visiting team was left-back Bartho, reminiscent of the phenomenon Nasazzi in Uruguay's Olympic team, as well as the creole Friedenreich, called South America's best player. He never looks like he's in a hurry, but is always in place and scored four goals in Sunday's match. The French were faster and kept the game up well, but their teamwork was very weak, and the defense was subpar. Among the spectators, one noticed editor Tegnér, Stockholm, who initiated negotiations with the Brazilians about matches in Sweden in May. ----- Sydsvenska Dagbladet 19 April 1925: In Spain, during the past weekend, they had visits from two transatlantic football teams, namely Boca Juniors from Argentina and the well-known Club Nacional from Uruguay. None of the South American teams, however, had reason to boast, as of the total three matches played, two resulted in defeat and the third was a draw. Boca Juniors lost to A.C. Bilbao with 2—4 and Nacional's representative team played a 2—2 draw against F.C. Barcelona in front of 30,000 spectators. Nacional's reserve team played against Europa, Barcelona, and had to settle for a 0—1 defeat. Even Switzerland has had a visit from long-distance football guests. Here it was the Brazilian club Club Athletico Paulistano, which during Easter played two matches in Bern and Zürich. In Bern, the South Americans won 2—0 over F.C. Bern, and in Zürich, a combination of Young Fellows and Grasshoppers noted a 0—1 defeat. Despite the two victories, Paulistano did not quite live up to the high expectations. Center forward Friedenreich was, as usual, he best man on the team.
And here is a report from 'Senhor Risonho' in Dagens Nyheter [best newspaper on football in my experience], a Swede living in South America and very enthusiastic about South American football is safe to say, when Paulistano set sails for Europe: Full European fever among South America's football nations. Will Sweden also get the honour of a virtuoso visit? SANTOS, 11 February, 1925. After Uruguay's gleaming tour of Europe in 1924, strong "European" winds are blowing here in South America, and all relatively strong clubs have gotten a taste for it. Both Brazil and Argentina want to show Uruguay that they are not a bit worse, at the same time as Uruguay wants to confirm their victory tour. All want to go to Europe. Favorable wind for the Brazilian ship — 25-man crew. Who doesn't know C. A. Paulistano in South America? From the European tour in the north to Tierra del Fuego in the south, "El Tigre's", Friedenreich's victorious eleven, is known. "O. Glorioso", the nickname of the São Paulo club, left yesterday, the 10th February, with Zeelandia [Dutch ship], with Paris as target. The team is really strong, reinforced with Santos' ball virtuoso, Araken, as well as the 2 international Rio phenomena Junqueira and Seabra. The 19-year-old "tango-dribbler" [Araken] from the coffee metropolis will surely make many European defenses pale. The troop consists of 24 men, including leader. The chief of the troop is Mr. Orlando Pereiro, a board member of the club. The one who have seen these players in action can only imagine victories for the team. Four of them took part in 1922 [Brazil continental champions] and beat the Uruguayans themselves with 2–0! [that was Argentina. 0–0 correct] That it will be a triumphal procession through Europe is certain. May our Swedish Olympic team be the conquerors of these "Huns", hope all Swedish-Brazilians in Santos! The club can be equated with Örgryte in Sweden. It has held the championship for the state of Sao Paulo [Paulista] in the years 1913, 1914, 1916, 1917, 1919, and 1921 [not 1914, but 1918]. It is immensely popular throughout Brazil due to its truly good and moral policy. Discipline is kept immensely strict. For example, you never see any of the club's players protesting against the referee's decision during an ongoing match, which, unfortunately, happens so often elsewhere down here. The troop will therefore certainly win sympathies during its European tour. Uruguayans: 8 Olympic champions – 13 reserves Just as the Zeelandia with the Brazilians sent its powerful farewell signal, a somewhat dark-skinned individual was sighted on the quay, with the Uruguayan colors in his cap. Andrade, we guessed at once. Strobl's drawing did not deceive. As soon as the stately Uruguayan heard the name of our country in the North his lively eyes lit up. He became immediately interested and when I mentioned the Swedish greats Rydell, Dahl, Sigge Lindberg and Kock, his pearly white teeth appeared. — Jugadores tecnicos e buenos, he confirmed Which countries are you planning to visit during your tour? I asked. — First, we will play a training match upon arrival in Genoa, then to Spain and Paris, Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland. And Sweden? — An invitation from Sweden will surely be accepted immediately. We have heard so much talk about your beautiful Stockholm with its stadium. It would be a great pleasure for me to meet the good Swedish football players. How long will the trip last? — In eight months we will be back. Which nations do you think played the best football during the Olympics? — Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, and Spain, came the answer without hesitation. — The Americans, the Dutch, and the Czechs really rugged. The club's representative team became as follows: Masalli [Mazali]; Follino [Foglino] and Arispe; Andrade, Zibecci [Zibechi] and Vancino [Vanzzino]; Urdinaram [Urdinarán], Scarone, Petrone, Castro and Romano. 13 reserves will also go. Nasazzi will join later. Senhor Risonho.
Walter Stapley was a half-back in games like this too I had noticed, but yeah I was still thinking maybe it was Harry Stapley: Belgium - England Amateur, Feb 24, 1914 - International Friendlies - Match sheet | Transfermarkt Results for 'stapley woodward' | Between 1st Jan 1910 and 31st Dec 1919 | British Newspaper Archive I'd be more inclined to think Friedenreich (as you could gather from me including him in a second set of half a dozen pre-1946 players before I suppose anyway though) had a superior ability to most, or all, of those British players from the same era, with doubts if anything about Buchan, and then Gallacher indeed yeah (the ones who are picked out as having more of a special quality themselves). But it's still guesswork (or relying on words from many years ago, and indications from very minimal footage perhaps even). I might suspect G.O Smith was in real terms a higher level of player than most of the British names you put there (it seems there were guys around who said he was definitely better than Buchan too though), but it becomes very difficult (my basic inclination would be in between that of you and Isaque I'm guessing, or more 'open' to change/uncertainty than both anyway). I understand (I don't say it as criticism) that in general you are on the side of there having been constant improvement in level including in individual players. I'm less inclined that way, in relatively modern times at least, as you know, although maybe I still show some kind of instinct that way given I named Meazza, Sindelar, Sarosi, Pedernera, Bican, Piola, as well as Matthews, as my most likely candidates from pre-1946, and not players from earlier (but I say again I have much uncertainty about it of course). I was thinking about potential 4 year best period (or a split of two sets of 2 years if it seems better) and I haven't got a top 100 candidate starting from before the 1930s of course (but among the second set of names Friedenreich, Scarone, Andrade and Orth would be confined to pre-1930, and James would be early 30s, possibly even going back into 20s even if it seems doubtful which is a similar case as with Orsi I guess, and Puc could be 1920s and 1930s mixed possibly even too; Moreno would be 1930s and/or 1940s and Lawton starting late 1930s, but Bobby Walker would be from around the start of the 1900s of course! , and Bloomer could be a candidate from a similar time in theory - Gallacher would be late 20s going into the 30s too, though if considering Fritz Walter and Zizinho then that's other players from the 1940s also) Meazza 1930-1933 Sindelar 1932-1935 Sarosi 1935-1938 Piola 1936-1939 Bican 1937-1940 Pedernera 1940-1943 Spoiler for the other names I had in from later years (Move your mouse to reveal the content) Spoiler for the other names I had in from later years (open) Spoiler for the other names I had in from later years (close) Matthews 1937&1938, 1947&1948 Finney 1949-1952 Hidegkuti 1951-1954 Kubala 1951-1954 Schiaffino 1952-1955 Bozsik 1952-1955 Kocsis 1952-1955 Liedholm 1950&1951, 1955&1956 Puskas 1952&1953, 1959&1960 Edwards 1954-1957 Kopa 1955&1956, 1958&1959 Di Stefano 1956-1959 Didi 1956-1959 Charles 1956-1959 Fontaine 1957-1960 Garrincha 1957&1958, 1961&1962 Yashin 1960-1963 Pele 1961-1964 Greaves 1962-1965 Eusebio 1961&1962, 1965&1966 Moore 1963-1966 Banks 1963-1966 Law 1963-1966 Albert 1964-1967 Rivera 1962&1963, 1968&1969 Charlton 1965-1968 Tostao 1966-1969 Dzajic 1967-1970 Jairzinho 1967-1970 Carlos Alberto 1967-1970 Gerson 1967-1970 S.Mazzola 1967-1970 Best 1968-1971 Rivelino 1970-1973 Cruyff 1971-1974 Beckenbauer 1971-1974 Muller 1971-1974 Neeskens 1972-1975 Deyna 1972-1975 Rensenbrink 1975-1978 Kempes 1977-1980 Krol 1978-1981 Dalglish 1978&1979, 1982&1983 Rossi 1978&1979, 1982&1983 Zico 1979-1982 Socrates 1979&1980, 1982&1983 Rummenigge 1980-1983 Scirea 1980-1983 Hoddle 1980-1983 Falcao 1980-1983 Ceulemans 1979&1980, 1985&1986 Platini 1982-1985 Tigana 1982-1985 Maradona 1985-1988 Gullit 1985-1988 Van Basten 1985&1986, 1988&1989 Scifo 1984&1985, 1990&1991 Lineker 1986&1987, 1990&1991 Baresi 1987-1990 Matthaus 1988-1991 Rijkaard 1988&1989, 1991&1992 Romario 1988&1989, 1993&1994 Baggio 1989&1990, 1993&1994 Hagi 1989&1990, 1993&1994 M.Laudrup 1990-1993 Stojkovic 1989&1990, 1995&1996 Savicevic 1990&1991, 1994&1995 Maldini 1992-1995 Klinsmann 1993-1996 Sammer 1993-1996 Schmeichel 1992&1993, 1996&1997 Bergkamp 1992&1993, 1997&1998 Cantona 1993-1996 Giggs 1993&1994, 1996&1997 Weah 1994-1997 B.Laudrup 1994-1997 Ronaldo 1995-1998 Rivaldo 1996-1999 Batistuta 1996-1999 Rui Costa 1995&1996, 2000&2001 Figo 1997-2000 Raul 1997-2000 Redondo 1997-2000 Shevchenko 1998-2001 Cafu 1998-2001 Beckham 1998-2001 Zidane 1997&1998, 2002&2003 Totti 2000-2003 Vieira 2000-2003 Pires 2000-2003 Nedved 2000&2001, 2003&2004 Henry 2002-2005 Ronaldinho 2003-2006 Buffon 2003-2006 Kaka 2004-2007 Xavi 2008-2011 Iniesta 2009-2012 C.Ronaldo 2011-2014 Messi 2011&2012, 2015&2016 Neymar 2015-2018 In theory Valentino Mazzola would add another 1940s player, and Ademir a 1940s going into 1950s player (could have been the case for Mazzola too if he lived I guess) and they'd be among those who could be there or thereabouts I guess, along with for example Cubillas from the 1970s and (to mention a recent-ish player as I'm light on those I admit) Robben from the 2010s - I think Hazard, De Bruyne, Mbappe for example would be somewhere among contenders, like various others from earlier years also, while I would say if the question was do I think it's possible I'll end up putting Pedri over Iniesta or Marmoush over Batistuta the answer is probably yes (but I think borderline top 100 to borderline top 200 is not a huge gap and atm I'd hesitate to think they were already better than or on par with necessarily say Giannini, or Careca/Bebeto, respectively, which is more my borderline 200 range).
I remember now anyway that CristianoPuskas had posted the Gamblin quote about Gallacher on one of his threads (still good to see the full report from Isaque anyway though, plus I needed the reminder even if I recognised Gamblin's name probably because of that post by CP indeed). I had found this comment in the British press too though, with a North-East of England football figure having previously had Gallacher as his number 1 player, but replacing him with Raymond Kopa, in 1956: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/p...eir-best-players.2126578/page-6#post-41840795
No no nothing shady, it reads as it writes don't worry. Double extra cheese since you called ridiculous my granddad too. There's that guy on another thread who said he watched Italy-Brazil 38 and compares Meazza to Maradona, you might as well go say "daydreaming", "ridiculous" and "hopeless" ecc ecc to him as well, I know childish folks like you take delight in such behavior just to feel relevant. Who knows why the most diverse people who saw Meazza play (but the same logic applies to every other player) compare him to Platini, Cruyff, Pele, Maradona, Ronaldo, Baggio, Rivera, then comes the silly guy who has hardly seen a single one of these players first hand and who asks Google AI to pretend having an "opinion" or an "argument", not even disagreeing which is fine as long as one arguments (which you don't do anyway), but playing the smartass and insulting people from behind a screen. Now given that you don't have opinions as such and apparently nobody taught you how to behave, and despite several attempts at kindly making you understand you should tone down and interact in a more mature way, obviously to no avail, as long as we're all behind our screens kindly stay the F away from interacting with me. If anyone is ok with your attitude, awesome, interact with them. I don't offend or mock anyone, I don't ask for anyone to agree with me, I just argument my point of view and try to do it on objective basis. I don't see content in what you write, just pettiness for its own sake. The only possible alternative is me starting to insult in return, so I don't know how that would benefit the thread, and I for sure don't want to partake in such debasement. Hope that is very clear, read twice or more until you get it. By the way, a summary as to why the beginnings of football broadcasting are to be set in the mid 50s and specifically with those two games and not with a few stuff scattered through the previous 15 years (of which the only two FA Cup finals dating before the wars, and the only 3 pro internationals two of which featuring, uh, Matthews) can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_football_on_UK_television other than in the fact that public TV service, and consequently people buying TVs, as well as football broadcasting, across Europe started between 1954, 1956 (Eurovision) and 1960. Coincidentally, Blackpool-Bolton and England-Hungary from 1953 are the oldest TV broadcasts of a football match existing today. Then what's the bit about Meazza "not so informed" and bla bla? It says "all time best Italian football player ecc ecc" if anything it contradicts whatever you seem to be trying to convey, but I get you don't even know what you're posting yourself, you just try to make random petty remarks to get attention. Of course you'll reply because folks like you reply ad infinitum, fine, it will be ignored though. Conversation ends here as far as I'm concerned ok? See ya (not)
Now to be back on topic. The question of whether it’s possible to compare players from different time periods probably belongs to a dedicated topic, but this one still needs that question to be answered. For me, there are two ways to look at it. One is a general idea of “greatness”. Who are the “greatest of all time”, who were the greatest of their own era and how great were their achievements? Like say, Jesse Owens or Carl Lewis in athletics, Michael Jordan in basket, or Rod Laver in tennis or Ingemar Stenmark in skiing or Mohammad Ali in boxing and so on. Can their greatness be valid on an all time list? Well I guess we can all agree it does. It’s not that at some point Ali will cease to be an all time great, or that he’ll become “less great”. Maybe there will or won’t be other boxers making greater achievements, but in that case Ali would step one position down for each boxer succeeding in achieving more. Or maybe the fact that no other boxer might be able to achieve as much, in terms not only of individual skill but of titles, resume, great bouts, difficulties overcome, level of competition ecc, whatever constitutes what we call “greatness”, could make his status even greater. This applies to everything including football I think. Another way is to say if we’re able to rank players on a ladder based solely on I don’t know, let’s call it “how good/strong they are/were in absolute terms if we put them on a flat line”. Which in good part, reverts us back to the former criteria. Not incidentally, as soon as Argentina won the last WC, it was like popping a bottle of champagne with “Now Messi has surpassed Maradona” spraying out after years of compression. But the same can be said about C. Ronaldo. Their ballon d’or wins, their titles, their goal tally, etc etc are what it’s talked about way more than their playing qualities, which are there but are way harder to objectify. Because the truth is, to know how good a player is we have to measure him up against the players he competed with or against. Then something strange happens. Football is 162 years old “officially” as of today. There are too many players and none has seen them all, in many cases never will. Everyone has a favorite player, usually dating back from around his teens because that’s when people watch the most football with the most emotional/sentimental investment (but any other personal bias can be the factor too, such as nation or club), and incidentally that player becomes the GOAT and the era he played in becomes the “hardest” era. And of course on the other hand, the dismissal of any other’s personal favourite comes from the bashing of the era the latter played in. So we find out that “today is way faster and tactics and bla bla” or that “Maradona played in the best league and against the best defenders of all time” or that “Pele played against plumbers and miners” or “Pele played on potato fields with 3kg balls and no yellow or red cards” etc. Because the only thing that matters is to dismiss the competition against our “hero” on one hand, and to restrict the time window to the one closest to us in order to make things easier and reduce our own confusion and lack of information. So I thought of making things simple, since as my famous connational Leonardo da Vinci said “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication”, and to use some basic logic, which as far as we’re concerned is based on Aristotle’s formulations and sillogisms; particularly in this case the “transitive property”, which says that if A is in relation/comparable with B and B is in relation/comparable with C, then A is in relation/comparable with C. And also the principle of “tertium non datur”: given two contradictory statements (in this case, “A is in relation/comparable with B and subsequently C” and “A is not in relation etc”) only one must necessarily be true, the other being necessarily false. To summarize, if Player A is comparable to Player B and Player B to Player C, then Player A is comparable to Player C, and the opposite (Players being not comparable) is not true. Extending it to a series of N players, we just have the homogeneous sequence Player A, B, C, …, N. Now I’ll post a list I made of football players based on their date of birth. I ask a question: can happen, and if so whan, that Player A is no longer comparable to player (A+x, or N-x) where 0 < x < N? The list is willingly stupidly long and redundant, but it’s far from being exhaustive: there are a lot of great/famous players missing, including several ballon d’or winners such as Rivaldo, Papin, Belanov, Sammer, Deco, Nedved, and of course a lot of players from early football (I only included some great personalities or players distinguished for some particular feat) and the latest years (I only included a few famous ones that came to my mind quickly). So forgive me for the length, but I wanted to get the idea across visually. But wait: this is only the first part of the concept! I’ll post the second part tomorrow if I can, concerning other factors that have intervened in the game across time, as well as a specification on how do we get the criteria to compare Player A with Player B ecc. But for now, it could be food for thought to just scroll through this list as through a continuum.
Alec Morten 1831/32 Oldest born player to ever play in an international C.W. Alcock 1842 “Father of modern sport”, founder of Wanderers, founder of the FA Cup A. Kinnaird 1847 “The first greatest footballer”, record finalist of FA Cup, longtime secretary of the FA J.C. Clegg 1850 Prominent figure of Sheffield football, longtime member of the FA Board W.M. MacKinnon 1852 Scottish, first ever overhead kick goal scored in an international, first record apps Walpole Vidal 1853 F. Suter 1857 First acknowledged professional W. Mosforth 1859 Oldest born player to be featured among the Greats in “Association Football…” A. Hunter 1859 Oldest born player to be featured among the Greats in “Association Football…” J. Goodall 1863 P.M. Walters 1863 Neville Cobbold 1893 A.M. Walters 1865 B. Kelso 1865 T. Lindley 1865 W. Bassett 1869 G.O. Smith 1872 E. Needham 1873 S. Bloomer 1874 W. Meredith 1874 R. McColl 1876 R. Walker 1879 V. Woodward 1879 Charles Roberts 1883 H. Hampton 1885 I. Schlosser 1889 J. Piendibene 1890 C. Buchan 1891 A. Friedenreich 1892 A. Morton 1893 Angel Romano 1893 A. Schaffer 1893 R. De Vecchi 1894 K. Pesek Kada 1895 Harry Chambers 1896 P. Alcàntara 1896 I. Gradin 1897 A. Baloncieri 1897 H. Scarone 1898 David Jack 1898 L. Monti 1900 Pedro Cea 1900 J. Nasazzi 1901 G. Orth 1901 R. Orsi 1901 R. Zamora 1901 A. James 1901 J. Samitier 1902 F. Hirzer 1902 Manuel Seoane 1902 Max Abegglen 1902 M. Sindelar 1903 H. Gallacher 1903 F. Planicka 1904 M. Ferreira 1905 G. Stàbile 1905 P. Petrone 1905 R. Cesarini 1906 Dixie Dean 1907 A. Puc 1907 R. Braine 1907 G. Ferrari 1907 C. Peucelle 1908 O. Nejedly 1909 A. Abegglen 1909 Bernabè Ferreira 1909 G. Meazza 1910 A. Sastre 1911 F. Binder 1911 G. Sarosi 1912 C. Bastin 1912 T. Drake 1912 D. Da Guia 1920 Leonidas 1913 S. Piola 1913 J. Bican 1913 Felice Borel II 1914 G. Zsengeller 1915 S. Matthews 1915 A. Erico 1915 J.M. Moreno 1916 Larbi Benbarek 1917 O. Varela 1917 A. Pedernera 1918 W. Mannion 1918 T. Lawton 1919 V. Mazzola 1919 F. Walter 1920 G. Gren 1920 Zizinho 1921 S. Mortensen 1921 Ademir 1922 T. Finney 1922 N. Hidegkuti 1922 N. Liedholm 1922 S. Bobek 1923 F. Wilkes 1923 I. Nyers 1924 W. Wright 1924 G. Nordhal 1925 N. Lofthouse 1925 J. Bozsik 1925 J.A. Schiaffino 1925 Nilton Santos 1925 A. Di Stefano 1926 E. Ocwirk 1926 Estanislau Basora 1926 L. Kubala 1927 F. Puskas 1927 D. Santos 1927 B. Vukas 1927 G. Boniperti 1928 H. Rial 1928 Didì 1928 L. Skoglund 1929 S. Kocsis 1929 L. Yashin 1929 Julinho Botelho 1929 Gilmar 1930 I. Netto 1930 R. Kopa 1931 J. Masopust 1931 J. Charles 1931 Paco Gento 1933 J. Fontaine 1933 Garrincha 1933 Vavà 1934 J. Haynes 1934 K. Hamrin 1934 J. Sanfilippo 1935 M. Coluna 1935 L. Suarez 1935 O. Sivori 1935 D. Edwards 1936 U. Seeler 1936 D. Sekularac 1937 A.V. Angelillo 1937 R. Charlton 1937 J. Altafini 1938 Amarildo 1939 A. Amancio 1939 J. Baxter 1939 K.H. Schnellinger 1939 Pelè 1940 D. Law 1940 J. Greaves 1940 F. Albert 1941 R. Moore 1941 Gerson 1941 P. Rocha 1942 Eusebio 1942 S. Mazzola 1942 G. Facchetti 1942 D. Zoff 1942 G. Rivera 1943 Coutinho 1943 W. Overath 1943 L. Riva 1944 G. Netzer 1944 W. Van Hanegem 1944 Jairzinho 1944 C. Alberto Torres 1944 F. Beckenbauer 1945 G. Muller 1945 L. Mazurkiewicz G. Best 1946 Rivellino 1946 D. Dzajic 1946 J. Cruyff 1947 Tostao 1947 K. Deyna 1947 T. Cubillas 1949 F. Causio 1949 R. Krol 1949 G. Lato 1950 R. Bettega 1950 J. Neeskens 1951 K. Dalglish 1951 K. Keegan 1951 O. Ardiles 1952 A. Giresse 1952 A. Simonsen 1952 O. Blokhin 1952 G. Scirea 1953 D. Passarella 1953 P. R. Falcao 1953 Zico 1953 M. Kempes 1954 M. Tardelli 1954 Socrates 1954 B. Conti 1954 K.H. Rummenigge 1955 M. Platini 1955 P. Rossi 1956 L. Brady 1956 Z. Boniek 1956 J. Ceulemans 1957 P. Elkjaer 1957 K. Augenthaler 1957 Rabah Madjer 1958 S. Lerby 1958 B. Schuster 1959 Ricardo Gallego 1959 Careca 1960 D. Maradona 1960 R. Voeller 1960 F. Baresi 1960 E. Francescoli 1961 L. Matthaus 1961 C. Valderrama 1961 R. Gullit 1962 F. Rijkaard 1962 E. Butragueno 1963 R. Koeman 1963 Dunga 1963 Mìchel 1963 R. Mancini 1964 G. Vialli 1964 M. Laudrup 1964 M. Van Basten 1964 D. Stojkovic 1965 G. Hagi 1965 D. Savicevic 1966 R. Sosa 1966 E. Cantona 1966 Romario 1966 G. Weah 1966 R. Baggio 1967 L. Nilis 1967 P. Gascoigne 1967 P. Maldini 1968 D. Suker 1968 F. Hierro 1968 Z. Boban 1968 Leonardo 1969 P. Mijatovic 1969 D. Bergkamp 1969 G. Batistuta 1969 M. Cafù 1970 A. Peruzzi 1970 F. & R. De Boer 1970 A. Shearer 1970 P. Guardiola 1971 J. Litmanen 1971 R. Keane 1971 M. Rui Costa 1972 L. Figo 1972 Z. Zidane 1972 P. Nedved 1972 R. Giggs 1973 M. Overmars 1973 E. Davids 1973 Roberto Carlos 1973 P. Scholes 1974 A. Del Piero 1974 F. Cannavaro 1974 D. Beckham 1975 J. Veron 1975 H. Crespo 1975 Ronaldo 1976 F. Totti 1976 C. Seedorf 1976 A. Nesta 1976 A. Shevchenko 1976 G. Raul 1977 T. Henry 1977 D. Trezeguet 1977 F. Lampard 1978 G. Buffon 1978 J.R. Riquelme 1978 D. Drogba 1978 C. Puyol 1978 A. Pirlo 1979 M. Owen 1979 Xavi 1980 Ronaldinho 1980 S. Gerrard 1980 S. Eto’o 1981 D. Villa 1981 Z. Ibrahimovic 1981 Adriano 1982 R. Kakà 1982 D. De Rossi 1983 P. Lahm 1983 F. Ribery 1983 R. Van Persie 1983 B. Schweinsteiger 1984 A. Iniesta 1984 F. Torres 1984 A. Robben 1984 C. Tevez 1984 C. Ronaldo 1985 W. Rooney 1985 L. Modric 1985 S. Ramos 1986 E. Dzeko 1986 M. Neuer 1986 L. Messi 1987 C. Fabregas 1987 K. Benzema 1987 L. Suarez 1987 M. Ozil 1988 S. Aguero 1988 R. Lewandowski 1988 S. Busquets 1988 A. Di Maria 1988 G. Bale 1989 T. Muller 1989 T. Kroos 1990 E. Hazard 1991 K. De Bruyne 1991 A. Griezmann 1991 V. Van Dijk 1991 Neymar 1992 T. Courtois 1992 S. Manè 1992 M. Salah 1992 P. Pogba 1993 H. Kane 1993 R. Sterling 1994 Bernardo Silva 1994 J. Kimmich 1995 Rodri 1996 Lautaro Martinez 1997 N. Barella 1997 K. Mbappè 1998 T. Alexander-Arnold 1998 Rafael Leao 1999 E. Haaland 2000 Vinicius Jr 2000 K. Kvaraschkelia 2001 J. Bellingham 2003 J. Musiala 2003 L. Yamal 2007
I understand what you mean here, and I think in a way it can be applied to Formula 1 for example (a sport where actually it's much harder to 'see' and appreciate the skills of the participant too and what makes them stand out, especially for casual viewers) - Senna was (more often than not) quicker around a track than Berger who was more even with Mansell who was quicker generally than Patrese, but not by as much or as often as Michael Schumacher was etc. Although many factors can make things difficult to assess still, primarily age and suitability to the cars (and the links above would seem to fall down on Boutsen/Berger as team-mates in theory - I would assume Berger was not settled as F1 driver yet and Boutsen being close with Patrese at Williams is realistic, but these kinds of assumptions have to be made so it's not perfect - also J.Villeneuve/D.Hill/Frentzen is complicated to understand for example, or Hulkenberg/Sainz/Ricciado/Norris recently (my idea would be Ricciardo was genuinely unsuited to McLaren car when he went there, but again it's an assumption).... But yeah if Meazza was comparable to Matthews at peak in 30s, and Matthews (let's say having not declined a lot despite age) was comparable to most players except perhaps Puskas and Di Stefano arguably in 50s, and Puskas/Di Stefano weren't far away from Pele at least....then this sort of connection could be made. Obviously it'd just be a lot easier for us to make up our own minds if we could see as much footage from the 1930s as from the 1990s for example (even if it would be a big task to go ahead and watch as much as those of us that followed the 1990s in real time have seen from that decade overall, at the time plus retrospectively, still). Also because different quotes from different older guys would lead us in different directions I suppose too. Overall I think it's more realistic for me to attempt a list (of my own estimation) from 1946 onwards at earliest, but it doesn't mean it's actually realistic (even in 'time machine' terms necessarily, comparing the players directly - I understand that TerjeC does feel, or perceive, strongly/clearly against this in general though, which is why there is friction between you primarily I think to be honest) to exclude all the players from before that time, within 100 names. It's just I couldn't really be sure I got the right names or placed them in realistic places (with or without some allowances for different eras) - I said it was 'benefit of the doubt' when I made some attempt too, but it doesn't necessarily mean Meazza (or another player) couldn't go higher. It's kind of guesswork to put them in, even though yeah if a strong conclusion could be formed that Matthews was similar in 1930s to 1950s (a better scorer, not quite as reliable in service perhaps) and that him vs Meazza would be uncertain then in theory there's some basis for going from there. I could reduce the benefit of the doubt slightly for a historic top 100 players attempt (not purely on level for era, otherwise obviously yeah some earlier players ought to be nearer the top anyway I would think) and end with Meazza 42nd, Piola 55th, Sindelar 64th, Sarosi 79th, Pedernera 90th, Bican 91st or something but it's just as much guesswork still (I do think for example Brian Glanville must also have relied on guesswork and word of mouth quite a bit when putting in players like Buchan or Charlie Roberts for example in his 1997 list though; even for James and Bastin he probably did, despite being an Arsenal fan I believe, so knowing of them like I would know of John Robertson or Trevor Francis as a youngster being a Forest fan).
Btw @Falcao76 I see that you are well-educated on what early games were available to watch for TV viewers, but I don't know whether you were unaware of this one or not (it was shortly before England vs Hungary of course) - it's a good watch anyway for sure: England vs. Rest of the World 1953 | Footballia
"The only possible alternative is me starting to insult in return, so I don't know how that would benefit the thread, and I for sure don't want to partake in such debasement." You have made a lot already, just because I called out some hopeless comparisons you wrote. I have kept it to football, you're going personal. And I thought you shut down the conversation last time, but then you suddenly come back one week later just to make some more insults – which you just wrote would not benefit the thread. And then you want to shut it down a second time – for another week I presume? Maybe your self-image took a hit – you did write you could start a religion and could be seen as a demiurge if you just wanted, after all. Your attitude is easy to read, it has been apparent since your very first reply, but it certainly doesn't match with your understanding of the game. It's all very upside-down with you, really. Still, while your opinions is far from reliable I would say, you do have a good football history knowledge, I think. Some questions were you could be useful: Could you confirm or reject if Meazza managed to predict outcome of 15/15 matches wrong? Did you see footage of Orsi recreating his goal in 1968? Maybe it wasn't a literal recreation, but a "recreation"? Do you have a YouTube-link to Piola's handball goal? The Wikipedia link you provided is nice overview, but doesn't change the fact 1953 wasn't the very first broadcasted games as you claimed. Meazza "not so informed" piece from 1959 contradicts comparing Meazza to Roberto Baggio, Messi, Ronaldo et al. as an hopeless exercise? How so? It was just a funny story I found in newspaper archives about Meazza. I don't doubt he was considered the greatest Italian player in 1959. Boniperti, and probably Mazzola, better players, though, but not two time "World Champions". The first one were rigged, though, by the fascist, and the second would not happen if not for a Nazi-Germany referee. The '82 and '06 ones is completely valid, though. I guess Valentino Mazzola would have been considered the greatest in 1959 if not for the two corrupted, and misleading, World Cup titles. William talks a lot, I have promised not to take all his opinions too seriously – like that one you're referring to. He write some posts that are worth a rep, though. I thought your initial question to him about 1938 WC sounded a bit ironic btw, but then I guess you backed down when he responded with print screen of Football Manager, and played along. But maybe you were serious from start? That would make more sense, really, considering you think comparing Meazza with Messi etc. is reasonable – and you "don't mock anyone" either of course, as you write, so it must have been the latter on second thought. You believed William was 95+ and still going strong, then. Sure, why not? ------------ C.W. Alcock 1842 “Father of modern sport”. Sounds exaggerating. Would you elaborate on this claim? "F. Suter 1857 First acknowledged professional" https://www.scottishsporthistory.co...rgie-suter-the-first-professional-footballers Gallacher was older than Sindelar. Wrong order. Nordahl not Nordhal, a common mistake I have seen on this forum. If you knew how to pronounce the name it should be easy to get it right. I never get it why people called him Julinho Botelho. Júlio Botelho or just Julinho. Vavá, not Vavà. Suárez. Sívori. Šekularac. Pelé. Gérson. Müller etc. Gallego played a season in Italy, got it. Valderrama for his hair? Míchel over Donadoni? R. Sosa, Augenthaler & L. Nilis your favourite players? Or are we playing odd one out? M. Cafù? G. Raul? Player A is not comparable with Player C because Player A don't have any footage that can be seen, while player C has a lot. Player B have some. Player A and Player B is also full of myths. Well done anyway. That must have taken quite the effort, and having it unranked is reasonable. Let's see what more you have got.
Yes of course, that's another lovely game! Great performance by Kubala and Vukas. I have all these games saved in YT playlists, should download them actually cause you never know. The F1 example you made is possibly even more extreme, since the motion instrument is totally external to the athlete, and most importantly self-propelled and partially self-maneuvered, so way more independent than say, a bike and even a motorbike. With pilots undergoing changes in technology for their vehicles on a yearly basis. Trying to assess "who is better at driving a sports car" would be kinda silly wouldn't it? Yet as seen in the Epstein video, technological advancements in equipment coincide mathematically with every single leap in time-measured performance in every sport (and he skips the influence of PEDs, whose improvement in performance can be measured very accurately as well). He even shows in regards to Merckx's hour record if I'm not mistaken, that cyclists from 20-30 years later weren't able to beat it if they used his same equipment. And we're talking about one of the sports where notoriously PEDs have an overwhelming presence and development, since the 19th century and including Merckx himself who was caught 3/4 times, but have advanced leaps and bounds since Merckx's times. Getting back to my last post about players, there's another question that I think must be answered: I considered a homogeneous series of players A, B, C, ..., N, but when is that we can say that a series of players is homogeneous? Because football didn't develop at the same time and pace everywhere. This is why I think the adoption of professionalism, tied with social reforms that regulated working hours (sometimes the latter coexisted with amateurism), is a reasonable parameter to warrant homogeneity. Not that it changes the talent of the single player, as we said in the exchange with @msioux75 if I'm correct. You adopt professionalism today, the best amateur players from yesterday are still the best. But professionalism uniforms the level of preparation, and encourages to raise this level; and also extends the pool of players, who would be otherwise forced to leave, or not enter at all, the playing career. This lifts up the level of competition, both in home tournaments and in subsequent international ones. The British experience from the 19th century proves that it takes a decade or so, including some years of fake amateurism, to complete this process. And also the difficulties in dealing with the physical aspect of the European game, of the otherwise widely talented South American players, further confirms that: in fact Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil went officially professional in the first half of the 30s, about +-5 years later than the main European countries. In the mid 20s they proved to be largely superior technically, and on par physically. The ultimate confirmation of the value of professionalism is given by the filling of the gap with British football by continental teams which is apparent by looking at the results. Before WWI, the English amateurs (some of which played among professionals though) were more than enough to mop the floor with European clubs and national teams. Already in 1920, England amateurs was kicked out of the Olympic games by Norway in the first round: this was one of the reasons they left FIFA, protesting that continental countries adopted covert professionalism and that this allowed them to field their best players at the Olympics, while England couldn't. But their pros still had an easy time in the spare internationals, despite England having a poor decade. Similarly their clubs generally won, although sometimes they drew or lost and generally didn't impress as much as South American teams. In the 30s things drastically changed and the world was already surpassing them, as the 50s would prove. This is the timeline of the adoption of professionalism in the main countries outside Britain: Austria, Spain - 1924 (though Spain would start a pro League only in 1928); Czech - 1925; Hungary - 1926; Italy - Formally 1926, unregulated since 1923 (in 1926 there were already 80 foreign professionals, mostly Hungarian, plus the Italians; the first case of paid transfer being De Vecchi in the remote 1913); France - 1931; Argentina - 1930/1934 (secession of 18 clubs and then reunification with the AFA); Uruguay - 1932; Brazil - 1933; Germany - Birth of pro Reichsliga in 1932, suppressed by Hitler shortly afterwards, football remained amateur. Next post I'll do (trying to be synthetic...) about the evolution of factors such as equipment and PEDs, and I think after that we can have a panoramic view over the whole thing and try to wrap it up
"Already in 1920, England amateurs was kicked out of the Olympic games by Norway in the first round: this was one of the reasons they left FIFA, protesting that continental countries adopted covert professionalism and that this allowed them to field their best players at the Olympics, while England couldn't." You have no clue about this. Norway were fully amateur, 100%. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_at_the_1924_Summer_Olympics
I've made this exercise. An Alltime Top 200 ranking crossing by decade Better Prewar players are Meazza, Moreno, Sindelar in my top25 The next older player is Héctor Scarone, in my top50 (alongside Sárosi, Zizinho, Matthews, Pedernera) From Scarone's generation appears Leandro Andrade in my top100 Older than him, comes Billy Meredith in my top200
Yeah, W. Stapley played more than once for England amateurs – according to englandfootballonline.com he played six times; two in 1911 and four in 1914. I just had a quick glance at Wikipedia, which said one game and five goals (but that must have been his brother). I corrected it to six games. Likely that William is correct name, though, not Walter. http://www.englandfootballonline.com/matchrsl/MatchRslAm.html Yeah, I would think Friedenreich were better technically than all those I mentioned, but not night and day in difference. I would think most, if not all, were better goalscorers than Friedenreich on the other hand though. I see it likely he would have become too much of a lightweight in the English League, not able to produce what the five mentioned players did. Here the Winkler quote could be useful: "it's true that he played well in the field, but he has neither breakthrough ability nor shot." Would be possible to think he could struggle against relatively well-organized & physical strong defenses. Don't think he was especially strong at headers either. G. O. Smith was very skilled for his time, yeah, a creator which Bloomer very much appreciated playing with. But he played most of his career in 1890s. And in general I am on the side of there having been constant improvement, yes – I get that impression from all footage I have seen, and don't see why it shouldn't be like that before footage is available too. It's only natural, really. And Herbert Chapman put Shepherd in his old timer-team (pre-1920, I think), not Smith (or Woodward). Shepherd seem very strong until his serious injury in March 1911, or what month it was – clearly ahead of his fellow '85-er Hampton at this point. Also, as I mentioned the other day, the amateurs got hyped in my opinion. Probably, I would think, Robert Walker, mentioned previously, were a level above G. O. Smith. I think all the names I mentioned – Wilson, Watson, Buchan, Hampton and Shepherd – would be more useful for a team, than G. O. Smith. I find that very likely, actually.
Yeah, actually in my first reaction to that game I picked out Vukas and Kubala, along with Matthews, the most, too: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/the-best-games-of-the-best-players.2071047/page-35#post-40803481 Re: Formula 1, I probably should have clarified (rather than maybe assuming you might follow the sport just because you're Italian, or something, instinctively, maybe!) that those comparisons I did were between team-mates (driving the same cars at the same times) - yeah obviously the biggest variable in terms of lap times is the machinery they are driving (though the driver can still make a significant difference, and in the past it could tend to be a bit more even I think, due to the older cars being less advanced and with more room for differences between guys driving the same car). Yes, the point about how developed different football nations were is applicable I think, even though there can be examples where a talented player is at a level that might not be expected to come from his nation at a certain point.