I'm quite new to BigSoccer as a member, but i'm delightfully following this forum since a few years. I'm very interested in a historical player ranking so i did a lot of research the past years and started a new project now, in which i try to rank historical players through a seasonal rating method. I quickly realised that it's not representative doing this work alone. The research work would never end for a single person, so I got the idea to use this forum, where there are some of the most experienced football historians in th world, i guess. The rating methodolyNow considering the rating methodology it's quite easy: There are two types of ratings: A seasonal rating and a rating of the major international tournaments. The seasonal rating includes a complete domestic season, like national and continental championships and cups, aswell as international friendlies and minor international competitions as the world cup qualification etc. (this might get clear if you look up the "major international tournaments"). So a player is rated for his performances in all these competitions and games, weighted upon each other after competition level and importance in one season. The international tournament rating includes following major intrernational tournaments: The world cup, the European Championship, the Southamerican Championship an the pre-1992 Olympics. There is a rating for each tournament a player contests. The rating impletens the players performance in a season/ a tournament regarding: - The competition level/standard - The team success - The importance of the player for the team (and the team success) To create a rating, different indicators should be used: - The subjective judgement of the players performance level (using video footage) - Individual awards, media player ratings - Historical articles and match reports - Statistics and Analytics To create a valid rating methodolgy, the rating is based on a historical context of the players performance level. In this way, a world-class performance is defined for all times in the same way and in this way, a plyer from the 1920's can be compared to a player, who actually plays a century later. The rating is based on a from 0 up to 10, but i only regard an international level perfomance. National level performances won't be rated. The rating marks: 10,0 - 9,75: extraordinary world class - The players perfomance belongs to the best ever displayed. 9,5 - 9,0: world class - In this context world class means that the player, at this point, belongs to the few best players in the world, who may be able to lead their team to international success. 8,75 - 8,0: extraordinary international class - A player, who belongs to the extraordinary international class belongs to the best players in the world in his position. He is able to show extraordinary performances on international level. 7,75 - 7,0: international class - International class means that the player is able to compete and perform well on international level. Beyond 7,0: national class I'm working on a way to separate the seasonal and the tournament rating in a way, that players who missed to play on international level are not discriminated compared to players who had the opportunity to play international tournaments. But to this point i'm alredy starting to rate the single players and i'm very curious to see your reactions. I hope that you will give me a feedback about the player ratings, so that a productive discussion develops.
So first of all i will give you the ratings i worked out for the superb historical players. I won't give further reasons or explanations for every single season/tournament, you should know best about the players individual seasons. If there are any questions/suggestions for any season, we could start a discussion, changing information and opinions about the players performances: PeléSeasonal rating:1957: 8,5 1958: 9,25 1959: 8,75 1960: 8,25 1961: 9,25 1962: 10,0 1963: 9,5 1964: 9,0 1965: 9,75 1966: 7,5 1967: 8,0 1968: 8,5 1969: 9,0 1970: 7,5 1971: National class, not rated 1972: 7,25 1973: 8,5 1974: 7,25 1975: - 1976: National class, not rated 1977: 7,0 Summary: Extraordinary world class: 1962,1965 World class: 1958, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1969 Extraordinary international class: 1957, 1959, 1960, 1967, 1968, 1973 International class: 1966, 1970, 1972, 1974, 1977 Tournament rating:WC 1958: 9,25 (World class) CA 1959: 9,25 (World class) WC 1970: 9,25 (World class) - World cups 1962 and 1966 are not rated because of serious injury problems.
Diego Maradona Seasonal rating:1976: National class, not rated. 1977: 7,5 1978: 8,25 1979: 9,0 1980: 9,5 1981: 9,0 1982/83: 8,75 1983/84: 8,0 1984/85: 9,25 1985/86: 8,5 1986/87: 9,5 1987/88: 9,25 1988/89: 9,25 1989/90: 9,25 1990/91: 7,75 1991/92: - 1992/93: National class, not rated. 1993/94: - 1994/95: - 1995/96: National class, not rated. Summary: Extraordinary world class: - World class: 1979, 1980, 1981, 1984/85, 1986/87, 1987/88, 1988/89, 1989/90 Extraordinary international class: 1978, 1982/83, 1983/84, 1985/86 International class: 1977, 1990/91 Tournament rating:WC 1982: 8,25 (Extraordinary international class) WC 1986: 10,0 (Extraordinary world class) CA 1987: 8,75 (Extraordinary international class) CA 1989: 7,25 (International class) WC 1990: 8,75 (Extraordinary international class)
Lionel Messi Seasonal rating:2006/07: 8,25 2007/08: 8,25 2008/09: 9,25 2009/10: 9,25 2010/11: 10,0 2011/12: 9,75 2012/13: 9,5 2013/14: 8,5 2014/15: 9,75 2015/16: 9,0 2016/17: 9,25 Summary: Extraordinary world class: 2010/11, 2011/12, 2014/15 World class: 2008/09, 2009/10, 2012/13, 2015/16, 2016/17 Extraordinary international class: 2006/07, 2007/08, 2013/14 Tournament rating:WC 2006: 7,75 (International class) CA 2007: 8,25 (Extraordinary international class) WC 2010: 7,75 (International class) CA 2011: National class, not rated WC 2014: 8,75 (Extraordinary international class) CA 2015: 8,5 (Extraordinary international class) CA 2016: 8,75 (Extraordinary international class)
Johan Cruyff Seasonal rating:1965/66: 7,75 1966/67: 8,75 1967/68: 8,25 1968/69: 8,75 1969/70: 8,5 1970/71: 9,25 1971/72: 9,75 1972/73: 9,0 1973/74: 9,0 1974/75: 8,25 1975/76: 7,25 1976/77: 8,75 1977/78: 7,75 1979-81: National class, not rated 1981/82: 7,0 1982/83: 7,25 1983/84: 7,75 Summary: Extraordinary world class: 1971/72 World class: 1970/71, 1972/73, 1973/74 Extraordinary international class: 1966/67, 1967/68, 1968/69, 1969/70, 1974/75, 1976/77 International class: 1965/66, 1975/76, 1977/78, 1981/82, 1982/83, 1983/84 Tournament rating:WC 1974: 10,0 (Extraordinary world class) - The European Championship 1976 is not rated as a tournament, because the Netherlands did lose the first official tournament game (the semi-final against Czechoslovakia) and Cruyff missed the match for 3rd place. Any matches played by Cruyff in the tournament and qualification are included in the seasonal rating.
Conclusion of the player ratings to this point: Pelé: (at least) world-class seasons and tournaments: 10 (at least) international class seasons and tournaments: 21 Average rating: 8,595 Diego Maradona: (at least) world-class seasons and tournaments: 9 (at least) international class seasons and tournaments: 19 Average rating: 8,724 Lionel Messi: (at least) world-class seasons and tournaments: 8 (at least) international class seasons and tournaments: 17 Average rating: 8,853 Johan Cruyff: (at least) world-class seasons and tournaments: 5 (at least) international class seasons and tournaments: 17 Average rating: 8,412 Note: All these players reached the maximum grade 10,0 in each one season/tournament.
Very strange that Pelé gets a rating for his NASL seasons and Cruijff doesn't. One of them was twice chosen by the press as the season's best player, the other wasn't (albeit at a more advanced age). This is so clearly wrong. Maradona has (almost) the double amount of 'world class' seasons. I'm familiar with the modern day tendency to give Cruijff only credit for three years. Now it also seems as if Maradona was playing better for Barcelona and his added value (wins added) was higher. No way - and this was a largely comparable era (as opposed to the 1960s or 2000s). How can Maradona have twice as many 'world class' seasons with 2.5 league titles, twice 2nd in the table, while Cruijff has 10 league titles and 5 second places? How can Maradona have twice as many 'world class' seasons with one European final and zero semi finals while Cruijff has four finals and four semi finals reached? (in a largely comparable era) How can Maradona have twice as many 'world class' seasons when Cruijff in the 1968-69 season scored three times as many open play goals in Europe as Maradona in his whole Napoli career? How can Maradona have twice as many 'world class' seasons when minnow Ajax reached far greater heights than minnow Napoli (Ajax is together with Nottingham Forest the only team below 30000 attendance to win the European Cup, and the only team below 28000 and 23000 to do so) . Given all of the above, how can it be that the club teams (Barcelona, Napoli, Sevilla, the national team) were largely insensitive to Maradona his presence (points per game) while this is clearly not true for Cruijff. His teams performed significantly (and by a large margin) inferior when he wasn't playing. Domestically, in Europe, the national team. It can't be true that Maradona has twice as many world class seasons, and in no way he played better for Barcelona (a better funded Barcelona, mind). Maybe the best comparison is to focus on their Barcelona stints. With the relative lack of public backing and a heartland there is little wonder that administrators and politicians saw leeway to sabotage some things. Easy target to knock down and terror.
Thank you for your feedback that's the kind of reaction i waited for! So i'm interested exactly which seasons of Maradona in your mind were not noteworthy as world class and which Cruyff seasons i underrated. In general as you can see i marked the 1973/74 season of Cruyff at Barcelona as world class, while i did rate both Maradona seasons at Barcelona only as extraordinary international class so i don't see the point of you arguing Cruyff did have a better spell at Barcelona, because that's exactly what i intended. After all i rated Maradona at so many world class seasons because he clearly played in the best European League after the English league was banned from European competitions after Heysel 1984. The Eredivisie in the late 1960's and early 1970's was dominated by two strong teams, while the league itself was not as competitive as Italy in the late 80's, i guess. Ajax being so successful in that era was mostly because of their revolutionary style of play than because of Cruyff in my eyes. I see your point that Pelé's New York Cosmos season is rated as international class, but the main point is that Pelé lead this team to the title with a very good goals per game game ratio, while Cruyff wasn't able to win the NASL. But i'm also not sure about the quality of the NASL in that time, so i might remove the international class rating, or give Cruyff an additional international class season for his NASL spell. I don't exactly understand your point, that Cruyff did score "three times as many open play goals in Europe as Maradona in his whole Napoli career". It's not only the goals that characterize a world class season, but they are a good indicator, but after all i think Maradona was robbed of his influence to his teams game many times by a rough opponent playing style, especially in his Barcelona time, but still he was more kind of a creator of space and suprising situations, than Cruyff, who was more focused on creating straight goal chances. In general that's not a disadvantage for Cruyff, but you shouldn't compare both players' seasons just in regard of their goalscoring. Still I'm interested in your opinion on specifical seasons of both players!
Maradona might well be the greater player (he also might not be, like e.g. Sportbild, L'Equipe, the FourFourTwo survey among peers, Don Balon, IFFHS did - in spite of the public pressure and marketing dynamics), but twice the amount of world class seasons is for sure wrong - although it will please the usual suspects of the anti Cruijff brigade, the ones to never make a compliment anyway. I will focus on the Barcelona years since that is the least difficult comparison to make, it will 'steady' some of the variables and league variance, and because it is illustrative and emblematic of the entire season-by-season ratings. It is a largely comparable era. Maradona's Barcelona years are rated on 8.4, and the national team cannot serve as an explanation because he played zero games for the national team those seasons. Cruijff his Barcelona years are rated by you on 8.2. There is the point of arguing. This is almost certainly incorrect. The authoritative Don Balon started with their recognitions in the 1975-76 season. In those Cruijff was twice player of the season, twice the best graded player of the season, and three times in the 'team of the season'. Maradona - back then actually most often deployed as a 'false nine' - was zero times in all of that although thwarted by personal problems and injuries, but Cruijff had to face those rough circumstances too and played regularly with injuries, and missed games. Cruijff his average league position in his seasons (1973-1978) was 2nd, while Maradona achieved a 3rd and 4th place, thus an average of 3.5. In Europe Cruijff achieved three semi finals and a quarter final (in his first season he wasn't eligible to play and FCB lost the first round against Nice), Maradona reached two quarter finals. Cruijff won the Copa del Rey in the only season he was eligible (playing as a sweeper in the final). Maradona got one too, within two attempts. He also won the short-lived Copa de la Liga in one of his two attempts, which was a competition designed and organized by wealthy and new Barcelona chairman (since 1979) Nunez. The team results in the 1973 to 1978 years were better, which is also further underlined by the unbeaten streak in the league (which is still standing!) and the unbeaten streak at home (later bested in the Guardiola years). Both streaks were ended in games where Cruijff didn't play in (including the very controversial 1977 suspension and ban). The unbeaten streak in the league could have been a prolonged streak across all competitions had he not missed an UEFA Cup game. It can be that Cruijff played for a better team and thus was less impactful, but closer scrutiny of the facts and numbers just doesn't support this. They did achieve 41% worse points per game in the 37 games that he missed (all through injuries or suspensions). Meanwhile, Barcelona was largely insensitive to Maradona his presence or non-presence. This even extends into Europe where Barcelona without Maradona won three and tied two. Emblematic for 'Barcelona without Cruijff' is the Aston Villa match (2-2) where Villa scored two goals in the last 15 minutes when he was out injured (after creating and scoring the first two goals). The objective circumstance is simply Barcelona was better funded when Nunez took over ('the first Fiorentino Perez', as Arsene Wenger put it), at least until the mid 1980s when the debts became a problem and internal mutinies crippled the finances enormously. Thus no surprise that Barcelona was largely insensitive to Maradona his presence, but obviously this also helped to shield him, to combine, to score, to assist, to dribble, to do the stamina, grafting and donkey work, to win trophies, to higher league positions. Maradona did score at a slightly higher rate, but assisted at a much lower rate, especially from open play. To grade the Barcelona years at a higher level - in a largely comparable era - is wrong, and this was also not how it was seen, but it is not surprising given the popular and dominant tendencies these days. The Dutch are an easy target to knock down given the low population, low number of fans and bandwagoning lemmings, a language that no one else in the world speaks (cf. Uruguay, Portugal). If not intentionally, then certainly subconsciously by the power of exposure and repetition. During Cruijff his lifetime only Germany achieved more quarter finals and semi finals in tournaments (that's a fact), and before the Bosman ruling even Germany had not as many Champions League wins. It is simply wrong to think Maradona faced rougher treatment in Spain. In fact, the Laws of the Game inserted the red card for "serious foul play" in 1981, which was for a considerable part informed by the practices in Spain, where a lot of the in-form creative talent was flogging to (including Netzer, Simonsen, Schuster from the BuLi). They had four tournament MVPs playing there (for reference: only early 1990s Serie A was a level above that and had clearly more). If anything, that there might have been more of an outcry in the echo chamber simply shows Maradona was better supported (by the public, by his superagents clan) and better protected. He definitely had that backing to pinpoint and flag the wrongs. No doubt he faced harsh treatment, but this is also why his diving (as well as intentionally seeking contact, going down before the hit) was a profitable business - for many others it was less profitable since they didn't have folks as Havelange publicly warning the referees before one foot was set in Spain. The echo chamber about his treatment was and is a result of the public backing and the protection, not a lack of it. The undeniable political backing protected him from, say, missing World Cups and deterred people from doing (some more) extreme things. It is certainly not correct that the league was rougher, and also not for Barcelona attackers before the democratic transition. Maradona for Barcelona was clearly a forward, if not a striker. This is also what the managers Menotti and Lattek said. This sounds too much like the PeruFC and Dearman nonsense with their "Zico was an attacking midfielder, Cruijff was a forward". In truth Cruijff played a variety of roles and positions, including sweeper. Here he plays very different (here forgotten scene) than here or here. It might very well be Maradona was the more skilled player, but Cruijff was not short of skill either, even at a very advanced age. Video with different scenes: And here against some real top opponents in the same season (Liverpool, AS Roma, Tottenham etc.), for the "but the league" argument. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x23ze7c
In this case i refered to you talking about Cruyff's 1968/69 season, where he clearly played as a forward. This changed through the years, which i noticed watching the 1973 European Cup final. So i did not compare Maradona and Cruyff at Barcelona only by their goalscoring and assisting. The main factors why Maradona's seasonal rating at Barcelona is roughly equal are that Maradona's overall ability must have been at least near the level he reached in Argentine before and at Napoli afterwards, aswell as the success in both Copas against Real Madrid in 1983. So regarding the fact that Cruyff reached much better grades by the media, i probably have to reconsider the ratings, I didn't much think about the comparability of both Bareclona times when i made these ratings. Anyway, i also read your comments on the thread "Cruyff is Superior to Maradona", which quite impressed me, especially the players' impact on points per game for each team. I guess that maybe Cruyff was a bit more influencial to his teams than i thought. Thank you for that. After all i would appreciate to hear what you say on specific Cruyff seasons, which ones do you recognise as world-class and why?
Yes sorry, I didn't gather that. Yes I agree he was predominantly a forward. He was generally in most matches the 2nd or 3rd most advanced player. I still think though it is a valid point that in one season he scored three times as many open play goals as Maradona in his whole European career for Napoli (in front of full houses). This was a largely comparable era and for a 'small' club too. It's a point I didn't intend to make in isolation to the other points. It should be seen in relation to the other mentioned points on finals etc. In some of his best seasons Maradona was also a forward (the most advanced or 2nd most advanced player for sure). Yes I get that and his skill is undeniable (although imho the highlights/compilations are often misleading for him in terms of trickery and leadleader had the same impression). It might very well be true he was the more skilled player and the better athlete - those two aspects are often intertwined. Above videos that I posted (aged 36-37) are informative and representative imho. Maradona does have the advantage of playing in the VCR era. Much more is preserved, doesn't need to be surfaced from television archives, thus also better highlight reels. Lately I saw Caspian added something on that, yes. The 2nd last post. He received some rough treatment too, even in his 'softer' home league and as a 'veteran-legend'. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x52f51i For ex. from 06:50 onward. Difficult to accurately answer, as I don't know the standards but I am pretty sure that 'twice as many world class seasons' is wrong (is the same true for Messi vs Ronaldo?). 1968-69 is one of the main candidates yes, he had impressive scenes against world champion and #1 in the Elo ranking England (taken from 25 minutes highlights but spot his position and number). This is btw an interesting reference since also Best and Pelé both played twice against England within 12 months. Many people don't know/realize too that the dynamics of the Ballon d'Or were very different then. For almost 20 years no player won the Ballon d'Or twice, and not twice in a row, and career accumulation counted a lot.
When he retired only Francisco Gento had played more games in Europe (EC/CWC/FairsCup/UEFA Cup) as an outfield player. This was before the group stages obviously and knock-out only (winning KO ties = more games). He also spent 3.5 years in USA. Yes I think together with the other mentioned things it shows his influence very well, also on Barcelona (they dropped to 5th in the season after him etc.). Certainly I get annoyed with the modern tendency to limit it to three/four years only, but not surprising that people are primed that way.
I searched around on what others had and @Perú FC thinks of 1976-77 as a strong candidate. "I am based mainly on the 1976-77 season of Johan Cruyff with Barcelona and a little of the second semester. Sometimes I think that his level then is quite undervalued in hindsight because he did not win the Spanish League, in my opinion it was phenomenal and it was the period in which he based his legend as Blaugrana. A Zico saw him in very good shape but still not at its best, which would reach shortly thereafter. If I had to order the best of that year I would do so: 1. Johan Cruyff (Holland & Barcelona) 2. Zico (Brazil & Flamengo) More or less the perception that I have of the difference of the levels of Johan Cruyff and Zico that year is the aplomb with which they were shown. With 30 years the Dutchman was already a legend by then and his technical skills were really supreme (among the very best I've seen in history), without taking into account that he was also in a very good physical condition. So, Cruyffhe had his best season in Spain in 1976-77 referring strictly to the individual level, however, the titles were elusive (he finished second in the Spanish League and fell in the quarterfinals of the UEFA Cup [scoring two open play goals]) and I am almost sure that it was that and that alone that influenced the voters of the Golden Ball so that it would only be placed in the fifth place (only one voted for him in the first place). Personally, since I do not share much that simpler criterion of deriving the vote from the successes of their teams, from what I have been able to review about him I have no doubt that the class he showed between the last semester of the season mentioned and the first of the following (around the chronological year of 1977) was clearly ahead of those of Allan Simonsen , Kevin Keeganand Michel Platini (who shared the podium in Europe). By the way, although he played little with Holland he did very well. That year he played a game against Kevin Keegan'sEngland that ended up winning the Dutch with him as a figure and was a pillar of the classification for the World Cup in Argentina, a tournament that he would no longer attend later On the other hand, with 24 years Zico already had a couple of seasons as a great promise of Brazil (his big explosion was relatively late), very skilled and scorer in the Carioca Championship and included in the ideal team of Brasileirao. There is no doubt that his talent was already superlative but I think that by then he was still a bit raw to compete directly withCruyff based on the aplomb of his skills, had great features but I feel not as consistent as he would later between 1979 and 1983. In fact, he was not awarded with the Bola de Ouro (prize for the best player of the Brasileirao), but what It was Toninho Cerezo . To give a better idea of the impression that they gave me based on the level they showed, in 1977 Johan Cruyff and Zico I think they had similar dimensions to Lionel Messi and Neymar in 2015. For some Neymarhas been a player more important than the Argentine because they see it on the rise, but in general I think most would agree that even today the Argentine shows superior capabilities, very apart or not of what may happen in the future with that comparison. More or less that's how you would see Cruyff in front of Zico , the great legend who had matured his skills on a sublime level over the skillful new great figure that emerged. " https://www.forosperu.net/temas/el-mejor-futbolista-de-la-historia.811705/pagina-14 In its fourth season (1976/77) I would say that Cruyffit was again its maximum dimension, enormously creative and spectacular maybe it was his best individual season as a Blaugrana, however, Barcelona could not win the Spanish League and was one point behind Atletico Madrid . For me he was the best player of that season in Europe (even better than the Golden Ball that year, Allan Simonsen ), it's just that for many it is inconceivable that the best individual performance is that of a player who did not win anything. [...] About Johan Cruyff , his 1976-77 season with Barcelona I found impressive in individual matters, I would even venture to say that he performed the best performance of that decade in the Spanish League, however, not having been able to win the tournament I think it influenced a lot more than he should in the Ballon d'Or ballots placing him just 5 ° (the winner was the Danish Allan Simonsen , who with Borussia Mönchengladbach reached the final of the European Cup, but who individually would say that he was not on par with the Dutch). https://www.forosperu.net/temas/que-jugador-hubiera-ganado-el-balon-de-oro-mas-veces.840528/ The four match suspension cost them, and he was not eligible for the domestic cup. See also Brazilian magazine Placar, preferring him over Zico of the very popular Flamengo team: https://books.google.com/books?id=m58YuLQCJ1QC&lpg=PT42&dq=cruijff melhor&hl=nl&pg=PT42#v=onepage&q&f=false
I already noticed both seasons as nearly world-class (each 8,75), so i guess i will do a little bit research on that to maybe change those ratings to world-class. Same for his other seasons. I'll probably reorganize the players ratings after I've done some more (looking forward to rate some other of the general top 10 of all time-candidatres first). This will unfortunately take some time. I hope to be back with the next ratings at the the end of the week.
Alfredo Di Stéfano Seasonal rating:1946: National class, not rated 1947: 8,75 1948: 8,25 1949: 8,25 1950: 7,5 1951: 8,5 1952: 8,25 1953/54: 9,0 1954/55: 8,5 1955/56: 8,75 1956/57: 9,5 1957/58: 9,5 1958/59: 8,5 1959/60: 9,0 1960/61: 8,25 1961/62: 8,0 1962/63: 7,75 1963/64: 8,0 1964/65: National class, not rated 1965/66: National class, not rated Summary: Extraordinary world class: - World class: 1953/54, 1956/57, 1957/58, 1959/60 Extraordinary international class: 1947, 1948, 1949, 1951, 1952, 1954/55, 1955/56, 1958/59, 1960/61, 1961/62, 1963/64 International class: 1950, 1962/63 Tournament rating: CA 1947: 8,5 (Extraordinary international class) - Di Stéfanos performance in the "pequena copa del mundo" in February 1953 belongs to the 1953/54 seasonal rating, because he didn't play any games in the annual 1953 season in Colombia as far as i know.
@EnnatzIsTheMan PELÉ: 8.50 (1957 and 1973) MESSI: 8.25 (2007 and 2008) 8,50 (2014) The years in question are not comparable. While it is true that in 1957 and 1973 perhaps Pele could have been among the top 10 forwards in the world; in the years 2007, 2008 and 2014 Messi was among the 3 best players in the world. So far, the best player in Pele's history. But I think there is some partiality of some revisionist to favor the Brazilian through statistics.
Thanks for your feedback! I have to admit that, in direct comparison, the ratings in those seasons seem imbalanced in favour of Pelé. I guess i might have overrated Pelé in those seasons, but in my eyes Messi was still not world class in 2007 and 2008, 2014 might be a borderline world class season, but i think a 8,75 would be fair, as he was far weaker than in other seasons. As I already said, I'm going to work on the ratings when after some more players, so that i have a valid rating standard.