If one holds with the jogo bonito someone like Mueller doesn't qualify, of course. He gets you results but not any pretty play. Anyway, I prefer the view of the man who had this to say: "Real football is not a backheel in midfield or those tricks that are utterly pointless and add nothing to the match. This sport consists of a duel between teams who are fighting to get a result."
Well, then you're voting based on preference, which doesn't mean much when we're actually trying to pin down the topic at hand. Maybe you should try and watch more of the players you don't know about before voting. Or maybe you're just biased against German footballers or actually might have never heard of Gerd.
If this is indeed the case, wouldn't he just be evening out your selections? Kaushik posted his criteria/bias (however each of us chooses to view it) up front. Could we surmise from your voting on these polls that you hold a bias against South American players?
Puskas is definatly one of the most if not themost skillfull player on this list. Very under rated player. It seems like people just forgot about him.
I'd vote for Muller even if he was from Ecuador, but you know what, he wasn't. I'm just saying, sometimes the best player in such polls or selections aren't always neccesarily someones favorites. You know what, these polls are meaningless, its a popularity contest afterall.
Sure, they are meaningless. I agree 100%. However, you called Kaushik to the carpet....claiming he was voting based on preferences and/or biased against German footballers. This post implies that you voted the best in each category (as you judged them of course), without regard to origin. Here's your voting record on these Greatest polls (correct me if I'm wrong): GK: Yashin (Sepp Maier was presented as a German candidate) RB: Vogts (German) Central Defender: Kohler (German) Sweeper: Beckenbauer (German) Left Back: Breitner (German) Central Mid: Matteus (German) Right Wing: Littbarski (German) Left Wing: Best (no German player was presented as competing candidate) Striker: Muller (German) Only on one occasion did you not go with a German selection if one was available. What initially struck me were your choices in the Attacking Midfielder and Forward polls. I noted that in these two categories -- where there where some of the greatest players of all time, but with no German choices presented -- you chose to pick none of the candidates: Attacking Midfielder: Other (no German candidate) Forward: Other (no German candidate) Pele, Maradona, DiStefano, Pedernera, Moreno, Zico, Zizinho, Didi not good enough to carry the "Greatest" title at either position? Our just not your "preference"? In fact not a single S.American candidate makes your Greatest XI. [Though I've publicly professed my admiration for him many a times on these boards, Pierre Littbarski had to be a preference vote on your part over Garrincha]. Do you think you are biased? Or, just less biased than Kaushik?
Thanks Tp for taking the time to reveal SirManchester's bias against non-German candidates. What puerile accusation from an implausibly slanted individual! From your voting pattern we can conclude that it is about time for you to try and watch some of the greatest players of all time, of whom you obviously did not know before casting your votes. If I were biased against Germans, would I vote for Matthaus (CM) and Beckenbauer (Sweeper)? I would defend my ‘objective’ choice of Ronaldo (if it was subjective, my choice would be Romario, my personal favorite) as the greatest striker of all time with unbiased arguments if necessary. Yet I would not be dissatisfied with the choice of Puskas, Eusebio, Romario or Leonidas as the greatest ever. However, I would be unwilling to deem a more successful version of Jardel as the greatest ever striker. That is due to my profoundly entrenched admiration of the jogo bonito and my perpetual penchant for strikers with flair and artistry, destroying defences through sheer jugglery with the football. Racial bias has nothing to do with it.
To be clear, it wasn't my intent to expose anyone. So I hope my post didn't offend SirManchester. It just struck me that at times someone else's "bias" may be viewed through tinted glasses. As we've reached the final XI, I've been reviewing the voting results to see if patterns could be picked up from certain posters (for or against certain nationalities, leagues, time periods, etc.). As we debate each other on these boards, we tend to form impressions of each other and our respective "angles" -- whether real or imagined. If you all do the same review of the selections, you might pick up on some interesting patterns. Gerd was quality.
Who said that? Personally, I don't think football should be viewed the way a 9 to 5 factory job is: work together and achieve results or go to hell. Yes, results are what matter but deep down football is still a kid's game. It was the heel passes and fancy tricks that made us fall in love with it when we first began playing it.
if puskas is forgotten, then kocsis is invisible or a tall tale. many who mention puskas forget about kocsis. best striker in my opinion is muller. even though tricks are nice, every time you score it only counts as one goal(as spartak said.)
The quote was from Scolari. Presumably, he is somewhat sceptical of the worth of the jogo bonito despite being brazilian. Perhaps he has learned from Brazil's failures at the World Cup between 1970 and 1994? A few of those teams -- like the one in 1982 -- may have won something if they would have played as Scolari or Parreira prefered to play when they won in 1994 and 2002. I think there is worth and excitement, perhaps even some sort of beauty, in balanced and effective play. While fancy tricks may be nice from time to time I don't really nead them to enjoy the game. Note that effective and balanced play which includes defending when necessary don't preclude creativity or skill which are still essential to get results.
I agree with you regarding the necessity of a well organized defence. I just wanted to clarify a few things (not implying that the following is in response to your beliefs). Brazil did not lose in WC 1982 by trying to be ultra-attaking. In the games they were overtly attacking, they won convincingly. Against Italy, Brazil lost trying to shift into an uncharacteristic defensive mode after Falcao scored (Brazil needed only a draw to progress). As soon as Falcao scored, Brazil withdrew a striker (Serginho) and sent in a CM (P Isidoro) and tried to hang onto the result...and lost! Also, in WC 1994 Brazil was not as defensive as some people suggest. They had much better defenders than WC 1982, but did not have great quality CAMs. Thus, they adopted a more pragmatic approach, but they did not just sit back and defend. They did not have the creativity of Ronaldinho, Rivaldo or Kaka in Zinho and Mazinho, but they were still the most attacking team (often spending long stretches in the opponents half) and Romario juggling (or dribbling) the ball past 3-4 defenders each time was jogo bonito exemplified. The strangest, most uncommon (far from jogo bonito) Brazil that I have seen was the WC 1974 team managed by Zagallo...they did not win.
Don't worry, I don't take things purposely, I'll admit it, in the cases you presented I was a bit biased, except Beckenbauer, Breitner and Mattheus....I just did the others in order to give them some votes since they barely have any since I am a big fan, not meaning they don't deserve it anyways. Like I said before, these polls, in the end, are just popularity contests and based on preferences but if we really wanted to put that aside and TRY to at least pin down as accurately as we can, the greatest ever striker, some of that has to be put aside. I just thought Kaushik seemed a little biased, almost not even recognizing Muller originally. No reason to get nasty about it, I wasn't openly attacking anyone either. The bias wasn't intended in a racial manner either by the way.
Hmmmm, I still haven't voted yet, torn between Muller, Ronaldo, Puskas (who i never got to see and only have to believe) and other (Thierry Henry, I wonder why he didn't make the list?) but still thinking there's someone else that I'm forgetting the name right now. This is a very hard vote to make, I'll come back tomorrow.
I think it might be fair to say that the problem of Brazil vs. Italy was not the way Santana _wanted_ to play in the last 20 minutes after Falcao scored but his player selection and the mentality of his players. It's one thing to say let's defend the draw but it's another to have the suitable players and mentality to accomplish this. Somehow I don't see a team with Dunga and Maura Silva conceding the third goal, nor do I see it when a team has Kleberson and Gilberto and is coached by Scolari. Agreed. The scoreless final somewhat overshadowed Brazil's performances in the whole tournament. They had a balanced team not a strictly defensive one. I think that may well have been more down to the lacking individual class of their players than their gameplan as a whole and their mentality. Brazil often had the best individual players in the WC but in WC 1974 Poland, perhaps, but especially Germany and the Netherlands had extraordinary strong players and teams.
Ask AC Milan fans why they still bring Van Basten banners to the stadium and why they still sing his name. The man was a legend and not just according to the Dutch.
Also can I just add that based on 'who scored the most beautiful goals' criteria, Bergkamp gets my vote.
Also, if you compare Van Basten's and Ronaldo's stint in Serie A it's clear that Van Basten was better. Marco was the best striker in the world from 1983-1993. That's a ten year period of dominance. If you want to criticise his international career witn Holland be my guest. But his career for Ajax and Milan stacks up well with any striker. And imo, is better than Ronaldo' career with PSV, Barca, Inter, and Real. But saying all that, Van Basten wasn't even Milan's best all-time striker. When you ask many fans who is the greatest rossoneri forward ever you hear names like: Van Basten, Baggio, Shevchenko, Weah, etc. But they all pale in comparison to the greatest striker to ever play in Serie A: Gunnar Nordahl
Before my time I'm afraid! Van Basten basically gave Holland the only international tournament win it ever got. If you score the winner against Germany in the semis and one of the most beautiful goals ever made in an international tournament in the final, I don't think you can really criticise the man's performance for Holland.
For me there is no question about it. Clearly Müller is the best striker. He just did a strikers job and scored every time. He won pretty much everything there was and Bayern/Germany won all those titels because of his goals. He surly didn't look like your prototype striker but he was always on the right spot at the right time. International honours * 62 International appearances, 68 goals * 1974 FIFA World Cup Germany™ Champion * 1970 FIFA World Cup Mexico™ third place * European Championship winner: 1972 * 1970 FIFA World Cup™ Golden Boot (10 goals) * FIFA World Cup™ all-time leading scorer (14 goals) Clubs * 1955 - 1964 TSV Nördlingen * 1964 - 1979 Bayern München * 1979 - 1981 Fort Lauderdale Strikers * 1981 - 1982 Smith Brothers Lounge Club honours * 1969, 1972, 1973, 1974 German Champion * 1974, 1975, 1976 European Cup Champion * 427 Bundesliga appearances, 365 Bundesliga goals (record) * 74 European Cup appearances, 66 goals * 7-time Bundesliga top scorer -- 1967 (28 goals), 1969 (30), 1970 (38), 1972 (40), 1973 (36), 1974 (30), 1978 (24) Also Van Basten is rightfully on that list and deserves the number of votes. He really was the best forward of his time.
I think this poll is very heavily biased towards players who have World and European Championship success, which is not what the question is. Personally I think Schevchenko is the best striker ever, not a huge deal of international success, but he can't be blamed for the state of his nations football. His club record is distinguished, fantastic and long. You look at his career, the goals the consistancy, the lack of injuries and he has been one of the best stikers in the world for 8 years solid. I can't believe Jimmy Greaves got in the list ahead of say, looking for an English entrant,......Brian Clough, Just because you do not lift trophies at international level because one man will not select you, does not mean you are not a fantastic player.
If he didn't suffer from the ankle injuries he would have been a much greater player than what he was. Holland would have loved him to be there at USA 94 and maybe Euro 96 and France 98 (if he did a Klinsmann, Bergomi and Polster who played in France at 34 years old).
Despite Jimmy Greaves' reputation in the English game, if I had to pick an English striker, I would vote for Lineker. In the other section, Giuseppe Meazza and Paolo Rossi should get a mention. They're definitely not the greatest strikers ever, especially with Muller and Van Basten on the list, though they are among the very best and should have been worthy of a mention. Van Basten was my choice because I thought he was a bit more agile and mobile than Muller. Despite that, both players are worthy of winning this poll.