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

Edgar Allan Pillow said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with you mate.

My point was just to say it is no accident that a Soviet GK was considered as the greatest GK of All-time by so many pundits, journalists and players like Eusebio, Sepp Maier, Gordon Banks, Peter Shilton.

My other point is to say the conditions of the game have evolved.
 
Downcast said:
I agree with you mate.

My point was just to say it is no accident that a Soviet GK was considered as the greatest GK of All-time by so many pundits, journalists and players like Eusebio, Sepp Maier, Gordon Banks, Peter Shilton.

My other point is to say the conditions of the game have evolved.
Click to expand...

It is. Not just for GK. For example, in Mighty Magyars Nandor Hidegkuti pioneered the 'withdrawn centre forward' which morphed into the modern #10.
 
How the feck is Redondo getting in so many teams? He'd be well chuffed if ever saw this thread. I think he may be the new king of the most overrated player on the Caf.
 
Downcast said:
My point was just to say it is no accident that a Soviet GK was considered as the greatest GK of All-time by so many pundits, journalists and players like Eusebio, Sepp Maier, Gordon Banks, Peter Shilton.
Click to expand...
You're comparing Soviet goalkeepers to Brazilians attackers in your previous posts, why is that? Brazilian attacker is a brand, a sign of quality, if you wish - but is there some prejudice about USSR and goalkeepers? I wasn't aware of that
 
Jagga7 said:
How the feck is Redondo getting in so many teams? He'd be well chuffed if ever saw this thread. I think he may be the new king of the most overrated player on the Caf.
Click to expand...
A United fan should be the last person to utter a word against El Principe!



35kx0j.jpg
 
Aldo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Matter of fact, Roberto Mancini and Veron said Cerezo is the best player they've ever seen..
 
Aldo said:
A United fan should be the last person to utter a word against El Principe!

Click to expand...

He was great that game but it doesn't mean he's an all time great South American player. He only had 20 or so caps for Argentina. He was so injury prone and had about 2-3 good seasons for Real.
 
harms said:
You're comparing Soviet goalkeepers to Brazilians attackers in your previous posts, why is that? Brazilian attacker is a brand, a sign of quality, if you wish - but is there some prejudice about USSR and goalkeepers? I wasn't aware of that
Click to expand...

Sometimes, you have S-A players overrated because they are Brazilian or Argentinian.

Of course, we can't say the same regarding Yashin.
 
Jagga7 said:
He was great that game but it doesn't mean he's an all time great South American player. He only had 20 or so caps for Argentina. He was so injury prone and had about 2-3 good seasons for Real.
Click to expand...
That was because Passarella was a grade A moron who didn't take him to the WC coz he didn't cut his hair. The man had driven Madrid to CL win the same year and thats how he got treated.
His injuries started late. He played well for a decade and till his last season at Madrid he was on fire. Won the MVP in 2000 CL.
I agree on you about longevity but peak wise there isn't anyone comparable. I still find it tough to believe what I saw at times. A genius of epic proportions.
 
Aldo said:
Not at all, of course. There can be plenty of example such as that that would go against the argument.

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.
Click to expand...

On the first point I'm glad you can accept this, as that's what I've been arguing all this time.

The argument originated when Gio mentioned the success of Clodoaldo and Cerezo against European sides in '70 and '82. As I said at the time, without downplaying the ability of either of them their success against European opposition in those tournaments had as much to do with the ability of their teammates as it did their own performances.

I think throughout this thread you have placed too much emphasis on the number of trophies won and my general point is that as a consideration it needs to be put into context when you start to make comparisons between individuals. To stick with the Souness and Cerezo example, the former was never going to play in an international side as captivating as Brazi 1982 and his inability to make the same international impression shouldnt be held against him when comparing their base ability as individuals.

That is nothing to do with downplaying Cerezo or any other player that this applies to. All it really means is that context needs to be considered when making those types of judgments or comparisons.

In addition as I said to you before I believe that you can objectively judge a player by watching him play, assessing his skill set and measuring his impact on the side. I completely disagree that you need to look at what trophies they have won in their careers in order to judge them objectively. And that really goes to my view on Bryan Robson, the fact that he didnt play in great sides meant that he was never likely to win the European Cup or the World Cup (which was obviously impossible in the circumstances given his injuries at both latter tournaments).

It doesnt really matter that much, you can still judge him on the games that are available and for both United and England Robson was consistently excellent. Even when England faced that fantastic Dutch side and eventual European Champions in '88 it was another all-action performance from Robson, who stood out for England and more than went toe-to-toe with Rijkaard and Gullit in midfield.
 
Aldo said:
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?
Click to expand...

The first thing to say is that I'm not downplaying anyone - all I've said is that I don't consider Monti/Varela to be on the same level as Rijkaard/Matthaus. If you go through the comments then I think you've been much more liable to downplay players than I have, based on whether or not they managed to win trophies which in my view is a poor way of assessing any player in isolation.

As you well know Aldo I don't have anything against older players and I wouldn't underrate certain footballers on the basis that they played in a different era. As has been reconised by myself and the majority of the thread, both Varela and Monti were excellent players are well deserving of their mention here as the best the continent has to offer. No one would dispute that, but the issue here is that you've gone much too far in the opposite direction and you're now IMO quite clearly overrating them by putting them as equals with Matthaus and Rijkaard.

What you're effectively doing is saying is that it's not enough for Monti and Varela to be recognised as being amongst the best 30 or so midfielders to play the game (as if a credential such as that would somehow be underrating them), but that they need to be recognised as literally the joint greatest ever with the likes of Matthaus and Rijkaard.

As I mentioned before I don't see how you can make that claim given the extent of the footage available which proves how dominant Matthaus/Rijkaard were in comparison to virtually all of their peers. In contrast, Monti played in the 1930's and you would be hard pressed to even find a snippet of decent footage with which to assess his ability. The difference in the quality of evidence is completely night and day - it's incomparable.

And like I said before I have no issue with Monti being considered an all time great or including him in discussions such as this one. But arguing that he's as good as Matthaus is far too much in the absence of real evidence to support the claim - and by that I mean proper footage, as opposed to a blog or article in The Guardian.

And for what it's worth I think that the general consensus if that Giuseppe Meazza was the star of the Italian team in 1934. Which begs the question whether you consider him the equal of Maradona or Messi.
 
As a side note on Robbo and his impact, one might mention one of his finest performances – against Barcelona (featuring Schuster and Maradona) in 1984. United lost the first leg of the CWC quarter-final 0-2 but won 3-0 at Old Trafford in a legendary match, with Robbo having a great night and scoring a brace.

I believe the match is available somewhere – used to be anyway. Highlights can certainly be found on YouTube for those interested.

Anyway, if memory serves Robbo was injured (again!) for the semi-final against eventual champions Juventus – and United lost, albeit very narrowly, to that famous side, which of course featured a ridiculous cast – including Scirea, Gentile, Cabrini, Tardelli, Platini, Boniek and Rossi (who grabbed the deciding goal in the last minute of play in the second leg!).

Given the tightness of that two-legged affair (United lost 2-3 on aggregate after a 1-1 draw at Old Trafford) and the level he usually played at back then, it's interesting to speculate what difference a fully fit Robbo could have made.
 
Theon said:
The first thing to say is that I'm not downplaying anyone - all I've said is that I don't consider Monti/Varela to be on the same level as Rijkaard/Matthaus. If you go through the comments then I think you've been much more liable to downplay players than I have, based on whether or not they managed to win trophies which in my view is a poor way of assessing any player in isolation.

As you well know Aldo I don't have anything against older players and I wouldn't underrate certain footballers on the basis that they played in a different era. As has been reconised by myself and the majority of the thread, both Varela and Monti were excellent players are well deserving of their mention here as the best the continent has to offer. No one would dispute that, but the issue here is that you've gone much too far in the opposite direction and you're now IMO quite clearly overrating them by putting them as equals with Matthaus and Rijkaard.

What you're effectively doing is saying is that it's not enough for Monti and Varela to be recognised as being amongst the best 30 or so midfielders to play the game (as if a credential such as that would somehow be underrating them), but that they need to be recognised as literally the joint greatest ever with the likes of Matthaus and Rijkaard.

As I mentioned before I don't see how you can make that claim given the extent of the footage available which proves how dominant Matthaus/Rijkaard were in comparison to virtually all of their peers. In contrast, Monti played in the 1930's and you would be hard pressed to even find a snippet of decent footage with which to assess his ability. The difference in the quality of evidence is completely night and day - it's incomparable.

And like I said before I have no issue with Monti being considered an all time great or including him in discussions such as this one. But arguing that he's as good as Matthaus is far too much in the absence of real evidence to support the claim - and by that I mean proper footage, as opposed to a blog or article in The Guardian.

And for what it's worth I think that the general consensus if that Giuseppe Meazza was the star of the Italian team in 1934. Which begs the question whether you consider him the equal of Maradona or Messi.
Click to expand...
All fair points there and as always we encounter the same roadblock that is comparison across eras. Whether joint greatest or not we can only judge them by what they did in their eras. That goes for everyone including the likes of Pele and Di Stefano, who still don't have a lot of footage available. To this day you'd have people holding the fact that Pele didn't play in Europe against him despite him turning over European teams and International teams whenever they met. In fact that the legacy of someome like Pele is exactly stemming from what I'm arguing for the likes of Monti - that is international performances at WC and Olympics and not the entire club career. So do you give credit to Pele for displaying his great talent at WCs and his legacy mainly stemming from that or his entire club career at Santos? If your answer is the former then that should apply for all older players whose club careers are harder to judge.

Coming back to Monti, on phone right now so will put it in short. In his era he was truly peerless. He famously marked the greatest player of his time - Sindelar. That's a massive yardstick to have. If you can successfully dominate the greatest of your generation, it's as far as you can go in stamping your greatness in the history books. That's what all the greats did, it just happens that we can assess recent players a lot more. Anything beyond this is comparing eras, which is impossible to do.

My purpose wasn't to prove that Monti was the greatest ever or anything. Like you I also find it a lot more comfortable to call someone like Matthaus the greatest ever. This is why I asked harms to give me actual working pairs and its fair to say someone like Monti will easily stand up to even the best ones. At least that's the best judgment we can make looking at the contribution of these players in their eras.
 
All in all a pretty interesting discussion. I still firmly believe that Sam players not just midfielders get pretty underrated in these parts for very natural reasons. We followed someone like Keane day in day out so in comparison you won't have the same appreciation for someone who played in South America. Even now no South American player gets talked about unless they come to Europe. In this thread someone said Dida could feature in one of these teams. It's insane picking him ahead of someone like Rogerio Ceni, a true legend of the game over there. So if you felt I overrated some of these players it was basically me compensating for that gap created by lack of coverage. It's fair to say talent isn't born in one country or continent. If there are brilliant players in front of our eyes there would absolutely be equally brilliant players elsewhere and they should get their due credit especially if they display that when the two groups happen to face each other in any form.
 
Its bizarre and stupid to me when people pick players in this sort of thing that they've never seen.

Trying to pick a team which I actually think would work rather than individuals. Feels like blasphemy leaving Ronaldinho out for Suarez and Kaka, but think they'd fit the counter attacking style more.

De Gea
Thuram- Ferdinand - Nesta - Maldini
Busquets
Xavi - Iniesta
Cristiano - Vardy - Henry

Ceni
Cafu - Thiago Silva - Lucio - Carlos
Gilberto Silva - Mascherano
Kaka
Messi - Ronaldo - Suarez​

Ok swap Vardy for Shevchenko. Was tempted to put Shearer but the pace with that front three would be frightening, likewise versus the South Americans.[/CENTER]
 
With players I actually watched in their primes. (Which are probably better than the oldies anyways ;P)

3-5-2 and play on the counter. Ronaldinho was very very fast in his prime, so he'd fit perfectly.

--------------------------- Dida----------------------
---------- Samuel---Lucio----Godín---R.Carlos-----
Maicon
-- -------_ Gilberto Silva-----------------------
--------------------------Mascherano---------
--- Messi------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------- -Ronaldinho
---------------- -Ronaldo-----------


Europe plays on the Spanish tikitaka, which is the most symbolic style coming from Europe in my lifetime. I'll pick players who can maintain posession.

------------------Casillas--------------------------

---Thuram-----Ramos-----Pique-------Abidal

------------------Busquets---------------

-------------Xavi-------------Iniesta-------

---C.Ronaldo-------Henry-------Villa------------

Like I said before, prime Messi and prime Ronaldo Fenômeno is impossibe to beat, specially with that protection at the back and blistering pace on counter.
 
Last edited:
Aldo said:
All in all a pretty interesting discussion. I still firmly believe that Sam players not just midfielders get pretty underrated in these parts for very natural reasons. We followed someone like Keane day in day out so in comparison you won't have the same appreciation for someone who played in South America. Even now no South American player gets talked about unless they come to Europe. In this thread someone said Dida could feature in one of these teams. It's insane picking him ahead of someone like Rogerio Ceni, a true legend of the game over there. So if you felt I overrated some of these players it was basically me compensating for that gap created by lack of coverage. It's fair to say talent isn't born in one country or continent. If there are brilliant players in front of our eyes there would absolutely be equally brilliant players elsewhere and they should get their due credit especially if they display that when the two groups happen to face each other in any form.
Click to expand...

I think you are going down the same path anto went. I don't mind bringing LatAm legends to light, but if you go OTT it is detrimental to the whole thing. Andrade was a recent example in our draft world of this working well.
 
Downcast said:
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
Click to expand...

Yeah of course i'm not doubting he was the best GK in the 50's-60's he most likely was or his impact on the game. I'm not even disputing that he may well be the best ever just that i don't see how someone could really know that unless they seen him play on a regular basis.

It's very hard to judge modern players against players from the 80's & 90's for me because the game has changed so much. So to compare modern players to a guy from the 60's who lets be honest here none of us actually seen play and proclaim him as the best ever is a bit of a stretch. In my opinion anyway.
 
fontaine said:
With players I actually watched in their primes. (Which are probably better than the oldies anyways ;P)

3-5-2 and play on the counter. Ronaldinho was very very fast in his prime, so he'd fit perfectly.

--------------------------- Dida----------------------
---------- Samuel---Lucio----Godín---R.Carlos-----
Maicon
-- -------_ Gilberto Silva-----------------------
--------------------------Mascherano---------
--- Messi------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------- -Ronaldinho
---------------- -Ronaldo-----------


Europe plays on the Spanish tikitaka, which is the most symbolic style coming from Europe in my lifetime. I'll pick players who can maintain posession.

------------------Casillas--------------------------

---Thuram-----Ramos-----Pique-------Abidal

------------------Busquets---------------

-------------Xavi-------------Iniesta-------

---C.Ronaldo-------Henry-------Villa------------

Like I said before, prime Messi and prime Ronaldo Fenômeno is impossibe to beat, specially with that protection at the back and blistering pace on counter.
Click to expand...

Ramos and Pique? Jesus wept.
 
Bwuk said:
Its bizarre and stupid to me when people pick players in this sort of thing that they've never seen.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by "never seen". It would be bizarre and stupid to pick players you don't know anything about, that much is obvious.

But unless you deny that it's possible to learn anything useful from watching old footage (where such exists), or read accounts by people (including well respected journalists and opposition players) who have seen the players in question, I don't see the logic of that stance.

Having watched X play live doesn't make anyone a brilliant judge of his footballing ability, whether that person is an octogenerian or a ten year old kid. It's obvious that the more extensive your own assembled evidence (how much and how often you've seen the player in question) is, the easier it should be to reach an informed opinion as to his quality. But that doesn't mean you can't assess players who were active before your own time if you make an effort to learn about them, using whatever sources are available. It's not like the bygone eras in football history make up some sort of mythical, hazy landscape that was never properly documented by contemporary journalists, players, managers and fans.

The older the player, the harder it usually is to find proper documentation of his traits and quality, and if you go back to the dawn of the game, it becomes if not impossible then at least borderline absurd to make comparisons to modern players - but this is clearly not true for the post World Cup era, at least, and patently not the case for the TV era.
 
I think this is pretty balanced, up against an all-GOAT attack:

------------Yashin------------

Thuram--Baresi-Nesta--Fachetti

-----Beckenbauer--Matthaus-----

Best------Laudrup------Ronaldo

---------van Basten------------


Subs:
DDG :p
Maldini and Vogts, because the CB slots are covered by Thuram and Beckenbauer
Rjikaard covers both midfield positions
Platini, Cryuff for the 3 attackers
Eusebio

If the left flank is getting exposed, Maldini and Cryuff come on, Laudrup goes left and Cryuff forms a more compact trio in midfield.

Unsure about Best and Nesta.
 
Last edited:
fontaine said:
Europe plays on the Spanish tikitaka, which is the most symbolic style coming from Europe in my lifetime. I'll pick players who can maintain posession.

------------------Casillas--------------------------

---Thuram-----Ramos-----Pique-------Abidal

------------------Busquets---------------

-------------Xavi-------------Iniesta-------

---C.Ronaldo-------Henry-------Villa------------

Like I said before, prime Messi and prime Ronaldo Fenômeno is impossibe to beat, specially with that protection at the back and blistering pace on counter.
Click to expand...


Even if you want to count only very modern players...there have been a million CBs better than Ramos, and more than enough better than Pique.
 
berbatrick said:
Even if you want to count only very modern players...there have been a million CBs better than Ramos, and more than enough better than Pique.
Click to expand...

they are the tiki taka centerbacks, like i said.. who are you going to put there, Maldini and Nesta are deep defenders who hoof the ball way more, it would make the midfield pointless
 
------------Eusebio---------VanBasten-------------
---------------------Cruyff---------------------------
-------------Zidane--------Matthaus----------------
----------------------Pirlo----------------------------
Breitner-----Moore-------Beckenbauer-----Maldini
---------------------Buffon---------------------------

----------------Pele--------Ronaldo---------
-------------------Maradona----------------
----------Rivelino-----------Falcao---------
--------------------Gerson------------------
R.Carlos---Figueroa-----T.Silva------Cafu
--------------------Taffarel-----------------
 
Di Stefano is seriously underrated in this thread. No South American team should be without him. At the very worst case, he is the fourth best player of South America and considering that he could have played practically in every position in midfield and attack, there is no reason to not put him in the team.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
As a side note on Robbo and his impact, one might mention one of his finest performances – against Barcelona (featuring Schuster and Maradona) in 1984. United lost the first leg of the CWC quarter-final 0-2 but won 3-0 at Old Trafford in a legendary match, with Robbo having a great night and scoring a brace.

I believe the match is available somewhere – used to be anyway. Highlights can certainly be found on YouTube for those interested.

Anyway, if memory serves Robbo was injured (again!) for the semifinal against eventual champions Juventus – and United lost, albeit very narrowly, to that famous side, which of course featured a ridiculous cast – including Scirea, Gentile, Cabrini, Tardelli, Platini, Boniek and Rossi (who grabbed the deciding goal in the last minute of play in the second leg!).

Given the tightness of that two-legged affair (United lost 2-3 on aggregate after a 1-1 draw at Old Trafford) and the level he usually played at back then, it's interesting to speculate what difference a fully fit Robbo could have made.
Click to expand...
The problem of putting Robbo in lists of all time great players, is that his trophy cabinet is virtually empty. And that is a big concern, and a reason why he is almost completely unknown outside of UK. Being a great player in England's tenth or so best club (which is what United was back then) can make a player a legend of his club, but not a legend of the sport.

Unfair? Probably yes. But it is also something that we like to mention when we argue Scholes vs Gerrard. And well, Gerrard has won more than Robbo.
 
berbatrick said:
Even if you want to count only very modern players...there have been a million CBs better than Ramos, and more than enough better than Pique.
Click to expand...
There aren't many (if any) better defenders for playing tiki-taka, and that is clearly what that team is.

They hardly deserve to be mentioned in the category of best players ever, but both of them are two of the best defenders in the last decade, having an amazing trophy count (Pique for example has won 4 UCL, 1 World Cup and 1 Euros in addition to a gazillion league titles) and are perfectly suited to that brand of football.
 
Love it @Edgar Allan Pillow
I could genuinely see that working although I think Giggs for Nedved would give some more genuine width on the left with good defensive contribution.
 
Aldo said:
Coming back to Monti, on phone right now so will put it in short. In his era he was truly peerless. He famously marked the greatest player of his time - Sindelar. That's a massive yardstick to have. If you can successfully dominate the greatest of your generation, it's as far as you can go in stamping your greatness in the history books. That's what all the greats did, it just happens that we can assess recent players a lot more. Anything beyond this is comparing eras, which is impossible to do.
Click to expand...
The problem with the stories of that era is that they sound so very, very different depending on from what side you hear them. That Austrian team around Sindelar had so many obstacles. Many of their key players still had to play domestic games during the World Cup tournament, traveling between Italy and Austria or simply missing World Cup games. More than half of the regular starting XI was missing for various reasons including some brutal injuries because the players were kicked in a proper mental way during the qualifiers. The complete coaching team (including the head coach Jimmy Hogan) stayed at home because they couldn't afford to make the trip, so the players were on their own.

Then the semifinal happened. The referee was a guest of Mussolini the night before and reading about the goals for Italy, you simply have to say that he wasn't going to let Austria win, no matter what. According to reports, the ref cleared a great goalscoring chance for Austria by himself, deliberately heading the ball out of the box. I'm pretty sure that it has been proven since that Mussolini paid the referee (who despite the criticism for his performance in the semifinal refereed the final as well and let the Italian midfield kick the shit out of Czechoslovakian team without ever interfering). Greece withdraw from the return leg in the qualifier against Italy after Mussolini paid them a shitload of money.

It's by far the most tainted World Cup ever, way worse than the one in Argentina in '78. And in all that Monti wasn't even the dominating figure for Italy like for example Matthäus was for Germany. Meazza was clearly the star in the team, deciding the game in attack while Monti was part of a brutal midfield kicking quality foreign playmakers until they were injured without any protection from the referee. Sindelar finished that famous marking job injured. But without substitutions allowed, he of course stayed on the pitch till the end. But he wasn't able to play the game for 3rd place or would have been able to play in the final.

Obviously it's difficult to compare between eras, almost impossible and we have to give some leeway in regards to the rules of each era and all that. But I think in the case of Monti's impact on Italy's World Cup win compared to modern examples like Matthäus for Germany or compared to Rijkaard's performances for Milan, Ajax and for the Dutch nationalteam in their Euro win in '88 in a highly competitive time without that kind of influence from outside parties, I think it's pretty mental to suggest that Monti should be rated anywhere near them. I rarely agree with @Theon ( ;) ) but I'm with him here and think you're way off the mark if you think that Monti's performances in the 30's are in any way comparable to the probably two greatest midfielders of all time.
 
Balu said:
Then the semifinal happened. The referee was a guest of Mussolini the night before and reading about the goals for Italy, you simply have to say that he wasn't going to let Austria win, no matter what. According to reports, the ref cleared a great goalscoring chance for Austria by himself, deliberately heading the ball out of the box. I'm pretty sure that it has been proven since that Mussolini paid the referee (who despite the criticism for his performance in the semifinal refereed the final as well and let the Italian midfield kick the shit out of Czechoslovakian team without ever interfering). Greece withdraw from the return leg in the qualifier against Italy after Mussolini paid them a shitload of money.
Click to expand...
Was it the same game when Meazza fouled on the goalkeeper but the referee didn't stop the game and Italy scored?
 
harms said:
Was it the same game when Meazza fouled on the goalkeeper but the referee didn't stop the game and Italy scored?
Click to expand...
Yeah, he pushed the goalkeeper with the ball in his hands in his own goal, 1-0 Italy :lol:.
 
Revan said:
Di Stefano is seriously underrated in this thread. No South American team should be without him. At the very worst case, he is the fourth best player of South America and considering that he could have played practically in every position in midfield and attack, there is no reason to not put him in the team.
Click to expand...

7 goals from five consecutive European Cup finals. Incredible.
 
Balu said:
Yeah, he pushed the goalkeeper with the ball in his hands in his own goal, 1-0 Italy :lol:.
Click to expand...
Thought so. Remembered that I came across the video of the moment (of the fecking 1934 game!!!) while researching Meazza for Euro draft


Started to look at the Italy's success in the first world cups with more scepsis after that
 
Physiocrat said:
Love it @Edgar Allan Pillow
I could genuinely see that working although I think Giggs for Nedved would give some more genuine width on the left with good defensive contribution.
Click to expand...

I did consider it, but for me Nedved is a far far better player than Giggs and has more in his arsenal. One of my all time favourite players and I need to have him in my team. In this team his versatility is more useful than his pure width (which he is capable of btw).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.