The international careers of the greatest players of all time

You need to add Ronaldinho in this list!!

 

Great post.

However, Finalissima and Confederations Cup should not be considered major tournaments.

 

The Copa America was not a prestigious tournament in the 60s and 70s. Which is a shame. Because during the 20s, 30s and 40s they were perhaps the priority in South America. In 1963, Brazil and Argentina sent mixed teams and Uruguay didn't send a team, for example.

It became a priority again in the 80s.

 

I would probably regard Argentina with Di Stéfano as favourites in 1950 if participating. Very theoretical participation though - for both Argentina and Di Stéfano. I Would think Argentina would be strengthened with Di Stéfano taking part in 1955, so he could had that trophy. 1949 not really possible because of player's strike from best players. In 1957 already started playing for Spain in January (30th).
1953 possible in theory. Probably favourites with a full strength team, but that's just a guess from me, really.
Conclusion: 1+1 trophies.

Puskás: like other countries behind the Iron Curtain, Hungary refused to participate in the qualifier for 1950 World Cup. I don't know exactly why, but a political decision it must have been. I think it would be a bit too early for Hungary to win anyway. Hungary would probably have won a Euro in 1952 and 1956. In late November 1956 Puskás fled Hungary. If Puskás had returned, maybe Hungary could have squeezed past Wales in group stage in 1958, but I would be surprised if they managed to beat Brazil in next match. If Czibor and Kocsis returned too it could have been a very interesting match though, with Brazil only slight favourites, maybe. A 1957 Confederations Cup with a full strength Hungary could also have been quite interesting.
Conclusion: 0(1)+3 trophies.

Pelé: 3+2 trophies.

I think it's a very good chance Netherlands could have won in 1978 if Cruyff played. They were very close anyway. But, on the other hand, the final was stolen from Brazil. I think Brazil would have been favourites to win a final against Netherlands, even with Cruyff. I Don't think Cruyff could have changed the outcome in 1980.
Conclusion: 0+0 trophies.

Beckenbauer: 2+1 trophies.
Platini: no change. 2+0 trophies.

I would think Argentina would still win in 1991 if Maradona took part. And in 1981 more likely than not. He was good enough to be part of the 1978 team, but Menotti deemed him too young.
In 1983 he got injured after the group stage of the Copa, so he could have participated. Maybe he could have helped Argentina get through instead of Brazil (both ended up with five points, Brazil advancing with better goal difference). For the rest of the tournament he would of course be out injured, though. Not sure how I would rate Argentina's chances against Paraguay, and in an eventual final against Uruguay if getting through. Maybe @Vegan10 have a better picture of their chances.
Conclusion: 2+2 trophies.

Ronaldo: In 2001 I don't think (a fit) Ronaldo could have changed the outcome in any of the two tournaments. In 2004 I would think he could have made Brazil's Copa win easier than it was. In Confederations Cup 2003 he might have helped Brazil getting past the group stage. Hard to say how the next match against France would have ended, but most likely a loss. In 2005 they were doing fine without Ronaldo, but having him there surely wouldn't hurt. In 1999 having Ronaldo probably would have been enough to win the tournament. The tournament was played right after the Copa had finished. Cafu, Zago, Roberto Carlos Rivaldo, Márcio Amoroso and Ronaldo had all played the Copa final, but did not play in the Confederations Cup.
Conclusion: 5+3 trophies.

Don't see a reason why France, with Zidane participating too, shouldn't win in 2003, so he could had that trophy. Same with 2001. But not sure about the 2001 fictional one (if Italy send a full strength team), but adding Zidane surely helps their chances. Barthez, Thuram, Blanc, Deschamps, Henry, (Petit), and Trezeguet is still missing from Euro 2000 though.
Conclusion: 2+2 trophies.

 

IMO best international careers have Messi, Pele, R9, Zidane, Franz and Dinho

 

Another classic this. Mentioning how Brazil was stolen but not how we were stolen (or the kick-off for final was delayed, after FIFA had previously approved the bandage). It are opinions like that to have consequences in the real world.

https://www.sofascore.com/nl/toernooi/voetbal/world/world-championship/16#id:17567

Without extra-time 'we' are the #1 rated team. We definitely jump ahead of Germany, where we are rated 0.30 ahead in team average in the game between both teams in the 2nd group stage (despite a really dubious and unclear red card for us; substitute Nanninga was red carded after 5 minutes for 'insulting' the referee in the 88th minute; referee team was from Uruguay - maybe it was already felt Argentina would be in the final?).

We entered the 1978 World Cup as #1 in Elo and left the World Cup as #2 in Elo, but ahead of Argentina (the 0-0 against Peru in the first group stage pushed them to #2).

https://eloratings.net/Netherlands

As for Cruijff, he really was a great World Cup player, see the same Sofascore. In six of the seven games man of the match (only not the first, vs Uruguay; he had missed trainings in the preparation). The margin to #2 in the same tournament is incredible.

Including qualifiers for 1974:
https://football-ratings.blogspot.com/2014/06/memory-lane-european-topscorers-in-1974.html

goals + assists vs top 15 teams (Elo rating) in Euro + Euro qualifying :
Cruyff🇳🇱 5 goals+7 assists in 9 games
Ronaldo🇵🇹 7G+3A in 15 games
G.Muller🇩🇪 7G+0A in 8 games
Platini🇲🇫 5G+1A in 6 games
van Basten🇳🇱 5G+1A in 6 games
Zidane🇲🇫 5G+1A in 12 games
G Best🇬🇧 0G+1A in 5 games pic.twitter.com/FjitlGqc3y

— Somone (@AnEgyss) February 12, 2024

But you can count on people as @comme and others to be 'politically sensitive' and not consider him for the European Championships and even World Cups (below some other single tournament performers, even).

 

As many know, Hungary won sort of the European Championships (I also don't think Puskas was universally seen as Europe's best footballer before 1952 or 1951):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_European_International_Cup

Much will depend on which teams are willing to participate, which preparation goes into it (some big teams not having a scout or doctor abroad; they stayed at home) and which countries have recovered from the war. The first generation to not be directly hurt by the war only surfaces in the mid and late 1960s (there was still food shortage until 1946). Also for the ones born after the war there can be clear effects.

If the decisive games are again played on muddy pitches and/or key players like Puskas can be hurt (or a Brazil vs Netherlands '74 sort of game), the odds will decrease. At the same time, Hungary was back then actually influential within FIFA (in the 2nd tier at least) and had influential 'fixers' - in the broad and narrow sense of the word - as Deszo Solti, Emil Ostreicher and Gyorgy Szepesi around. That were influential figures behind the scenes.

To give an idea about that influence I am talking about: Hungary has administrators with a "FIFA order of merit" - that is a fine indicator for this. 'We' have none. The only recipient for our country is Johan Cruijff, and he only got that in 2010 (many other great players way earlier).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Order_of_Merit

 

As you point out, Di Stéfano's career with the national team is very erratic and “disconcerting”.

From my point of view, at the NT level, it only has one great failure, which is the NON-qualification for the 1958 World Cup.

In the rest of the championships there were political conditions that prevented him from participating, except in 1958 and 1962.

In my opinion:

- Copa América 1947: Champion and top scorer of his NT

- Years 1949-1954: Argentina renounces participating in 2 World Cups and 2 Americas Cups, when it had surely the best generation in its history. For me, Argentina would have been the top favorite for the 1950 World Cup, even above Brazil. Why didn't Argentina participate? Two factors come together:

o Argentina and Brazil were in a "sporting war" following a match in 1946. In retaliation, the Argentines did not participate in the 1949 Copa América and the 1950 World Cup, both organized by Brazil.

o But there was another factor, the Argentine players' strike in 1948 caused many to emigrate to other countries and mainly to the Colombian league, a league not affiliated with FIFA. Being a pirate league, the players were sanctioned and if we add to this the fact that Argentina only selected players who played in the Argentine league, this made the AFA decide not to appear since their best players were outside their borders and they were afraid of failing.

o Argentina would be a clear favorite for the 1949, 1950 and 1953 championships if it had participated. For the 1954 World Cup the favorite would clearly be Hungary.

- 1958 World Cup: Alfredo di Stéfano's great failure as a player at NT level and I think the biggest failure of the Spanish team in its entire history. Spain had one of the best teams in its history with Di Stéfano, Gento, Kubala, Luis Suárez, Ramallets, Basora and even today it seems incredible to me that they were eliminated.

- Euro 1960: Spain was not eliminated by any football team, it was eliminated by politics, specifically General Francisco Franco who did not allow this team to face the USSR for political reasons. The USSR was finally champion in 1960 and Spain, with a spectacular team, could not fight for the title. Di Stéfano scored 3 goals in the 2 games he played. Seen in retrospect, Real Madrid 1956-60 was lucky not to face any Soviet team since if they had done so they would not have 5 consecutive European Cups (in 1958, the same thing happened to Real Madrid in basketball as the Spanish NT, In the semifinals of the European Cup they faced ASK Riga and Franco did not allow the confrontation, so the Spanish team was eliminated and ASK reached the final, proclaiming itself European champion for the first time).

- 1962 World Cup: Di Stéfano was the Spanish top scorer in the qualifying phase with 2 goals, but an injury prevented him from participating in the World Cup. Spain did not pass the first phase where curiously the two teams that qualified were the 2 finalists of that edition of the tournament.

In short, Di Stéfano could only participate in 4 NT tournaments:

- Copa América 1947: Champion

- 1958 World Cup: not classified (the biggest failure of the Spanish-Argentinean's career and also the biggest failure of the Spanish NT)

- Euro 1960: politics deprived him of fighting for the cup. Di Stéfano had shown a good level until the "NO confrontation" against the USSR.

- 1962 World Cup: an injury prevented him from playing in the final phase. Di Stéfano had shown a good level in the qualifying phase.

Regarding the tournaments in which he could not participate from the beginning:

- Copa América 1949 and 1953: I think Argentina NT would have been favorites.

- 1950 World Cup: top favorites

- 1954 World Cup: very good team, but not favorites.

Doing science fiction, I think that he could have perfectly won the 1950 World Cup and the 1960 Euro Cup, but this is nothing more than science fiction, in reality we will never know what could have happened.

 

Well, that balances all out nicely because that he won five European Cups and so many league titles was also a piece of politics (for a part).

 

My opinion about Puskas is already hinted at above. Hungary kind of won the precursor to the Euros in the early and mid 1950s (then played over multiple years). There are no guarantees though. On paper you'd say Puskas playing for Spain looks good, but it didn't work out like that.

Cruijff was imho still the world's best player in 1978 (less clear for 1976, 1975) and it's hard to see him not as an additional value. Also for him there are no guarantees, in the end. He lost against the best Germany team of all-time, playing in Beckenbauer their home stadium. Small things can matter; that rough Brazil '74 game; Rijsbergen injured in the final after Müller fell on his knee; Michels flying up and down to Barcelona (and not sitting on the bench for all games).

Sofascore shows us as the best team of the tournament and basically about on par with Germany in the final (0.14 advantage for the latter, with Rensenbrink and Rijsbergen their injuries bringing it down - they also detect Rijsbergen got injured during the game and this was precisely the position with many absentees and injuries pre-tournament).

So it is a nice hypothetical exercise but there is not certainty, even with a 18 to 1 goal difference or something like that, and a lot depends on circumstance, preparation and context. If Hungary again plays the final on a wet and muddy pitch you just don't know. Regardless of winning, when Cruijff played for Oranje there is no doubt in my mind he was exceptional. Even at 50% of his capacities.

 

Why do you say Netherlands were stolen? I have never heard claims that the match was rigged/referee bought.

Dr. Gerö Cup would not be considered a major trophy, so that's the reason it's not been mentioned previously. You can't call it a 'sort of European Championship' without a Nordic team (Sweden bronze World Cup 1950), Spain (fourth place 1950), a British team (England, and maybe Scotland), Soviet Union, Yugoslavia..

 

Okay, fair enough. I'd think back then it was basically a European Championship without England.

In the same way as the current European Championship is a World Cup without Brazil, Argentina and sometimes Uruguay. But it is fair and not really wrong to see this different.

The 1950 World Cup was very lopsided and had some notable non-participants.

'Stolen' is maybe a big word but it wasn't any less stolen as Brazil was (you mean the final whistle?). 'Rigged' is the right word.

"The referee in the final was Sergio Gonella, the Italian. Klein's appointment, though supported originally by FIFA was disputed by the Argentinians, reputedly, because of the political links between the Netherlands and Israel."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Klein_(referee)#1978_World_Cup

"First, the Argentine FA successfully lobbied for a late referee switch, arguing that designated Israeli official Abraham Klein was an inappropriate choice due to the political links between Holland and Israel. A referee from Italy, a nation with tight links to Argentina, got the nod instead. Klein had refereed Argentina’s only defeat of the tournament ahead of the final; a 1–0 loss against Italy."
https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/a21454856/argentina-1978-world-cup/

He was thus replaced by an Italian. While about two-thirds of the Argentinian population has Italian ancestry, there was a dual citizenship treaty in place and captain Passarella was an Italian speaker and Italian national himself. Grondona and folks didn't even deny that they changed the referee (though unlike the 1994 Champions League final, there wasn't a official confirmation).

But only Brazil was stolen? And therefore the favorites and better if they play the final? If you think 'Brazil' was stolen, so were the others, and Kempes handballed his way to the trophy (in more than one game!)

But of course, the various history books find Argentina the 'right' and deserving winner.

 

By stolen, I think about the Argentina-Peru game (6-0) where they fixed the match, so Argentina would go to the final on better goal difference, instead of Brazil. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina_v_Peru_(1978_FIFA_World_Cup)

The final whistle in the Sweden game, during the corner, was weird and quite ridiculous refereeing, but not so serious. Brazil lost the win and a point, and the group win, but In fact it would have suited Brazil - if not for the fixed match. Austria, that won the group, went to the second group stage with West Germany, Netherlands and Italy. While Brazil as runners up got Argentina, Poland and Peru.

I agree that Netherlands were probably better than Argentina in that tournament, but rigged is too harsh, I think. I also think Brazil were the best team in the tournament, as I have previously indicated, really.

We should also not forget the fact that a European team have never won a World Cup in South America. But it's possible the Argentinians would have cheered for Netherlands if Brazil played the final, giving Netherlands a bit of an advantage.

I certainly don't think all history books find Argentina the 'right' and deserving winner. There are serious reservations about that win, as with Italy in 1934.

Italy 1938 is another, though there is little reservations about that one. But should be.

https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/all-world-cup-winners-classified.2129338/

 

"A European team have never won a World Cup in South America."

Well, before Germany in 2014*. I didn't think enough there.

 

Ah yes, you mean this.

Some who have seen this full game, the last game of the second group stage, think it was not so strange what happened on the field - and it is indeed not 100% obvious or so. Statistically though, I quickly saw two 'strange' things:

- In Sofascore the difference between the two teams is 2.12 points in the match (with the last three goals scored in the 50th, 67th and 73th minute). To give an idea how big that is: Portugal vs North Korea of 2010 is 1.74 (with goals scored in 81, 87 and 89 minute for Portugal). Brazil vs Germany of 2014 is 1.30. Hungary vs El Salvador of 1982 is merely 1.85 (with five goals scored past the 70th minute).

- Peru goalkeeper Quiroga has the top three matches with the most saves. He fills the entire top three for this tournament. 13 vs Netherlands (0-0), 11 vs Scotland (3-1 for Peru), 8 vs Poland (1-0 for Poland), 8 vs Iran (3-1 for Peru). Also on 8 saves are three other goalkeepers, including Fillol vs Netherlands (3-1 after extra time), Fillol vs Brazil (0-0). But then against Argentina this Quiroga made the lowest saves total in his tournament. He made only 4 saves, and 6 goals went in. With also three times a ball on the post. In the 3-0 loss against Brazil this goalkeeper Quiroga made 6 saves (0 shots on the woodwork, one of the goals conceded was a penalty, one other a free kick).

edit: this are thus all the six matches Quiroga played in 1978. The Argentina match by far the worst. Worse than his Brazil game, clearly.

Changing the referee to your own friend is the definition of 'rigged' (not: 'fixed'). As well as FIFA approving the bandage but then changing tune before kick-off and delaying it further (Argentina was already 5 minutes too late - that is technically a sanctionable offence).

I think we would have a good chance.

'We' are the only European team to have won three times or more at a World Cup against Brazil, without extra-time. We are with Norway and Hungary the only European team with a positive head-to-head record against Brazil (Norway and Hungary played only 4 and 5 matches though while we have played 12 times against Brazil since 1963). In World Cups a positive head-to-head too.

But there are no guarantees.

Many non-British books do see them like that, and also some British ones, I know... (not in terms of 'right' but in terms of 'deserving' and having merit by level of play).

 

Di Stefano did not obtain Spanish nationality until 1956 and did not debut with Spain NT until 1957, therefore, he could no longer have played the 1957 Copa América as an Argentine and perhaps not the 1956 one either.

But it is important to note that as I understand it, Di Stéfano took 2 years to obtain Spanish nationality, so it is likely that he began the procedures in 1954, which would surely mean that Argentina would no longer want to select him for the 1955 Copa América and according to the dates of the application for Spanish nationality nor for the 1954 World Cup.

Regarding winning the 1949 and 1953 America's Cups, it may be that being on a top team you always have a chance to win, but most of the time you don't, that's sport.

Regarding what I mentioned about the 1950 World Cup, it seems evident to me that Argentina would have had a better team than Uruguay if they had participated in the tournament and had summoned all the players who played in Colombia or other countries, but having a better team does not guarantee you winning as Brazilians can confirm.

If we talk about the 1960 Euro Cup, Spain had a great team with very good players, but we cannot forget that the USSR was a much better team than Scotland (who eliminated Spain from the WC58) so it would have been a very complicated tie since From 1960 to 1972 the USSR was champion of Euro60, runner-up of Euro64 and Euro72, semi-finalist of Euro68 (eliminated by the toss of a coin!!!) and semi-finalist of WC66, they were a great team without a doubt).

What is clear is that Di Stéfano's international career speaking of NT is dotted with many accidents.

Regarding Puskas and Hungary, I have always said that for me Hungary is one of the 2-3 best teams in history, so they could have perfectly won Euro52 and Euro56 if the tournament had existed in those years.

And Cruyff could also have been champion in 1978, in fact that team (Netherlands) reached the final and with Cruyff they would have been better without a doubt.

 

Well, I still think FIFA controlled this, making sure the referee was not corrupt and giving dishonest decisions.

But yes, I think the referee was a bit biased towards the Argentinians, resulting in most 50-50 decisions going in favour of Argentina. Argentina had too much influence, it's very unprofessional.

I think it's too harsh to call it rigged, though, but it's not how it should be, of course.

For this exercise I consider Di Stéfano to be available in theory for Argentina until, as mentioned in my earlier post, 30 January 1957 when he made his Spanish debut against Netherlands (where he did very well, scoring a hat-trick.)

 

But who controls FIFA? Who is in the ExCom and the relevant committees? Who has influence? Who decides that we get three times in a row the same German referee? (with them knowing we have the worst record with them in charge).

Argentina and Grondona themselves admitted they put pressure on them in 1978, or were in the committees themselves.

Again, the 'FIFA order of merit' and 'FIFA presidential awards' are a good indicator. Our only recipient is Johan Cruijff, and he received this much later as other great players (who did little to nothing in World Cups, Stanley Matthews for example, also Puskas to an extent).

Hungary, Austria, Uruguay and so on have all multiple recipients - also among the administrators.

That is really telling.

Hungary is by the way number one in Elo continuously between august 1952 and october 1956. They had stood a good chance but there are no certainties.