The 100 best players of all time - Suggestions

Rinat Dasaev (URSS)
Manuel Neuer (Germany)
Edwin van der Sar (Netherlands)
David de Gea (Spain)
Andoni Zubizareta (Spain)

 

Fabio Cannavaro (Italy)
Fernando Hierro (Spain)
John Terry (England)
Gheorghe Popescu (Romania, former Barcelona captain)
Gianluca Zambrotta (Italy)
Nemanja Vidic (Serbia)
Patrice Evra (France)
Laurent Blanc (France)
Roberto Carlos (Brazil)
Alessandro Costacurta (Italy)
Jaap Stam (Netherlands)
Lothar Matthaeus (Germany)
Ivan Cordoba (Colombia)
Tony Adams (England, not sure if this guy was a big defender, but he's a big name )
Gary Neville (England)
Rio Ferdinand (England)
Dan Petrescu (Romania, not as big as the others - probably - but, he's Romanian, and I'm Romanian, so...)
Nestor Sensini (Argentina)
Javier Zanetti (Argentina)
Igor Tudor (Croatia, not sure about this one)
Carles Puyol (Spain)
Lucio (Brazil)
Rigobert Song (Cameroon)
Walter Samuel (Argentina)
Ashley Cole (England)
Robert Kovac (Croatia)
Christian Panucci (Italy)
Daniel van Buyten (Belgium)

And I'll end it here (I only checked Wikipedia for the WC 1998 and 2002 squads, and look with how many big names I could come up with )... There are definitely more of them, but I'm getting bored

 

there are no footages showing how they were great, we can find only mythic arc. how can compare Schlosser with Piendibene, who can affirm Piola was better than Binder, nobody saw Szepan & F. Walter. this is why I consider only post-1958 players. surely I also respect ancient greatests. anyway I take what you say, and encourage your effort.

 

Neuer has already won everything that was put on the table, while other goalies on your list haven't. So... if that's not an indicator of how good a goalkeeper is, I'm not sure which one is. Just add Neuer already, the guy's too good already and he's not even in his 30s

 

Interesting, thanks. I guess Di Percruydona will get something from that comment too, although primarily he's looking to resolve his ideas about borderline top 100 candidates I suppose and only possibly Xavi would be in the in/out scenario I guess.

And yeah, maybe I just think of absolute as being relative sometimes so in effect I am also thinking in relative terms (although as I suggested before I feel the fitness of a lot of the players would be good enough to at least start the games competitively even if some would require surely some adjustment to the different way the game is generally played and some wouldn't suit modern football as well or would need to play a different role perhaps - thinking of Ocwirk after focusing on him on the other thread, I don't really know if he'd be a Busquets with the passing of Alonso say, or he'd get a bit overwhelmed or certainly require a DM or an athlete to partner him in midfield - the problem with players like that is not only analysing the footage but also the lack of it as on what can be seen it could even appear he was a bit more dextrous and agile at Sampdoria than earlier which seems a bit counter-intuitive although I think it was always his use of the ball which was his best asset apparently).

 

What I do think is by all accounts, including his own, he would attempt to play the game in a fairer manner than Busquets does/has (less fouls, less simulation etc). On one hand that might disadvantage him, although with the tightening rules maybe that approach would genuinely be an asset. Hard to say again. But generally, it'd be players like George Best who I'd be much more confident with in terms of being great in the modern game (even without the modern conditioning, but certainly with it) at least on 'his day' (and so having a genuine place with any definition as one of the 100 'best' literally - I used the number 100 even though I'd narrow it a lot more ofc).

Ocwirk is number 5 here and this is about as much as I've seen in terms of prolonged highlights (perhaps there are some copies of full Austrian games from the 1954 WC though - I didn't check any DVD sales websites before this post but I know a lot of World Cup games can be bought). Going slightly off topic for this thread, but interesting to see the way the number 5 and number 9 were used at that time by Austria (probably similar to how the team played when Sindelar was number 9 - and with some relevance to this thread I suppose it can be suggested Sindelar of just 20 years before this game was likely considered a better player in that role literally than the player we see here). Different but with some similarity to the Bozsik-Hidegkuti combo perhaps; moreso than the Zito-Didi combo anyway. Also to get a glimpse of the way the old style half-backs play defensively and offensively:

 

It feels as a very British/English call to give Hungary the same number of spots as the Netherlands (six) and even one more than France (five), although I'd agree that Hungary was unlucky in 1938 and 1954 (the Robbery of Bern). Hungary was a tier lower than the British nations themselves until the late 1920s/early 1930s (imho).

A more logical distribution among them would be eight/seven (France), six/five (Netherlands) and four/three (Hungary).

Semi final appearances at major tournaments 1960 - 2014 (European countries)

Germany 18/28
Italy 11/28
Netherlands 10/28 (10/21 since 1974)
France 8/28
Russia/USSR 7/28
Portugal 6/28
Czech/Czechoslovakia 6/28
Spain 5/28
England 4/28
Serbia/Yugoslavia 4/28
Belgium 3/28
Denmark 3/28
Hungary 2/28
Poland 2/28
Sweden 2/28

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings#Highest_average_ratings_since_1970

 

Not entirely comparable but here the South American countries since 'modern football' started.

Semi final appearances at major tournaments 1960 - 2014

Brazil 19/31 (WC: 8/14)
Argentina 13/31 (WC: 4/14)
Uruguay 13/31 (WC: 2/14)
Chile 7/31 (WC: 1/14)
Colombia 7/31 (WC: 0/14)
Paraguay 7/31 (WC: 0/14)
Peru 4/31 (WC: 0/14)
Ecuador 1/31 (WC: 0/14)

 

Modern football begins in the 50s with the Magyars' innovations and the rise to supremacy of Brazil.

 

By 1960 the European Championships had started and the European Cup was beyond its infancy and teething years. Also the Fairs Cup (except for a pilot edition between 1955-1958 with teams as a "London XI" and a 1958-1960 edition with an incomplete field) and Cup Winners Cup started in 1960. All major international competitions had matured, only the European Championships was in the start-up phase.

Many of the best countries didn't participate until the 1954 World Cup, and had vastly imbalanced groups. Including qualifiers Uruguay only needed to play 4 games in 1950! (and win three). The 1958 World Cup was possibly the first truly modern one with balanced groups (where every team played against all other teams of their group), but on the other hand many top tier teams were clearly weakened for various reasons: England, Sweden, Hungary, Soviet Union, Argentina (with the superstar teams Spain and Italy not qualifying). Then during the tournament also Jonquet and Charles got lost at crucial moments. But alright, 1958 is a defensible starting point; 1956 or 1954 not so much.

Which 1950s innovations do you specifically mean? If so, then I assume they influenced others from the 1950s onward? (the dominant narrative with regards to England is that England did not really change and kept on making the same 'mistakes'). For ex. 1960s and 1970s Netherlands unmistakably influenced Spain (needs no explanation but read the 'Furia Roja' book if you want a source), France (through Kovacs), Denmark (source: 'Danish Dynamite' book) and even Italy (source: John Foot's 'Calcio' book) - to name a few.

Maybe, but personally I'm not convinced, South America as well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/timvickery/2010/07/netherlands_v_brazil_1974.html
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2012/jul/25/italy-brazil-1982
https://books.google.nl/books?id=mH0vBgAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=shocking brazil&hl=nl&pg=PT110#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.nl/books?id=POTYBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA91&dq=tim vickery brazil 1974&hl=nl&pg=PA89#v=onepage&q&f=false


Deconstructing 1950s Hungary their tactics (was it WM or 4-2-4 before Brazil did in 1958?):
http://spielverlagerung.de/2012/10/16/retroanalyse-england-vs-ungarn-36-22-11-1953/
http://spielverlagerung.de/2015/12/03/tuerchen-3-jozsef-bozsik/


As I posted previously:

Of course, such assertions become stronger in credibility when reporters/authors of that time made the same links and could sufficiently elaborate on those observations. It's also easy to shout that Sarosi was the original total football player, or Uruguay's Andrade even.
The often mentioned 'whirl' theory ("the future of football") by Meisl was written in 1955-1956, as idealized picture for the future, when the Hungarians had already emerged and showed their peak.
Even Eric Batty, by no means a friend of the Dutch (he was a self-declared Teutophile), and who always looked back to the 50s with nostalgia (Puskas & Di Stefano as his heroes), saw it as something that had yet to emerge by the early 1960s ( http://www.xtratime.org/forum/showpost.php?p=9341427&postcount=42 ).
The thing is that the popular accounts who doubt the originality of the 'total football' approach conflict each other (the two popular assertions revolving around 'the Whirl' and the Magical Magyars). Then it can be argued too that Meisl didn't get into the necessary high line and offside trap, as two of the most obvious ingredients, for letting 'total football' blossom (because a high line makes interchanging positions a lot easier...), and Batty nor Bukovi did either.
On the other extreme end of the spectrum there's Carlos Alberto Torres (1970WC winning captain), certainly an intelligent man with a career after football, who has claimed 'total football' was the last significant innovation.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cqBWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dOcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5421,1809480

 

I give a normal reply with substantiation and you act as a cancer again.

 

Hmm, you already saw my choices of course (but on basis of 'best' which as you say is not compatible completely or easy to gauge).

But I would vote to keep Tigana in for sure (I guess I would have more midfielders, but I'd not have set out to have a certain % even though I don't say that is a bad way to do things necessarily). I also feel Vieira was plenty good enough and with a significant enough career, but I suppose opinion tends to split on him vs Keane so leaving out or including both might seem fitting in a way.

But I suppose when it comes to narrowing it to 100, then Tigana might be in danger of being cut even in my view - I dunno - I haven't thought that far when it comes to longevity etc although maybe there is a case for a second 1980's French player to represent that Magic Square Euro winning generation (and like I say IMO Tigana was plenty good enough so that it wouldn't be a token gesture)? Anyway, seems like he's not in your mind as a top 100 candidate if you are thinking of removing him from your original shortlist.

 

I'd have to count up but I possibly don't have more when it comes to central/defensive midfielders alone (maybe I have more when AM's are added). Whatever the answer, I wouldn't think that would change hugely after factoring in longevity and trying to even the spread of eras in my selection anyway. I do have less goalkeepers obviously, and less defenders than peter had when it comes to a top 100.

 

Ok thanks mate for the explanation. It would be for peak ability/effectiveness primarily that I'd be thinking of them for ofc, but indeed I suppose it's easier to get a gauge on Vieira's consistency and longevity and feel conclusively it's also 'good enough'.

Apologies for quoting comme again rather than leaving him to comment, but to put his opinion of Tigana into a positive light I can say he did write this:

"Yet to focus solely on his physical attributes is to ignore the subtlety of passing and the lightness of touch that the man from Mali demonstrated. Tigana was more than just an athlete, he was a complete footballer, comfortable and confident in multiple situations."
http://ademirtozizinho.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/le-carre-magique.html

Which is exactly my feeling/observation too. When it comes to Vieira I do recall comme doesn't rate him at the sort of level we are talking about though (like I say the opinions on him and Keane do vary a bit I think, with some feeling one may be all-timer material and others feeling the other has a better case). Vieira did end up being placed in the Premier League XI picked by Sky Sports pundits not long ago though for example (a couple of the pundits were ex-Arsenal players to be fair though lol!).

I think Tigana did show his class in 1982 too once he came into the team which then eventually lined up with the 4 midfielders. But I would say Euro 84 was his real high point for the NT.

I suppose the French league being not so high profile could cost him when it came to Ballon d'Or votes, although less so than players of some countries I suppose (and ofc it was organised in France even if journalists were spread over Europe).
This sort of game would be only a big thing in France perhaps (he gets a nice assist from kick-off)

Wheras maybe this one, the Final, might get more attention but less so than the English Cup Final over Europe for example still I'd think:

 

To chip on what you say: he has also a respectable amount of European Cup/UC/CWC games (47 games). Which was of course when it was KO only (the 'best' outfield player has 95). Yes, at euro 1984 he has also the output added to his case with 3 assists. He was runner-up in the Ballon d'Or and the 'original' #14 bearer said November 1984 Platini and Tigana were the two best players in the world (http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1984/11/06/pagina-6/1122828/pdf.html).

He struck my eye as playing extremely well in 1989 UEFA Cup tie against Napoli, which Bordeaux nevertheless lost of course. It's a tie worth watching. Don't know where to place him against other central midfielders (he was a perfectly balanced one, also able to play in defense) but he was a class player for a decade I'd say (from 1979 to 1989 or 1990). It is certainly not correct to limit his prime to two/four years. I remember I typed it before but imho this combination of style and impossibility to point out whether his defensive or offensive capabilities were better is rare (with 99% of the other great midfield players you can identify a stronger side). In his instance it seemed to have been melted together, almost.

edit: No disrespect to the others in the list but he can hold his own against Blanchflower, Gerrard, Neeskens, Redondo I'd say.