We are going to try to provide the information we have to try to discover who were the best footballers of the 1978 World Cup. SURVEY "EL GRÁFICO" Interesting information served by Vegan10. 43 international journalists chose the best 5 in the World Cup (counting 5 for the 1st, 4 for the 2nd, 3 for the 3rd, 2 for the 4th and 1 for the 5th). In parentheses the number of times they were voted: 1.- Kempes: 144 points (35) 2.- Rossi: 79 (26) 3.- Fillol: 56 (15) 4.- Krol: 43 (14) 5.- Dirceu: 36 (12) 6.- Luque: 35 (11) 7.- Rensenbrink: 33 (12) 8.- Krankl: 32 (14) 9.- Haan: 23 (7) 10.- Hellstrom: 17 (7) 11.- Cubillas: 16 (6) 12.- Tresor: 14 (5) 13.- Bettega: 10 (5) 14.- Platini: 10 (3) 15.- Six: 8 (4) 16.- Boniek: 7 (3) Passarella: 7 (3) 18.- Prohaska: 7 (2) 19.- Rep: 6 (2) 20.- Batista: 5 (2) 21.- Nelinho: 4 (2) Amaral: 4 (2) 23.- Rummenigge: 4 (1) Toninho: 4 (1) Leao: 4 (1) Pezzey: 4 (1) Quiroga: 4 (1) Bellugi: 4 (1) 29.- Óscar: 3 (2) Lato: 3 (2) 31.- Ardiles: 3 (1) 32.- Cabrini: 2 (1) Brandts: 2 (1) Gentile: 2 (1) Cueto: 2 (1) 36.- Muñante: 1 (1) Michel: 1 (1) Poortvliet: 1 (1) Tardelli: 1 (1) Nawalka: 1 (1) Neeskens: 1 (1) Vogts: 1 (1) Van de Kerkhof, René: 1 (1)
In the past I also posted the quasi 'official' journalist vote. Rossi was 2nd there, Krankl and Dirceu shared 3rd. Kempes 1st. http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/fifa-awards.html (rsssf forgot to list Krankl next to Dirceu) Interesting though that the censored dictatorship source (El Grafico, with their forged Krol letter) places the formal leader and captain Passarella relatively low, although Kempes monopolizing the vote might not help him. Today the Optajoe Twitter account has posted some stats for the 1978 world cup. https://mobile.twitter.com/optajoe
50 - Peru’s Ramón Quiroga made 50 saves in this tournament, surpassing 10 in a single game on two occasions. Since this data is first available (1966), Quiroga’s 50 saves are comfortably the highest in a single tournament. Whack-A-Mole. #OptaWCYears pic.twitter.com/VUPgGFj5Id— OptaJoe (@OptaJoe) May 4, 2020 He actually also got two votes in the quasi-official poll for the Golden Ball (since 1982 this is sponsored). http://hemeroteca-paginas.mundodeportivo.com/EMD01/HEM/1978/07/17/MD19780717-009.pdf It is the same one as listed here: http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/fifa-awards.html#gball
As I recall, Quiroga was great in the first round. He also made several good saves against Brazil, and I remember one nice one against Argentina. I’d say he was late in Dirceu’s second goal and possibly also in Tarantini’s. We can’t really fault him on the others, but still, nine goals in two key matches...
I think it is one vote from the same guy Puck - there are a few duplicate voters and votes between the two polls it seems. He has Cubillas in 4th in both polls too, also Peruvian like the voter himself, but Cubillas obviously has a few votes from other people too.
Hello, I do not know how to access the statistics that you comment. Would it be possible if you paste them into this thread?
I send two images with the ratings of "El Gráfico". Thank Vegan10 who was the one who provided me with that information. In the first image are those of the footballers who played and were qualified in more than 3 games and in the second image, those who played and were qualified in 3 games. In these tables there is no player who was not qualified in at least 3 games. For this reason they are not, for example, Rivelino, Juanito, Bossis or Gemmill. Perhaps, reviewing more documentation, it is convenient to review other players that are not in these tables, but in principle, they are the ones that I have found most interesting due to their popularity.
Very surprising to see Haan got a high 9 for the West Germany game and only a 6 for the Italy match (with another long range goal). Looks as a too strong difference.
I think that Quiroga against Brazil (6) is incredible (unfortunately we know "Marmelada Peruana"). And I know that for Italy-press Zoff against Holland was "very poor". Anyway thank you very much for news and interesting data.
At this time I include the ratings per game and the average according to Don Balón. It is striking the difference that exists in the averages of many with respect to El Gráfico. I fundamentally warn of too high ratings for Spanish players. I lived that championship and I do not remember that the Spanish team played a brilliant role. Of Cardeñosa (9 for the match in Brazil) I only have the unfortunate memory missing a very clear goal that would have put Spain in the second phase. I prepare the provisional average with these two sources and upload it in a few minutes.
Good work Titanlux again. I can see that there are quite a few notable differences (in overall rating and in individual matches) between El Grafico and Don Balon. Of course some close similarities too (for example against Austria both sources give Rensenbrink and Krol an 8 and a 7 respectively, although Rep gets a 9 and a 7 so slightly different views as to exactly how good his performance was but again that's not an especially different verdict). I remember after seeing that the grades from El Grafico and France Football were quite different indeed for Italy vs Argentina, I had a look at the game and tried to give my own ratings (without having digested fully the ratings they each gave and without thinking about that). To be fair I remember thinking/saying on the thread in the link below that Vegan10 had started that I could understand how the grades might vary quite a bit because a lot of the players seemed to have variable performances that day https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/t...s-wc-euro-and-ca.2086370/page-2#post-37042265 Notwithstanding that the El Grafico grades might be a bit lower (their tradition might be to see an average display as a 5 rather than a 6 perhaps), it's evident how the views did differ a lot with significant variance (between highest and lowest rating awarded), albeit there is not quite so much variability for defenders/goalkeeper in general, as folllows (EG for El Grafico, DB for Don Balon, FF for converted France Football grade if I use a scale of between 4 and 9, and PDG for my own verdict using Italian tradition of including half points) - showing for all players Titanlux picked out which is most of the ones that played anyway: Fillol - (6) EG, (6) DB, (7) FF, (6.5) PDG - Avg = 6.375, Variance = 1 Zoff - (6) EG, (6) DB (7), FF, (7) PDG - Avg = 6.5, Variance = 1 Olguin - (6) EG, (6) DB, (6) FF, (5.5) PDG - Avg = 5.875, Variance = 0.5 Galvan - (6) EG, (4) DB, (6) FF, (7) PDG - Avg = 5.75, Variance = 3 Gentile - (7) EG, (5) DB, (8) FF, (6.5) PDG - Avg = 6.625, Variance = 3 Passarella - (5) EG, (5) DB, (7) FF, (6.5) PDG - Avg = 5.875, Variance = 2 Scirea - (6) EG, (6) DB, (7) FF, (7) PDG - Avg = 6.5, Variance = 1 Tarantini - (6) EG, (5) DB, (7) FF, (7) PDG - Avg = 6.25, Variance = 2 Cabrini - (8) EG, (7) DB, (7) FF, (7) PDG - Avg = 7.25, Variance = 1 Ardiles - (6) EG, (6) DB, (8) FF, (7.5) PDG - Avg = 6.875, Variance = 2 Tardelli - (6) EG, (6) DB, (6) FF, (7) PDG - Avg = 6.25, Variance = 1 Gallego - (7) EG, (5) DB, (7) FF, (7.5) PDG - Avg = 6.625, Variance = 2.5 Antognoni - (5) EG, (7) DB, (7) FF, (6.5) PDG - Avg = 6.375, Variance = 2 Valencia - (4) EG, (5) DB, (7) FF, (6.5) PDG - Avg = 5.625, Variance = 3 Benetti - (5) EG, (6) DB, (7) FF, (5) PDG - Avg = 5.75, Variance = 2 Bertoni - (3) EG, (7) DB, (6) FF, (5) PDG - Avg = 5.25, Variance = 4 Causio - (9) EG, (8) DB, (6) FF, (7.5) PDG - Avg = 7.625, Variance = 3 Kempes - (4) EG, (6) DB, (6) FF, (5.5) PDG - Avg = 5.375, Variance = 2 Bettega - (6) EG, (7) DB, (8) FF, (7) PDG - Avg = 7, Variance = 2 Rossi - (5) EG, (7) DB, (6) FF, (7.5) PDG - Avg = 6.375, Variance = 2.5
In the next few minutes I am going to put up the tables for France Football ratings. Unlike Don Balon and El Gráfico, the French magazine did not use a scale up to 10, but until 6. For this reason, it is necessary to establish a reasonable, fair and balanced equivalence of scores. Taking into account these three criteria and that the averages of all the players chosen in this analysis is 6.00 for Don Balón and 6.02 for El Gráfico, the scale I have decided to apply is the following: 1 = 2; 2 = 3.5; 3 = 5; 4 = 6.5; 5 = 8.5; 6 = 10 I have considered that the scores of 5 or 6 must have a slightly higher equivalence in proportion to the others to reward exceptional performances. On the other hand, no footballer was rated less than 2, and on very few occasions was rated 2. Therefore, few performances rated suspenseful. This makes the average somewhat higher than that of the other two sources (6.18). In any case, I consider it a perfectly acceptable deviation to be able to continue accumulating averages.
I like that scale actually mate (especially as you are aligning to EG and DB, not Italian sources), even though I had used 4 to 9 myself of course. I like that you didn't make big differences in the gaps, and that all the levels seem reasonable. Perhaps I would make all gaps even, to retain completely the balance between ratings (probably reducing 6 to 9.5, and 5 to 8, but could be just instead making 1 = 2.5, 2 = 4, 3 = 5.5 and 4 = 7 for an exactly even balance), but I won't object if you don't want to of course!
It will not register here (as usual) but I have to warn against the El Grafico thing. To me it looks censored. They have used some of the same votes as the quasi-official Golden Ball poll, and then amended and added stuff. Left some votes out, added new ones.
I don't know what happened there exactly, but I was thinking maybe they just asked the same journalists to vote (or the organiser did and El Grafico plus other publications printed it?). With it being quasi-official maybe that's more feasible than using the same ones as outright official polls. But I'm not sure of course that they haven't just seen the quasi-official poll results and incorporated a selection of those votes as you allude to. Some of the differences (real ones or ones we can see - possibly some of the ones not shown/visible for one poll are also people polled by the other source?) are interesting anyway, with some notable names involved in one or the other poll including ex-players of course.
Once the ratings from three sources have been accumulated, here are the averages. It seems that it is becoming clearer who stood out the most in this championship. The general weak claims of the defenders are quite surprising.
And these are the Asratings. It is the fourth and last source I have. In this championship, unfortunately, neither Marca, nor Mundo Deportivo made these evaluations in a good part of the games, which is why I do not include them. Can anyone contribute any other source with ratings? In a few hours I will post screenshots with the averages of the 4 sources analyzed.
I finish this work if there are no more ratings. In the first image, the averages of the 4 sources for the chosen players who were rated at least 4 times in all of them. In the second table, those who were rated at least 3 times in 3 of the sources. Does anyone venture to choose their ideal XI? Can another alternative XI be chosen? Is there coherence between these data and the rankings and other XI of the championship?
How it looks this one for WC 1978? ----------------------- Fillol Gentile ----- Krol ----- Passarella ----- Cabrini ------- Boniek ---- Tardelli ---- Kempes --- Bertoni ------ Krankl ----------- Rensenbrink Podium: 1. Kempes 2. Fillol 3. Krol I consider these things: - Roles close to real ones. - A bit difference between contenders (+/- 0.25) - I prefered more variance than less variance, because the peak (even short ones or resulted of ups and downs) leave a lasting impression than regular performances.