Gio/Theon VS Enigma - NT peak Draft - Final

[Enigma_87]

@Raees i think Zanetti's role is important here. Eusebio dropping deep and exploring the gap between him and Schweinsteiger can do a lot of damage.

On Summer and his forward runs - while not negating that effect it would mean more space on the counter for Muller, which could decide the game given enough chances.

In terms of goal scoring threat Pele,Eusebio and Muller have absolutely brutal stats there.

Also in terms of one on ones in midfield surely Pele vs Schweinsteiger would ease more issues than Maradona vs Beckenbauer?

 

[Enigma_87]

That final ball

Excellent

 

[Gio]

I wasn't too enthused with the Didi/Beckenbauer partnership. Beckenbauer was excellent in a box-to-box role in 1970 which was characterised by some slaloming* contributions going forward. And it seems like a huge waste of his ability to have him holding midfield with the handbrake on to free up Didi as a fancy upgrade to Zito.

With Beckenbauer being already overwhelmed with Maradona (not sure about him being Maradona's kryptonite, it's impossible to find a better proactive defensive player than him, but when it comes to an actual one on one defending, Maradona has a clear edge). Plus you have unmarked Sammer to run riot from the deep.

I was struggling to find the right form of words, but that's an astute way to interpret it. If you're going down the man-marking route for Maradona, you'd probably want a dedicated disciplined destroyer in a Buchwald or Gentile mould to cite some real examples. Beckenbauer doesn't quite smell right in that respect - you'd really want him behind the man-marker mopping things up. In general I'd prefer a collective midfield approach, a bit like Buchwald/Matthaus in 1990, but it's not a realistic option for Enigma with Didi about.

Bottom line though is that Maradona could have a field day here. In the spirit of all the videos that have been posted so far, feel free to have a gander at Diego's 1986 tournament in full:


* For your benefit only @Tuppet.

 

[Raees]

@Raees i think Zanetti's role is important here. Eusebio dropping deep and exploring the gap between him and Schweinsteiger can do a lot of damage.

On Summer and his forward runs - while not negating that effect it would mean more space on the counter for Muller, which could decide the game given enough chances.

In terms of goal scoring threat Pele,Eusebio and Muller have absolutely brutal stats there.

Also in terms of one on ones in midfield surely Pele vs Schweinsteiger would ease more issues than Maradona vs Beckenbauer?

I thought Eusebio is more inside right in your match, so is against Carlos and Cannavaro?

Must say I am not convinced by Sammer against Muller. Sammer is a great 'player' and all round powerhouse, but trying to keep Muller quiet is not something I'd trust with a Sammer.

Controversial maybe, but Pele 70 as good as he was.. wasn't as dynamic or as devastating a player as Maradona 86. He had a wider range of weapons, but I'd back Schweini to handle Pele better whereas one v one v Maradona 86, it would be a blood bath imo.

 

[Moby]

Just so happens that we discussed the ideal setting for Maradona and for me it was someone like Ronaldo + another direct player who would contribute more without the ball than with it - having another playmaker in Cruyff there isn't the best idea in my opinion; while Enigma on the other hand has the greatest performer in WC history partnered with the most decisive goalscorer international football has seen.

Also having Beckenbauer occupy the same zones as Maradona - though there's obviously no way to contain the 1986 Diego - but in Figueroa, Moore and Beckenbauer you have three defenders who can individually dominate the greatest attackers, and have the history of doing that, which weighs quite heavily here afaic. As much as I love Thuram both him and Cannavaro fall short of that outstanding individual efforts against attackers of that quality that Enigma's lot faced.

International Football, Pelé wins.

 

[Gio]

Controversial maybe, but Pele 70 as good as he was.. wasn't as dynamic or as devastating a player as Maradona 86. He had a wider range of weapons, but I'd back Schweini to handle Pele better whereas one v one v Maradona 86, it would be a blood bath imo.

For me if you are ranking the all-time greatest World Cup performances, the clear top 3 are Maradona in '86, then Cruyff in '74 and then Garrincha in '62.

As impressive as Pele's all-round World Cup record is, we never quite got to see peak Pele light it up on the biggest stage. Tim Vickery spoke about this recently on the World Football Radio 5 podcast, saying it was a shame that he got injured in 1962 when he was at his peak - or even 1966 when he got kicked out of the tournament. He excelled in both 1958 and 1970 obviously, but neither quite brought together the full package the way he was doing in the early 1960s for Santos.

 

[harms]

Also in terms of one on ones in midfield surely Pele vs Schweinsteiger would ease more issues than Maradona vs Beckenbauer?

That's the thing. You have only Beckenbauer on Maradona (that is before he dribbles his way into your box). Gio's team has Schweinsteiger-Matthäus-Sammer trio covering that space in front of their center backs.

 

[harms]

Must say I am not convinced by Sammer against Muller. Sammer is a great 'player' and all round powerhouse, but trying to keep Muller quiet is not something I'd trust with a Sammer.

Pretty sure that they aren't directly playing against each other. Müller should be Cannavaro/Thuram's responsibility. If they are, it's a clear route to goal - Müller would expose Sammer's movement without a question.

 

[Pat_Mustard]

Pretty sure that they aren't directly playing against each other. Müller should be Cannavaro/Thuram's responsibility. If they are, it's a clear route to goal - Müller would expose Sammer's movement without a question.

Aye, surely Sammer's responsibility versus Muller is a covering player rather than a main marker.

 

[Moby]

For me if you are ranking the all-time greatest World Cup performances, the clear top 3 are Maradona in '86, then Cruyff in '74 and then Garrincha in '62.

Maradona and Garrincha are the two greatest 'individual' performers, in a way where you couldn't care less on what the rest of the team was doing as long as they won the ball and gave it to them, and that's it. Although broadening that category you will have performances that were exactly what the team needed and ended up in having 5 players in the team playing at an elite level.

Pelé is already widely regarded as the greatest when it comes to taking a team full of talented players and getting the best out of them 'as a team', which must be added to his repertoire and his performance. Maradona was hardly behind in doing that but in an all time fantasy setting, I can see Pelé being the better factor in terms of controlling and dominating the game throughout consistently and getting the best out of his GOAT partners. While Maradona is more suited to being the absolute leader of the pack - something his club career along with the relevant NT career here supports - and letting him do everything. Sure, you can instruct that here but Cruyff makes little sense in that strategy and it ends up being ill suited to a legendary line up.

Also, no chance in hell Cruyff in 74 stands a chance to be considered above Pelé in 1970.

 

[Enigma_87]

That's the thing. You have only Beckenbauer on Maradona (that is before he dribbles his way into your box). Gio's team has Schweinsteiger-Matthäus-Sammer trio covering that space in front of their center backs.

Same can be said about leaving Muller alone with either Cannavaro or Thuram. There is also Eusebio stretching the defence. Figueroa and Moore are perfectly capable of stepping up also and we're defending as a team.

 

[Enigma_87]

For me if you are ranking the all-time greatest World Cup performances, the clear top 3 are Maradona in '86, then Cruyff in '74 and then Garrincha in '62.

As impressive as Pele's all-round World Cup record is, we never quite got to see peak Pele light it up on the biggest stage. Tim Vickery spoke about this recently on the World Football Radio 5 podcast, saying it was a shame that he got injured in 1962 when he was at his peak - or even 1966 when he got kicked out of the tournament. He excelled in both 1958 and 1970 obviously, but neither quite brought together the full package the way he was doing in the early 1960s for Santos.

Cruyff was marked out of the game by Vogts in the final. Can't see him having better performance than Pele in 1970. Not at all.

 

[harms]

Also, no chance in hell Cruyff in 74 stands a chance to be considered above Pelé in 1970.

I'd rate them about equal, but Cruyff was far better defensively, while creating a little more for his teammates and scoring 1 less goal. Hard to separate those two considering the difference in playing style and personnel around them.

 

[Enigma_87]

I thought Eusebio is more inside right in your match, so is against Carlos and Cannavaro?

Must say I am not convinced by Sammer against Muller. Sammer is a great 'player' and all round powerhouse, but trying to keep Muller quiet is not something I'd trust with a Sammer.

Controversial maybe, but Pele 70 as good as he was.. wasn't as dynamic or as devastating a player as Maradona 86. He had a wider range of weapons, but I'd back Schweini to handle Pele better whereas one v one v Maradona 86, it would be a blood bath imo.

He's free roaming attacker like in 1966 exploiting space left and right

 

[harms]

Same can be said about leaving Muller alone with either Cannavaro or Thuram

Nope, it isn't a glaring weakness, especially considering their World Cup credentials. I'll put it this way - one on one Müller is always a nuisance, but with Sammer he would be a tactical misfit, with Cannavaro or Thuram (or them both, like it would happen, plus Schmeichel controlling the box) he'll "just" have his usual impact (which usually converts into a goal anyway). Again, I can't agree with you bigging up your defenders based on their overall reputation, Gio's defenders are at least equal to yours if not better as a unit - based on their peak international performance that is.

 

[Raees]

He's free roaming attacker like in 1966 exploiting space left and right

Good, that changes things.. I'm imagining him and Pele dovetailing behind Muller, one more of a runner with the ball whilst the other is pulling the strings..

 

[Enigma_87]

Nope, it isn't a glaring weakness, especially considering their World Cup credentials. I'll put it this way - one on one Müller is always a nuisance, but with Sammer he would be a tactical misfit, with Cannavaro or Thuram (or them both, like it would happen, plus Schmeichel controlling the box) he'll "just" have his usual impact (which usually converts into a goal anyway). Again, I can't agree with you bigging up your defenders based on their overall reputation, Gio's defenders are at least equal to yours if not better as a unit - based on their peak international performance that is.

Well as I've said mate - you have two of the greatest defenders in the game in Figueroa and Maldini capable of covering. While Didi is not Rijkaard he's not passenger either in defense.

Also the presence of both Maradona and Cruyff in the same space would create tension and probably compatibility issues so we won't see their optimal form here IMO

 

[Moby]

I'd rate them about equal, but Cruyff was far better defensively, while creating a little more for his teammates and scoring 1 less goal. Hard to separate those two considering the difference in playing style and personnel around them.

One got marked out in the final while the other produced one of the most iconic performances ever seen on the biggest stage in the history of the game, while playing against arguably a more cynical and ruthless defensive Italian team - not only smashing them by 4 goals to 1 but also establishing the undisputed superiority of Joga Bonito over European pragmatism.

Funnily enough, it was @Gio who quoted this summary here.

That this is football's apogee is not seriously in dispute by anyone with an anima. Yet it might legitimately be argued that this also represents the apex of all sport and, if you're feeling particularly grandiloquent, all art. Group art, at least, for it is difficult to imagine a collective exhibition of greatness to match Brazil's fourth and final goal in the 1970 World Cup final. If Blur had performed with such effulgence at Glastonbury, you'd still be drooling over your commemorative 128-page Guardian pullout and honing a story which proves that you, along with the other seven million, really were there.

The signature flourishes have set up camp in the mind's eye. Jairzinho goading Giacinto Facchetti with the coiled menace of a nightclub bully asking someone what they're looking at; Pelé deliberately, tenderly delaying his pass, like a skilled lover teasing and teasing and teasing some more before pushing the exact button you wanted, and another that you didn't even know you had; Carlos Alberto - the bloody right-back - both feet miles off the ground, smashing a shot at the speed of light past Enrico Albertosi. Beauty is power, of course, but power has never been as beautiful as it was in the moments after the ball whistled off Alberto's boot. Yet there is sometimes a tendency to forget that Clodoaldo – not so much the fifth Beatle as the sixth Brazilian (everyone can name the other five members of their offensive sextet) – beat four Italian players, one of them without even touching the ball, at the start of the move.

Part of the joy of the goal is that it did not come out of the blue; instead it was done almost to order, reaffirming and then extending the parameters of an inconvertible greatness that had been established over the previous 19 days. Not even the biggest cynic, be he an Italian defender on the field or an iconoclastic revisionist three decades later, could deny this particular happy ending. Whether you are talking about the great works of football, sport or art, Brazil 1970 are simply undeniable.

He couldn't have scored a single goal or had a single assist for all I care, he embodied the identity of what is regarded as the greatest NT of all time, something which I completely agree with, and something that would have never occurred without the presence of The King. No one in the history of the game has commanded more respect on the pitch than Pelé did, both by his teammates and his opponents, and he was the glue that made that entire team work to a level where the opposition simply had no answer. I have no problem in backing that team against any other nationalteam that has ever played and backing them to outplay them, with style, as they did. It's all well and good counting the tangible elements of the game, the statistics and what not, but I have never seen one player impact a team and a tournament to that level. It seems absurd to say that given the amount of talent he was surrounded with but that's precisely the beauty of that incarnation. What could have been an absolute clusterfeck with everyone fighting to be the star and stepping on each other was turned into a beautiful symphony where everyone followed the orchestrator. There's no one in the history of the game who can replace that role in that team, it's not just being selfless or incredible footballing IQ or the sort of talent that would disrupt the opposition constantly and let others perform, the sheer aura of him being on the pitch is only ever matched by Maradona on the International stage - who did it in an entirely different yet absolutely sensational way. Cruyff doesn't reach that level. Even Garrincha, who was individually better in 1962 than Pelé in 1970 doesn't come close to that overall impact.

 

[Gio]

@Moby Nobody's denying how well Pele glued an incredibly talented and attack-heavy Brazil side in 1970. That's not up for debate.

Also, no chance in hell Cruyff in 74 stands a chance to be considered above Pelé in 1970.

I don't know about that, to be specific I think Cruyff creates more and leaves defenders for dead more than Pele did in 1970.

 

[harms]

One got marked out in the final while the other produced one of the most iconic performances ever seen on the biggest stage in the history of the game, while playing against arguably a more cynical and ruthless defensive Italian team - not only smashing them by 4 goals to 1 but also establishing the undisputed superiority of Joga Bonito over European pragmatism.

To be honest he did win a penalty which is somehow discounted from his performance whatsoever. If he would've scored a goal the narrative would've changed a bit.
But I agree that considering their respective performances in the final you can make a case for Pele having a better World Cup. But overall I'd still probably choose Cruyff (having rewatched couple of 1974 games recently too)

It's easily comparable to Maradona being man-marked in 1986 final, yet making an assist. Argentina won - so it's all part of a fairy-tale - the player leading his side to victory, in the final game being brutally marked out, yet still producing one crucial moment of brilliance. Netherland lost - and Cruyff with his penalty is left out as a colossal bottler.

 

[Enigma_87]

Beautifully put @Moby . Couldn't have said it better myself.

@Moby Nobody's denying how well Pele glued an incredibly talented and attack-heavy Brazil side in 1970. That's not up for debate.


I don't know about that, to be specific I think Cruyff creates more and ,leaves defenders for dead more than Pele did in 1970.

The difference here mate is that Cruyff was the focal point of the attack - he was everywhere asking for the ball. Maradona is practically the same. Pele would not stand in the way of Muller or Eusebio but elevate them to another level.

 

[Moby]

I don't know about that, to be specific I think Cruyff creates more and ,leaves defenders for dead more than Pele did in 1970.

Yep, he does. So did Garrincha in 1962, as I wrote. That's not where the performance of an attacking player ends, though. Not to mention you also have another player who does EXACTLY that, to an even greater degree and efficiency, and arguably being the greatest the game has seen to do that, a lot more. feck arguably, he IS the greatest in doing that.

It would be positively mental to see another player, even if his name is Johan Cruyff, constantly running at defenders with the ball when you have a bloke called Diego Maradona playing in his goal-of-the-century incarnation.

 

[Enigma_87]

To be honest he did win a penalty which is somehow discounted from his performance whatsoever. If he would've scored a goal the narrative would've changed a bit.
But I agree that considering their respective performances in the final you can make a case for Pele having a better World Cup. But overall I'd still probably choose Cruyff (having rewatched couple of 1974 games recently too)

It's easily comparable to Maradona being man-marked in 1986 final, yet making an assist. Argentina won - so it's all part of a fairy-tale. Netherland lost - Cruyff with his penalty is left as a colossal bottler.

But here Cruyff is playing alongside Maradona which IMO would reduce his time on the ball and the impact he would make as they have to share it. Same goes for Maradona. On the other side you have Pele who was surrounded by stars but that didn't reduce his influence one bit. On the contrary he starred in that WC in a way he never did before.

Also the incarnation of both Maradona and Cruyff had clear game plan - stars of the team and main playmakers. Here what is the plan with two advanced playmakers occupying the same space and having played pretty much the same role in the respective tournaments.

 

[Moby]

If he would've scored a goal the narrative would've changed a bit.

Sure, but he didn't. It's not like scoring the goal was the only thing missing from his final performance and he dominated it otherwise, either. It pretty much mirrors Messi's WC2014 Final, where Cruyff obviously had a far, far greater performance prior to the final, but the final is the game that weighs most heavily and it is your performance in that game that matters the most. It is why, in this game, Muller gets more credit than Cruyff even if he cannot match him overall as an attacker. It's clear, hard hitting evidence. Period.

 

[Gio]

Cruyff was marked out of the game by Vogts in the final. Can't see him having better performance than Pele in 1970. Not at all.

Worth highlighting that despite Vogts' famous man-marking job, Cruyff still wins a penalty in the first minute after a 50-yard run through the heart of the West German team. Then later in the half breaks clear and tees up Rep for an easy finish - which he squanders. It's not as if he had a shite game and couldn't influence matters - he basically gives Holland 2 goals in the final!

Plus there's the nature of some of the man-marking which was a little questionable at times.

 

[Tuppet]

The difference here mate is that Cruyff was the focal point of the attack - he was everywhere asking for the ball. Maradona is practically the same. Pele would not stand in the way of Muller or Eusebio but elevate them to another level.

I've seen this quoted many times and while I agree with the general statement that Cruyff probably wanted ball more, I just don't get this elevate another level stuff. What exactly Pele was doing differently than Cruyff in the games ? From what I've seen of both world cups, there is very little they were doing very similar stuff (discounting both team's tactical differences), although Pele had way more quality around him.

 

[Gio]

But here Cruyff is playing alongside Maradona which IMO would reduce his time on the ball and the impact he would make as they have to share it. Same goes for Maradona. On the other side you have Pele who was surrounded by stars but that didn't reduce his influence one bit. On the contrary he starred in that WC in a way he never did before.

Well obviously really - Holland were hugely reliant on Cruyff to make the difference going forward.

Different for Brazil though. Shut out Pele and up steps Gerson with a 25-yarder. Or Jairzinho with a back-post run and finish. Or Rivelino with a scorcher from the edge of the box. Or fecking Carlos Alberto and not Will Suurbier rasping one in from the right flank.

 

[Enigma_87]

I've seen this quoted many times and while I agree with the general statement that Cruyff probably wanted ball more, I just don't get this elevate another level stuff. What exactly would Pele was doing differently than Cruyff in the games ? From what I've seen of both world cups, there is very little they were doing differently (discounting both team's tactical differences).

I think the main difference is again Maradona. Obviously Cruyff had a great WC it I can't see him and Maradona working well together based on both WC incarnations and also their style and roles. Cruyff amd Pele IMO would work better as Pele is not a dominant playmaker and would facilitate Cruyff and his game a lot better.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

But here Cruyff is playing alongside Maradona which IMO would reduce his time on the ball and the impact he would make as they have to share it.

Cruyff was more about utilization of space rather than running around with the ball. Given a free role in a 5-3-2 he'll have plenty of space to operate in and contribute to on and off the ball. I can't think of a better AM/Forward to share the field with Maradona.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

A great piece for Muller from the Guardian, and why he's considered the best goalscorer in the game and the man for the biggest occasion:


Who are the best big-game goalscorers in football history?
After analysing 1,931 goals scored by 1,071 footballers across 63 years, sportswriter Liam Corbett has compiled a list of the 50 players whose goals changed the course of the sport's history

Gerd Müller picks up a few more points on his way to topping the list of big-game goalscorers. Photograph: Staff/AFP/Getty Images
Whose goals have most changed the course of football history? Lionel Messi scored 91 goals in 2012 to beat Gerd Müller's record of 85 in a calendar year set back in 1972. Messi seems to break records every time he plays. Putting five goals past Bayer Leverkusen in last season's Champions League was a remarkable achievement but, for all his heroics, Messi still lags some way behind Müller when it comes to changing games on the grandest stages.

Sportswriter Liam Corbett of the Average Opposition blog has analysed all the goals scored in the world's biggest competitions since 1950 – that's 1,931 goals by 1,071 different scorers in 63 years – and complied a list of football's top 50 big-game goalscorers. This exercise is about the goals that have shaped matches at the very pinnacle of the sport. And Gerd Müller has scored more that anyone.

Müller scored 68 goals in 62 internationals for Germany and another 398 in his 453 appearances for Bayern Munich. The numbers are staggering, but his consistency is even more impressive. He was no flat-track bully. Müller scored in the finals and semi-finals of the World Cup, European Championship and European Cup. His last goal for Germany was the winner in the 1974 World Cup final, played in his club's stadium in Munich.

He's the clear winner on a list that throws up a few intriguing insights. Bobby Charlton is the highest placed English player, with Geoff Hurst also making the top 50 thanks to three goals scored on the same afternoon. Nine Brazilians make the list, while Argentina has seven representatives.

Diego Forlán, the best performer at the last World Cup and Uruguay's top scorer and cap-holder, is the only man in the top 20 still playing. Messi has plenty of time to rise up the list, but he's currently sitting in 39th, just below Jari Litmanen.

Weightings
The methodology


Tournament

Points
World Cup final 5
European Championship final 4
Copa America final 4
World Cup semi-final 4
World Cup final group stages 3.5
European Cup final 3
European Championship semi-final 3
Copa America semi-final 3
Copa Libertadores final 2.5
Copa America final group stages 2.5
European Championship final group stages 2.5
Copa America final stages 2
Europa League final 2
UEFA Cup final 2
Cup-Winners Cup final 2
Champions League semi-final 2
Copa America semi-final 2
Copa Libertadores semi-final 1.5


The top 50 big-game goalscorers

Rank -- Player -- County -- Career -- Goals -- Points

1. Gerd Muller -- Germany -- 1963-1981 -- 16 -- 51
2. Alfredo Di Stefano -- Argentina-- 1945-1966 -- 19 -- 45
3. Pele -- Brazil -- 1956-1977 -- 13 -- 40.5
4. Ferenc Puskas -- Hungary -- 1943-1966 -- 15 -- 40
5. Zinedine Zidane -- France -- 1988-2006 -- 10 -- 33
6. Ronaldo -- Brazil -- 1993-2011 -- 9 -- 32
7 . Alberto Spencer -- Ecuador -- 1953-1972 -- 13 -- 27.5
8 . Vava -- Brazil -- 1949-1969 -- 6 -- 27
9. Mario Kempes -- Argentina -- 1970-1996 -- 6 -- 24
10. Eusebio -- Portugal -- 1957-1979 -- 9 -- 23

4 out of the top ten big game goalscorers are on the pitch and 3 of them are in our side.

These types of stats are always interesting and I am a fan of that blog. Although I do prefer a more expanded and intricate definition used in this other blog post even though this takes into league games and not just international matches.

As such, in order to attempt to investigate which modern and historical players truly rise to the occasion, we looked at their records in four main types of game:

• international tournament knock-out stages and group matches in which a result was essential
  
• semi-finals and finals in domestic cup competitions
  
• any match against those in the top three of their domestic division or historically-established rivals
  
• any league match where, due to a league, Champions League, relegation or simple record, a result was essential.

There are, however, a few caveats to the list:

• in order to establish a ‘baseline’, only players who had played in at least 30 of what we consider big games were included
  
• the lists could only go as far as statistics were available. For example, starting line-ups for older domestic games in Brazil proved difficult to acquire, meaning Jairzinho’s record could not be fully analysed

I think that captures big game performances a bit better. Miguel Delaney also only counts decisive goals that make a difference in the result of the match rather than say scoring the 5th goal in a 5-0 romp. I think taking into account decisive goals is also important to determine the best at big game goal scoring.

Player Big games Decisive goals Ratio
Pele 31 12 0.39
Leo Messi 41 16 0.37
Ronaldo) 97 35 0.36
Eusebio 33 11 0.33
Di Stefano 63 20 0.32
Michel Platini 57 18 0.32
David Villa 53 17 0.32
Gerd Muller 63 20 0.31
Rivaldo 59 17 0.29
Drogba 82 27 0.29
van Basten 46 13 0.28
Denis Law 53 12 0.27
Thierry Henry 95 26 0.27
Ian Rush 74 27 0.27
George Best 54 14 0.26


http://www.totalfootballforums.com/forums/topic/83025-best-ever-big-game-goalscorers/

 

[Gio]

Sure, but he didn't. It's not like scoring the goal was the only thing missing from his final performance and he dominated it otherwise, either. It pretty much mirrors Messi's WC2014 Final, where Cruyff obviously had a far, far greater performance prior to the final, but the final is the game that weighs most heavily and it is your performance in that game that matters the most. It is why, in this game, Muller gets more credit than Cruyff even if he cannot match him overall as an attacker. It's clear, hard hitting evidence. Period.

That's a silly argument though. Should we sub in Zidane 1998 (and not Euro 2000 Zizou) for the guaranteed win then?

I think it's more important that Cruyff was superb in 1974 throughout the tournament. He excelled against Uruguay, Sweden, Bulgaria, Argentina and Brazil. That's 5 games where he received a 5 or 6 out of 6 in France Football's player ratings. He created 36 chances during the tournament, more than any other player has ever managed in any World Cup. He was brilliant both individually and collectively for Holland.

 

[Moby]

Cruyff was more about utilization of space rather than running around with the ball. Given a free role in a 5-3-2 he'll have plenty of space to operate in and contribute to on and off the ball. I can't think of a better AM/Forward to share the field with Maradona.

Based on his 74 show, he would be a lot better in the role Maradona has here. He's Johan Cruyff, not a sidekick to anyone. In fact, of all the GOATs, if anyone would absolutely lose his shit in getting that role, it is him.

Have someone like Boniek there, which @Polaroid (gone but never forgotten) did in the World Cup draft, and the whole thing goes up a notch collectively.

 

[Enigma_87]

Cruyff was more about utilization of space rather than running around with the ball. Given a free role in a 5-3-2 he'll have plenty of space to operate in and contribute to on and off the ball. I can't think of a better AM/Forward to share the field with Maradona.

Cruyff ran a lot with the ball mate in that WC. Almost every move either started or ended through him. We disagree on this point I guess, Puskas for example is a much better fit on the inside left.

@oneniltothearsenal that's very interesting approach as well. #3 is that fenomeno or Cristiano? Nice to see Law on the list as well.

 

[Enigma_87]

Based on his 74 show, he would be a lot better in the role Maradona has here. He's Johan Cruyff, not a sidekick to anyone. In fact, of all the GOATs, if anyone would absolutely lose his shit in getting that role, it is him.

Have someone like Boniek there, which @Polaroid (gone but never forgotten) did in the World Cup draft, and the whole thing goes up a notch collectively.

Or Stoichkov, or Puskas, etc..

 

[Moby]

That's a silly argument though.

It isn't though. You can't blatantly ignore the fact that he lost the World Cup, while being on the end of one of the most famous man markings ever. He was the best player in the tournament and it is an all time great performance overall but the initial argument was that it doesn't hold up to Pelé's or Maradona's, not that it was anything less than sensational bar the final - which of course I hold more important than any other game of the tournament.

It's not like he was carrying an inferior team or anything either. It can be argued that talent for talent Holland at least matched West Germany and perhaps were superior to them technically and creatively.

 

[Enigma_87]

Also @Edgar Allan Pillow, Gio himself offered his view back in the fantasy draft on Cruyff personality in relation to playing second fiddle to Maradona:

Anyone who has read 'Ajax Barcelona Cruyff' will recognise that he is an impossible, awkward man at times, but equally has some strong values and savvy insight into the game. Since he first became established at Ajax, I'm not sure if there's been a situation where he's had to play second fiddle to anyone and, throughout his career on and off the park, has made it clear that, if he's not the main man, he's not interested.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Cruyff was more about utilization of space rather than running around with the ball. Given a free role in a 5-3-2 he'll have plenty of space to operate in and contribute to on and off the ball. I can't think of a better AM/Forward to share the field with Maradona.

Interesting. What do you think of di Stefano and Maradona for instance? And is there a player/type of player whom you can't see combining well with Cruyff?

 

[Gio]

It isn't though. You can't blatantly ignore the fact that he lost the World Cup, while being on the end of one of the most famous man markings ever. He was the best player in the tournament and it is an all time great performance overall but the initial argument was that it doesn't hold up to Pelé's or Maradona's, not that it was anything less than sensational bar the final - which of course I hold more important than any other game of the tournament.

It's not like he was carrying an inferior team or anything either. It can be argued that talent for talent Holland at least matched West Germany and perhaps were superior to them technically and creatively.

But you're placing undue weight on the final. Zidane played much better in the 1998 final than the 2000 final but we always went for the 2000 set of performances. After all, it's not the Tournament Final Draft, it's the Tournament draft.

As I said above, Cruyff wins a penalty in the first minute after a 50-yard run through the heart of the West German team. Then later in the half breaks clear and tees up Rep for an easy finish - which he squanders. It's not as if he had a shite game and couldn't influence matters - he basically gives Holland 2 goals in the final! Even though that wasn't Cruyff's best game of his campaign, it's hard to think of many greats who have had more influence on a final. How many 50-yard runs have there been with the ball in a World Cup final to win a penalty?

The narratives we retrospectively develop about certain tournaments and players are often a little distant from what happened.

 

[Moby]

But you're placing undue weight on the final. Zidane played much better in the 1998 final than the 2000 final but we always went for the 2000 set of performances. After all, it's not the Tournament Final Draft, it's the Tournament draft.

It's not undue, it's the most important game of these players' careers. World Cup is the biggest stage, and the final is what matters a lot more than the games before.

Let's not compare performances where the overall performances are not comparable in the first place, that isn't the argument here. The point is - great tournament performance + a great final performance and win >>> great tournament performance but a disappointing final and not winning the whole thing. It's that simple.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Cruyff ran a lot with the ball mate in that WC. Almost every move either started or ended through him. We disagree on this point I guess, Puskas for example is a much better fit on the inside left.

@oneniltothearsenal that's very interesting approach as well. #3 is that fenomeno or Cristiano? Nice to see Law on the list as well.

Brazilian Ronaldo, I forgot to put the link in the first post

http://www.totalfootballforums.com/forums/topic/83025-best-ever-big-game-goalscorers/


Cristiano appears on another list from that link - The most likely to score in any given big game but fenomeno Ronaldo still ranks higher on that one too