All-Time European xi vs. All-Time South American xi

[harms]

I dunno about "GOATs" but maybe we can do it another way. If you can give me ten pairs and I'll see if I can match it. Varela is a sure shot "GOAT" as much as someone like Rijkaard for example and Varela and Redondo for example will shit on most CM pairs and match the top ones from Europe. Let's not forget Redondo by himself owned Keane and Scholes, treble winners in Europe at the time.

Rijkaard - Breitner; Beckenbauer - Masopust; Neeskens - Van Hanegem; Desailly - Bozsik; Matthaus - Tardelli; Tigana - Davids; Pirri - Robson; Keane - Ocwirk

With Beckenbauer, Matthaus, Rijkaard, Breinter being GOATs and Masopust, Neeskens, Van Hanegem and Desailly having a claim to be one in their position. And lots, lots of world class box-to-box and defensive midfielders, I can make another 3-4 pairs with ease. Redondo is a little overrated here because of his performance against us, though he certainly belongs into that "arguably" category, along with Varela. That's a very subjective things we are discussing here though, like any such lists.

 

[Moby]

but when he compare them to Rijkaard or Beckenbauer they really come out short.

If you say Rijkaard is numero uno DM in Europe, then compare him with someone like Monti or Varela. Two WC winners, Monti actually won it twice.
Zito is also a two time WC winner and was the one man midfield in both. Not sure what's your basis of disregarding him in comparison to someone like Rijkaard.

 

[harms]

If you say Rijkaard is numero uno DM in Europe, then compare him with someone like Monti or Varela. Two WC winners, Monti actually won it twice.
Zito is also a two time WC winner and was the one man midfield in both. Not sure what's your basis of disregarding him in comparison to someone like Rijkaard.

Well, we can agree to disagree here. Like I said, those discussions become pointless because it's all very subjective - and while you can make a list of objective pros and cons, like the number of WC wins, it still doesn't tell us the exact level of that player.

 

[Theon]

Yes, that opinion is pretty much filled with United bias, sorry.

Deary me. That's utter nonsense IMO Aldo.

It looks like you simply underrate Robson, as I note you only highlighted him as the one out of place from Souness/Keane/Robson when in reality all three were excellent and of similar quality.

I've never had a problem being objective about United players either, so it's a silly criticism to throw around.

 

[Fortitude]

Rijkaard - Breitner; Beckenbauer - Masopust; Neeskens - Van Hanegem; Desailly - Bozsik; Matthaus - Tardelli; Tigana - Davids; Pirri - Robson; Keane - Ocwirk

With Beckenbauer, Matthaus, Rijkaard, Breinter being GOATs and Masopust, Neeskens, Van Hanegem and Desailly having a claim to be one in their position. And lots, lots of world class box-to-box and defensive midfielders, I can make another 3-4 pairs with ease. Redondo is a little overrated here because of his performance against us, though he certainly belongs into that "arguably" category, along with Varela. That's a very subjective things we are discussing here though, like any such lists.

But that list is pointless in relation to S.A. football.

All you have to do is work in reverse: put as many European players into South American systems and vice versa and both will come up short much sooner than in their own systems, and furthermore, both continents would then have a pool of players being incorrectly utilised, so comparing them in the way that's being done doesn't really serve a purpose.

 

[Moby]

Rijkaard - Breitner; Beckenbauer - Masopust; Neeskens - Van Hanegem; Desailly - Bozsik; Matthaus - Tardelli; Tigana - Davids; Pirri - Robson; Keane - Ocwirk

Alright.

Rijkaard/Breitner - Varela/Didi
Beckenbauer/Masopust - Redondo/Falcao
Neeskens/Van Hanegem - Zito/Andrade
Desailly/Bozsik - Monti/Gerson
Matthaus/Tardelli - Ardiles/Rossi
Tigana/Davids - Mascherano/Simeone
Pirri/Robson - Goncalves/Velasquez (Goncalves actually defeated Pirri-led Madrid)
Keane/Ocwirk - Clodoaldo/Cerezo.

Ten pairs in and there's hardly a mismatch as you suggest it to be. Would like to know which particular match up there you think heavily favours the Europeans. Of course like I said beyond this point we'll go in favour of Europe simple as you have roughly 6-8 top nations in one continent and way more in the other. But for the top of the table, it's pretty even, in my opinion at least.

 

[Moby]

It looks like you simply underrate Robson, as I note you only highlighted him as the one out of place from Souness/Keane/Robson when in reality all three were excellent and of similar quality.

I love Captain Marvel as much as the next United fan, I just don't believe he had the career or the ability to hold up against top CMs of all time. In my opinion of course.

 

[Theon]

I love Captain Marvel as much as the next United fan, I just don't believe he had the career or the ability to hold up against top CMs of all time. In my opinion of course.

Aye, I can respect your opinion but I don't agree personally.

Just in the above we've had Mascherano, Simeone and Ossie Ardiles mentioned, with Robson being a clear tier better than all three of them in my view.

 

[Moby]

Aye, I can respect your opinion but I don't agree personally.

Just in the above we've had Mascherano, Simeone and Ossie Ardiles mentioned, with Robson being a clear tier better than all three of them in my view.

Mascherano's performances in the last WC alone would be better than anything Robbo did in this career, for example. He's a treble winner, Ardiles won the WC when the entire team was specifically built around him and Kempes. Menotti actually left out plenty of big players like Bochini and Alonso because he wanted Ardiles to run the entire show, as he did and got home the trophy. I know the usual narrative for Robbo is he never played in a great team, etc but someone like Gerrard has won a CL with a far inferior team than what United had at the time.
Anyway, to each his own.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

British players aren't rated half as much outside Britain as they are inside.

True. That goes for most countries, or specific demographics, though. People are bound to rate what they know.

However, in the context of football enthusiasts or so-called connoisseurs, the very fact that some players are unduly bigged up by their own gets used against them in a way which almost turns the tables. This is not least true for certain British players - at least in my experience.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

European XI

A Dutch style 3-3-3-1

................van Basten..............
....Best........Platini......Matthews....
.Big Dunc.......Rijkaard......Matthaus.
Paolo Maldini...Beckenbauer...Thuram


South American XI


.....................Pele..............................
...Joya.........Maradona.....Garrincha.........
.........PR Falcao........JL Andrade..............
Nilton Santos...Figueroa..Santamaria....Cafu

 

[Enigma_87]

Alright.

Rijkaard/Breitner - Varela/Didi
Beckenbauer/Masopust - Redondo/Falcao
Neeskens/Van Hanegem - Zito/Andrade
Desailly/Bozsik - Monti/Gerson
Matthaus/Tardelli - Ardiles/Rossi
Tigana/Davids - Mascherano/Simeone
Pirri/Robson - Goncalves/Velasquez (Goncalves actually defeated Pirri-led Madrid)
Keane/Ocwirk - Clodoaldo/Cerezo.

Ten pairs in and there's hardly a mismatch as you suggest it to be. Would like to know which particular match up there you think heavily favours the Europeans. Of course like I said beyond this point we'll go in favour of Europe simple as you have roughly 6-8 top nations in one continent and way more in the other. But for the top of the table, it's pretty even, in my opinion at least.

The last 4 seems a bit of a mismatch(but it's a bit more of personal opinion rather than definite of some sort).

Not to be nitpicky but there are 8 pairs there

Rijkaard/Beckenbauer(Or Matthaus/Beckenbauer) IMO you can hardly top by any SA partnership, while Redondo/Falcao is up with whatever else you put otherwise.

 

[Moby]

True. That goes for most countries, or specific demographics, though. People are bound to rate what they know.

However, in the context of football enthusiasts or so-called connoisseurs, the very fact that some players are unduly bigged up by their own gets used against them in a way which almost turns the tables. This is not least true for certain British players - at least in my experience.

I can agree to that. I don't mind someone bigging up Souness, for example, but someone like Bochini matches his CV pretty much. Bochini won 5 Libertadores as opposed to Souness' 4 European Cups. 4 and 5 domestic championships for each. Not to mention Bochini fought off the government in a few of those conquests, as that famous Championship decider against River where ref sent off 3 Independiente players 'under orders' but whatever, how many people in the UK would know of Bochini? He's a South American giant, an absolute legend of the game and inspired none other than Diego Maradona.

In this context I'd put Robbo (and I know you rate him highly ) in the category of the ones unduly bigged up by people familiar with him. I mean, even in UK non United fans wouldn't rate him as highly as they do someone like Keane for example. Among non British fans his standing falls lower, and I wouldn't have much to argue against that apart from harping upon the fact that he stood out in an average bunch and showed plenty of heart and desire to overcome the odds at times. Great qualities and I know theres always debate among us United fans between him and Keane, but his CV falls way short and while he was truly impressive for that era, in an all time context, it's not enough, not for me at least.

 

[Moby]

The last 4 seems a bit of a mismatch

Actually harms left Lothar pretty late and I had used up the 'GOATs' till then, but it's not a mismatch for me, not at all. It's one thing to say that Matthaus and Tardelli would win that battle but marginally at best. Like I mentioned above there's hardly anything to argue against Ardiles' standing in the game, as well as his manager's rating of him who left out a 24 year old who had won FOUR Libertadores titles by that age (imagine a player having won FOUR Champions Leagues by the age of 24) in favour of him. I understand some of these players aren't all that familiar but that shouldn't be a reason to undermine their talent.

And in case of Goncalves, he actually has evidence of defeating a prime Pirri, when Penarol defeated Madrid. Mismatch my arse.

 

[Joga Bonito]

@Brwned
Can't agree about Yashin and his lack of technique/agile/whatever compared to today's keepers
The keeper's job was also so much harder those days - when the ball could've easily broke your fist/hand if you made a slight mistake, and if you caught the ball at the lacing side it was very painful, according to the keepers themselves.

Here, take a look at the game which probably won him the Ballon D'Or in 1963:



Especially that save at 36:10 Credit to @Joga Bonito

Absolutely ridiculous display by him n that game. He was just swatting away poor Greaves shots . Well worth a watch, despite it's poor quality, as it's a game which features the likes of di Stefano, Eusebio, Law, Kopa, Masopust, Puskas, Gento, D.Santos, Charlton, Moore, and yet Yashin managed to stand out in that crowd.

There arguably isn't much footage of him (but then again who has plenty of footage to boast from that era) but quite a few matches from his WC, friendlies and esp the Euros where you can clearly see his class and ballon d'Or winning impact. I'm sure you can expand further on his 1960 Euro winning heroics - and that too in a team boasting some excellent Soviet legends, which is no mean feat.

But apart from them, who do we have? Redondo, Monti, Varela, Andrade, Gerson, Zito, Dunga? They all were world-class players, but not even close to GOAT level,

Do think that's quite harsh myself, esp regarding Monti, Zito and Varela. You'd be hard pressed to find better defensive midfielders than them, apart from Rijkaard and Desailly imo, unless of course we take the more dynamic/flashy B2Bs into consideration. I think they are arguably top 5-10 in their DM roles and great players to boot.

and while you can make a list of objective pros and cons, like the number of WC wins, it still doesn't tell us the exact level of that player.

Tbf, with regards to Monti he was absolutely pivotal for Argentina in their Copa America victory, Olympics (considered as a pre-cursor to the WC) and a WC final run for Argentina and was critical to the revolutionary Pozzo's metodo, with his unique take on the centre-half role which transcended the boundaries that the role was usually constrained with. Won the WC, the CEIC (Euros) and 4 consecutive Serie As to boot too - quite a tally he's got.

 

[Gio]

Actually harms left Lothar pretty late and I had used up the 'GOATs' till then, but it's not a mismatch for me, not at all. It's one thing to say that Matthaus and Tardelli would win that battle but marginally at best. Like I mentioned above there's hardly anything to argue against Ardiles' standing in the game, as well as his manager's rating of him who left out a 24 year old who had won FOUR Libertadores titles by that age (imagine a player having won FOUR Champions Leagues by the age of 24) in favour of him. I understand some of these players aren't all that familiar but that shouldn't be a reason to undermine their talent.

And in case of Goncalves, he actually has evidence of defeating a prime Pirri, when Penarol defeated Madrid. Mismatch my arse.

On first glance the last four sets of pairs look like Europe has the advantage. But when you consider the performances of some of those players against European opposition, such as Goncalves against Real, or Clodoaldo in 1970, or Cerezo in 1982, then that initial judgement needs to be revised.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

In this context I'd put Robbo (and I know you rate him highly ) in the category of the ones unduly bigged up by people familiar with him.

Well, like Jimmy Bullard he was better than Frank Lam-pard. And better than Steve Gerr-ard. So, yeah, I rate him highly. But not that highly: He clearly isn't a GOAT.

Keane is easier to class as a truly standout player, as he has better credentials and actually did stand out in his prime, and in his era (at least in my opinion). But that has plenty to do with their respective roles/positions, which are different. Robbo at his peak was much more of an attacking midfielder than Keane, and played a different sort of game altogether - which doesn't do him any favours in an all-time context: He falls into a bigger pool of players than Keane does, I'd say.

It's impossible to say for sure but my guess would be that Robbo wouldn't have come up lacking in any way if he had featured for a United side of the general quality Keane enjoyed around him: He'd still be a top player, and his credentials would have been drastically different (obviously). Add to that how he'd look without all those injuries, and less time down the pub, and we're really talking. But - impossible to say, and all hypothetical, of course.

 

[Theon]

Mascherano's performances in the last WC alone would be better than anything Robbo did in this career, for example. He's a treble winner, Ardiles won the WC when the entire team was specifically built around him and Kempes. Menotti actually left out plenty of big players like Bochini and Alonso because he wanted Ardiles to run the entire show, as he did and got home the trophy. I know the usual narrative for Robbo is he never played in a great team, etc but someone like Gerrard has won a CL with a far inferior team than what United had at the time.
Anyway, to each his own.

I think you're putting too much emphasis on trophies and not the performance of ability of the players.

I think this is also true in your post above where you say that Monti and Zito are as good as Rijkaard by virtue of the fact that they won two World Cups. Winning trophies is a factor when assessing a player but it's just one of many.

Mascherano was excellent in Brazil, there's no debate there. But Robson was putting in similar individual performances on a consistent basis for United and England - the fact that he couldn't lead them to trophies doesn't take away from that or his influence on the side. The qualities that Mascherano displayed in 2014 are the exact ones that Robson radiated for years and those that he's most known for.

I have the same view on Ardiles and IMO the fact that he managed to win a World Cup doesn't make him a better player than Robson, with the latter simply being a better overall footballer as far as I'm concerned. He was obviously slightly more technical but beyond that there isn't anything I think he does better than Robson and I don't think he can match the level of influence that Robson has on the side.

Simeone was nothing more than a good/solid midfielder and IMO isn't a patch on Robson.

 

[Enigma_87]

Actually harms left Lothar pretty late and I had used up the 'GOATs' till then, but it's not a mismatch for me, not at all. It's one thing to say that Matthaus and Tardelli would win that battle but marginally at best. Like I mentioned above there's hardly anything to argue against Ardiles' standing in the game, as well as his manager's rating of him who left out a 24 year old who had won FOUR Libertadores titles by that age (imagine a player having won FOUR Champions Leagues by the age of 24) in favour of him. I understand some of these players aren't all that familiar but that shouldn't be a reason to undermine their talent.

And in case of Goncalves, he actually has evidence of defeating a prime Pirri, when Penarol defeated Madrid. Mismatch my arse.

Well in regards to the last point you had Goncalves probably at his peak around then being 29-30, while Pirri was hardly in his peak, just coming out of his teens and earning his first international call the same year.

Can't comment really on Ocwirk as I'm not that familiar with his game, only from what it is known of him, but Keane is better than both of the other pair. But even if you don't include Ocwirk and form Keane/Souness partnership I can see Europe having an edge there.

 

[Fortitude]

On first glance the last four sets of pairs look like Europe has the advantage. But when you consider the performances of some of those players against European opposition, such as Goncalves against Real, or Clodoaldo in 1970, or Cerezo in 1982, then that initial judgement needs to be revised.

This is what's being ignored in favour of names. South America's players are absolutely functional and up to par in their own systems.

 

[Theon]

On first glance the last four sets of pairs look like Europe has the advantage. But when you consider the performances of some of those players against European opposition, such as Goncalves against Real, or Clodoaldo in 1970, or Cerezo in 1982, then that initial judgement needs to be revised.

That's true to an extent and I wouldn't downplay the ability of Cerezo or Clodoaldo at all, although I stand by the view that they're both a notch below a number of European counterparts.

In terms of the above and performances against European opposition this is where the impact of the team comes into account and why I think too much sway can be placed on trophies/team results as opposed to the performance of the individuals.

In both instances I don't think Cerezo or Clodoaldo would have had such an easy time of things had they not been playing with Falcao, Zico, Pele, Gerson, Jairzinho, Rivelino etc. Both played in two of the best international sides of all time and without downplaying the ability of either of them their success against European opposition had as much to do with the ability of their teammates as it did their own performances.

 

[Fortitude]

That's true to an extent and I wouldn't downplay the ability of Cerezo or Clodoaldo at all, although I stand by the view that they're both a notch below a number of European counterparts.

In terms of the above and performances against European opposition this is where the impact of the team comes into account and why I think too much sway can be placed on trophies/team results as opposed to the performance of the individuals.

In both instances I don't think Cerezo or Clodoaldo would have had such an easy time of things had they not been playing with Falcao, Zico, Pele, Gerson, Jairzinho, Rivelino etc. Both played in two of the best international sides of all time and without downplaying the ability of either of them their success against European opposition had as much to do with the ability of their teammates as it did their own performances.

But, they will always be around stellar attacking talent in these South American line ups, so how can the point be anything but redundant?

We can't just isolate players and ignore their function and contribution in the sides as a whole. None of those players proved themselves weak links or not worthy of their place, quite the contrary, they played key roles in their sides when called upon.

 

[Moby]

On first glance the last four sets of pairs look like Europe has the advantage. But when you consider the performances of some of those players against European opposition, such as Goncalves against Real, or Clodoaldo in 1970, or Cerezo in 1982, then that initial judgement needs to be revised.

Indeed. The 'first glance' factor only stems from our familiarity for some of those names and to be honest I don;t mind accepting that there is slight advantage for Europe but some here seem to asset that SAM cannot hold up against what Europe is throwing at it, when there's immense quality in there which proved itself at the biggest of stages unlike someone like Robson (sorry to pick him out again).

Look at the credentials of someone like Velasques: He was a part of the golden Peruvian generation alongside the likes of Cubillas, Cueto, Challe and others. He drove Peru to the 1975 Copa America win defeating teams like Brazil in the semi.
Here's Peru trouncing Scotland in 1978 (a pretty decent Scottish team from the looks of it) :
PER - SCO 3:1 (1:1)

(~42000) Eriksson SWE, Franco ESP, Tesfaye ETH

PER: Quiroga - Duarte, Manzo, Chumpitaz (c), Diaz - Velasquez, Cueto
(83 P.Rojas), Cubillas, Muñante - La Rosa (63 Sotil), Oblitas
SCO: Rough - Kennedy (c), Burns, Buchan, Forsyth - Rioch (76 Gemmill), Masson
(76 Macari), Hartford, Dalglish - Jordan, Johnston

0:1 Jordan 14, 1:1 Cueto 43, 2:1 Cubillas 72, 3:1 Cubillas 77 f (63 Quiroga
saved a penalty by Masson)

booked: Velasquez

Draws against eventual finalists and that golden generation of Holland (in this game he was directly against Neeskens)

HOL - PER 0:0

(~30000) Prokop DDR, Coerezza ARG, Ivanov ZSR

HOL: Jongbloed - Suurbier, Krol (c), Poortvliet, Rijsbergen - W.Van de
Kerkhof, Neeskens (68 Nanninga), Jansen - Haan, R.Van de Kerkhof (46
Rep), Rensenbrink
PER: Quiroga - Duarte, Manzo, Chumpitaz (c), Diaz - Velasquez, Cueto,
Cubillas, Muñante - La Rosa (63 Sotil), Oblitas


Draw against eventual champs Italy (against Tardelli in this)

ITA - PER 1:1 (1:0)

(~25000) Eschweiler GER, Klein ISR, Rubio MEX

ITA: Zoff (c) - Gentile, Collovati, Scirea, Cabrini - Antognoni, Marini, Tardelli,
Conti - Graziani, Rossi (46 Causio)
PER: Quiroga - Duarte, Ruben Díaz (c), Salguero, Olaechea - Barbadillo
(51 Leguía), Cueto, Velásquez, Cubillas - Oblitas, Uribe (65 La Rosa)

 

[Moby]

I think you're putting too much emphasis on trophies and not the performance of ability of the players.

I think this is also true in your post above where you say that Monti and Zito are as good as Rijkaard by virtue of the fact that they won two World Cups. Winning trophies is a factor when assessing a player but it's just one of many.

Mascherano was excellent in Brazil, there's no debate there. But Robson was putting in similar individual performances on a consistent basis for United and England - the fact that he couldn't lead them to trophies doesn't take away from that or his influence on the side. The qualities that Mascherano displayed in 2014 are the exact ones that Robson radiated for years and those that he's most known for.

I have the same view on Ardiles and IMO the fact that he managed to win a World Cup doesn't make him a better player than Robson, with the latter simply being a better overall footballer as far as I'm concerned. He was obviously slightly more technical but beyond that there isn't anything I think he does better than Robson and I don't think he can match the level of influence that Robson has on the side.

Simeone was nothing more than a good/solid midfielder and IMO isn't a patch on Robson.

You'd struggle to find many critics of the quality of the likes of Zito and Monti. In fact it wasn't that they were a part of a winning team, but in fact they were absolutely pivotal to them and it was their dominance that led to those wins, among other factors of course. Monti was an absolute two way machine at his pomp and a lot of European midfielders listed e.g. Bozsik would struggle to keep up with him. Similarly Zito was a one man midfield with Didi being highly attack minded and yet none of the European teams at the time could overcome that? And again, Ardiles was not only a key player but someone around whom the a WC winning team was built around. How many of the European midfielders can make that claim? Of course when comparing continents, the international tournaments hold a massive value.

It's exactly the opposite of what you said. Ardiles didn't just 'manage' to win the WC, you make it sound like he was a passenger in a team where others where doing the work when he was actually along with Kempes and Passarella the most important player in the team, and one who the manager absolutely wanted even if it meant leaving out legends like Bochini and Alonso.

Saying Robson was putting in similar performances, even if it is true which I don't think it is, isn't good enough, because Mascherano put in those performances on the biggest of stages. It's all pretty hypothetical with Robbo like Chester said, most of it comes down to 'what if'. If he was putting in genuine world class performances like you claim to, he'd have more to show for it. It wasn't like the English League was littered in quality otherwise for him not being able to do anything about it. Aston Villa and Forest were winning European Cups at the time when Robbo was playing. It's a bit much really, it's one thing if you wanna claim that had it not been for injuries/lack of a better squad he would have achieved more but to compare his talent to those who won their teams World Cups and plenty of domestic/continental championships while being the driving force is pretty biased, sorry.

 

[Enigma_87]

Didn't Peru get trounced themselves 5-1 against an excellent Polish side with Boniek and Lato in the same WC when they drew Italy?

I also recall 4 years earlier being dead last in the group again with Poland, conceding something like double digits in 3 games..

 

[Theon]

But, they will always be around stellar attacking talent in these South American line ups, so how can the point be anything but redundant?

We can't just isolate players and ignore their function and contribution in the sides as a whole. None of those players proved themselves weak links or not worthy of their place, quite the contrary, they played key roles in their sides when called upon.

That's the easy response but as I made clear in my post I'm not downplaying the ability of Cerezo or Clodoaldo, both of whom I consider to be excellent players.

What I'm not going to do is rate them better than someone like Souness, who suffered a thrashing in '82 against Cerezo's Brazil in which the latter was paired with Zico, Socrates and Falcao whilst Souness partnered Strachan and John Wark.

The ability of their teammates isn't redundant at all when your assessing individuals in this way.

 

[Moby]

What I'm not going to do is rate them better than someone like Souness, who suffered a thrashing in '82 against Cerezo's Brazil in which the latter was paired with Zico, Socrates and Falcao whilst Souness partnered Strachan and John Wark.

The ability of their teammates isn't redundant at all when your assessing individuals in this way.

But that's the only objective way of assessing them. The rest is pretty much subjective and comes down to 'ability'.

And it comes down to familiarity as well, of course. The reason you can clearly argue for someone's ability e.g. Souness here is because you know a lot more about him and have seen him in the flesh a lot more. On the other hand most Europeans would only know the SAM players from WCs or International tournaments unless they played in Europe.

 

[Theon]

But that's the only objective way of assessing them. The rest is pretty much subjective and comes down to 'ability'.

And it comes down to familiarity as well, of course. The reason you can clearly argue for someone's ability e.g. Souness here is because you know a lot more about him and have seen him in the flesh a lot more. On the other hand most Europeans would only know the SAM players from WCs or International tournaments unless they played in Europe.

Assessing them based on the results of the team as a whole absolutely is not the only way to objectively assess them as individuals.

I think that's a ridiculous statement and where we fundamentally disagree.

 

[Moby]

Re: Clodoaldo/Cerezo that was the last pair out of those and I've already mentioned that more you go down, more it will favour because you are taking players from 5-6 nations at max from one side and what, 10-15 from the other? The main argument lies around the cream of the crop, from my side at least and there's hardly anything in it.

 

[Moby]

Assessing them based on the results of the team as a whole absolutely is not the only way to objectively assess them as individuals.

I think that's a ridiculous statement and where we fundamentally disagree.

I guess so. But for me performances at the biggest stages specially against top teams matter a lot. Again I'd take your point if it was a case of a player being carried by others, which isn't the case with anyone here. Even Cerezo was as much a part of that midfield as anyone else, and you can ask any Brazilian to confirm that. He provided them a great platform, excellent distribution and fantastic coordination with Falcao.

I can make a case for each and every one of them being right up there in terms of 'ability'. Like I said, you'd struggle to find anyone who'd put a question mark on the ability of someone like Monti or Varela, that's as insane as questioning the ability of someone like Matthaus or Rijkaard.

 

[IFC 1905]

Subs: Di Stefano, Garrincha, Valderrama, Chilavert, Mascherano, Batistuta, Perfumo

 

[Fortitude]

That's the easy response but as I made clear in my post I'm not downplaying the ability of Cerezo or Clodoaldo, both of whom I consider to be excellent players.

What I'm not going to do is rate them better than someone like Souness, who suffered a thrashing in '82 against Cerezo's Brazil in which the latter was paired with Zico, Socrates and Falcao whilst Souness partnered Strachan and John Wark.

The ability of their teammates isn't redundant at all when your assessing individuals in this way.

But why are you assessing individuals when they are intrinsically linked to the team around them? The initial discussion was whether Europe had a better or deeper pool of midfielders as a collective, which, it has to be assumed within their own systems, the answer is obviously not, it's just that S.A teams are far more specialised in midfield than European ones are, so when a list of actual CM's is being pulled out, it has practically nothing to do with the question because S.A. sides rarely even utilise b2b CM's, and in what they want/need they are every bit the equal of Europe's offering.

for example, if you make an extensive list of AM's for Europe the list will thin rapidly, but that's not of much relevance in relation to how European sides have played for the majority of their time in international competition. S.A. can list AM's without pause and with a consistent level of ability. The S.A. DM role is as deep as would be needed for countless teams. They don't need anything else.

You're also playing down these players by dismissing their performances on the highest stages possible, even if you're saying you're not. Cloadaldo probably played his best ever game on the biggest stage of his life, there's not much else he could do to win you over - the likes of Robson and Souness do not have these frames of reference, and yet their ability isn't played down an iota? How does that make sense.

The bigger problem in these comparisons is matching CM's with DM's. Cloadalo's skill set is particular, and it's not like he's inferior at what is needed for his role than either of the others whilst being a better dribbler and a comparable passer. Where they trounce him is in their engines and constant flux, but again, that's of no relevance for a DM where it's essential for a quality b2b midfielder.

 

[Enigma_87]

Re: Clodoaldo/Cerezo that was the last pair out of those and I've already mentioned that more you go down, more it will favour because you are taking players from 5-6 nations at max from one side and what, 10-15 from the other? The main argument lies around the cream of the crop, from my side at least and there's hardly anything in it.

that's a fair point and I didn't even see Coluna getting a mention and I'd rate him above several of the options above.

Europe will have more depth in terms of quality if we make more of a broad range in the midfield/defence, while SA trumps it in the forwards/strikers department. When you have to leave out 2 out of Di Stefano, Ronaldo or Pele in those starting line ups it says a lot.

At the same time if we look at holding midfielders and what Brazil had in those teams they weren't shiny individuals but rather fit for the system and having in mind who they played with it's hard to receive proper appreciation.

You're also playing down these players by dismissing their performances on the highest stages possible, even if you're saying your not. Cloadaldo probably played his best ever game on the biggest stage of his life, there's not much else he could do to win you over - the likes of Robson and Souness do not have these frames of reference, and yet their ability isn't played down an iota? How does that make sense.

To be fair you have individuals like Best that can hardly prove themselves on the biggest stage, due to playing with a bit of mugs next to them compared to the others. Same can be said about some of the Austrian, Scottish midfielders above.

Also I think some of the best midfielders from Europe at their respective time have not been mentioned yet:

Benetti, Voronin, Cajkovski, Bonhof, certain Duncan Edwards, etc...

 

[Theon]

I guess so. But for me performances at the biggest stages specially against top teams matter a lot. Again I'd take your point if it was a case of a player being carried by others, which isn't the case with anyone here. Even Cerezo was as much a part of that midfield as anyone else, and you can ask any Brazilian to confirm that. He provided them a great platform, excellent distribution and fantastic coordination with Falcao.

I can make a case for each and every one of them being right up there in terms of 'ability'. Like I said, you'd struggle to find anyone who'd put a question mark on the ability of someone like Monti or Varela, that's as insane as questioning the ability of someone like Matthaus or Rijkaard.

Of course performances at the highest level matter a lot. That's obvious and I wouldn't disagree with that - that's not what we are arguing.

What I'm saying is that the result of two teams playing a match is not necessarily a reflection of the ability of the individuals involved.

Cerezo is not a better player than Souness because Brazil trounced Scotland in Spain. That's nonsense.

The secondary point I'm making is that you can objectively compare players by watching the games and assessing their abilities as individuals. It doesn't need to be based on the result or the number of trophies that they've won - And I think that's a view that applies to Robson.

 

[Fortitude]

that's a fair point and I didn't even see Coluna getting a mention and I'd rate him above several of the options above.

Europe will have more depth in terms of quality if we make more of a broad range in the midfield/defence, while SA trumps it in the forwards/strikers department. When you have to leave out 2 out of Di Stefano, Ronaldo or Pele in those starting line ups it says a lot.

At the same time if we look at holding midfielders and what Brazil had in those teams they weren't shiny individuals but rather fit for the system and having in mind who they played with it's hard to receive proper appreciation.



To be fair you have individuals like Best that can hardly prove themselves on the biggest stage, due to playing with a bit of mugs next to them compared to the others. Same can be said about some of the Austrian, Scottish midfielders above.

Also I think some of the best midfielders from Europe at their respective time have not been mentioned yet:

Benetti, Voronin, Cajkovski, Bonhof, certain Duncan Edwards, etc...

To the bolded: don't you think it's a feat that these sides, with so many attack-minded players, who often had little interest (or instruction) in defending were afforded the platform from which they could play all their fancy football?

Zito & Didi's feat at the '58 WC is incredible if you think of all the work they had to do to hold fort and link play on both sides of the ball... without them, the attackers never get to showcase their skills... same goes for a host of S.A midfields in what they ask of their midfielders. I saw Dunga getting stick earlier in the thread, and yet his ability to hold fort is almost unparalleled in the last few decades, but incredibly underappreciated because he didn't have the flash or individual brilliance of a Falcao or a Toninho etc.

To the bit addressed to me: Best proved himself time and again in Europe and did what he could with his NT. It's not the same as Robson in particular, is it? Souness also didn't show himself in the best light on all stages presented to him, Keane did, with his heroics pre-Saipan, and yet, these three tend to be grouped to together and argued back and forth on who the placements they should have in a 1, 2, 3.

There are lot of players not mentioned on either side of the continent. I don't see what metric can be used to argue one set is levels above the other, especially when international performances are being dismissed as readily as they are. Mascherano, for example, has won everything, proven himself a star in his own right in a WC being as instrumental as Messi in getting his team to the final, and still, his efforts are played down. At the same time, someone like Bozsik, an absolutely stellar player, will be elevated even further because of the side he was in and his contribution to it. In other words, the S.A players can't win under such subjective conditions.

 

[Theon]

And on the latter part Aldo no body is putting a question mark over Monti or Varela, I just don't think there is a persuasive argument in the suggestion that they're as good a duo as Matthaus and Rijkaard.

I don't see how you can legitimately make that argument given the sheer extent of available footage testifying to the dominance of Matthaus/Rijkaard and their standing in the game. The fact that Monti won two world cups in the 1930's isn't comparable and can't compete with the clarity of evidence in support of the modern Europeans.

We aren't going to agree here and in my mind Rijkaard and Matthaus are considered the superior players.

 

[moses]

I just went with players I actually saw play full games numerous times.

Tony Adams is not in the top 10 cantre backs since he played.

 

[Moby]

Cerezo is not a better player than Souness because Brazil trounced Scotland in Spain. That's nonsense.

Not at all, of course. There can be plenty of example such as that that would go against the argument. But again my point, like with other players was that in all the games of Brazil, Cerezo was in fact one of the key players. Similar to Tigana in France for example, just because he had Platini and Giresse pulling the strings doesn't take anything away from his performances or ability. Not sure why Cerezo is getting the short end of the stick here. I'm not trying to portray him as a top level player but hes comparable to the 15th or so best midfielder from Europe, easily.

And on the latter part Aldo no body is putting a question mark over Monti or Varela, I just don't think there is a persuasive argument in the suggestion that they're as good a duo as Matthaus and Rijkaard.

I don't see how you can legitimately make that argument given the sheer extent of available footage testifying to the dominance of Matthaus/Rijkaard and their standing in the game. The fact that Monti won two world cups in the 1930's isn't comparable and can't compete with the clarity of evidence in support of the modern Europeans.

That really is your opinion, and fair enough. I just don't like how you downplay those players saying all they did was be a part of a winning team when on the other hand I'm sure you'll talk of Matthaus being a driving force in 1990 for West Germany, something that goes a long way in his legacy. Of course, he was a driving force for that team and exactly similarly Varela was for Uruguay (and Uruguay were far and away the underdogs in what is known as the greatest upset of all time and a lot of credit goes to Varela, both mentally and technically) and Monti was for Argentina/Italy. In fact, Monti's contribution is appreciated by absolutely everyone in the game as one of the greatest ever. You seem to think I'm bigging Monti up because he won the WC, when I'm actually bigging him up coz he MADE his team won the WC, two entirely different things and the latter is the sort of thing that makes you a legend of the game, like it did to Matthaus.

Can you make a case for Rijkaard against Monti? What exactly could Rijkaard do, say technically on the field that Monti couldn't?

 

[Ecstatic]

I'm not suggesting he is overrated at all, i don't know if he is or not because i never actually seen the guy play outside of a few highlights. And i imagine neither have most other people under the age of 60 either.

As i said in all the discussions and all time lists i've read over the years i can't recall anyone ever having him as their No1. Most likely because most people never actually seen him play, so it surprises me so many are picking him for their Euro XI's in here.

You raise a good point.

A lot of "pundits" or players like Eusebio, Sepp Maier, Gordon Banks, Peter Shiltion considered him as the best GK.

From an historical perspective, there seems to be consensus that he had a significant impact on the History of the game.

Of course, in terms of skills, hard to claim he is necessarily one of the greatest GK of All-Time and compare him with current GKs. We could imagine an offensive player who is overrated because he is Brazilian.

If we are wise, we could say he is probably the best GK in the 50s-60s

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

I'm not suggesting he is overrated at all, i don't know if he is or not because i never actually seen the guy play outside of a few highlights. And i imagine neither have most other people under the age of 60 either.

As i said in all the discussions and all time lists i've read over the years i can't recall anyone ever having him as their No1. Most likely because most people never actually seen him play, so it surprises me so many are picking him for their Euro XI's in here.

You raise a good point.

A lot of "pundits" or players like Eusebio, Sepp Maier, Gordon Banks, Peter Shiltion considered him as the best GK.

From an historical perspective, there seems to be consensus that he had a significant impact on the History of the game.

Of course, in terms of skills, hard to claim he is necessarily one of the greatest GK of All-Time and compare him with current GKs. We could imagine an offensive player who is overrated because he is Brazilian.

If we are wise, we could say he is probably the best GK in the 50s-60s

In case you've not seen...I'll refer you to the excellent post from Brwned. Videos notwithstanding, it is universally acknowledged that he was years ahead of the game.

I'd distinguish between best and greatest here. Buffon, Schmeichel, Kahn and co. were much better keepers than Yashin. What sets Yashin is apart is that he was just lightyears ahead of his peers at that time and is undoubtedly the most influential keeper of the televised era. It's the one position that's seen the most improvement since the 50s, without question, and Yashin played an absolutely pivotal role in that.

He didn't invent the sweeper keeper but he is the one who popularised it, and he's credited with establishing the role of the keeper as a defensive organiser too. From a technical standpoint there really was clear daylight between him and the rest and along with his leadership qualities he played a huge part in shaping the role of the modern goalkeeper.

It's fair to say that there's nothing modern keepers are doing that he wasn't doing half a century ago, whereas it's undoubtedly true that the great keepers before him weren't doing some of the things he was. The best keepers of today do everything better than he did - and anyone arguing otherwise is mad - but they don't really do anything new. That's his legacy.