France Football's Ballon D'Or Dream Team Nominees
- Thread starter BlackShark_80
- Start date
I'd say that generally the list is quite good. It's never going to be ideal though.
Glaring omissions: Kahn/Dasayev (- N'Kono), Nesta, Zanetti/Alves (-Suurbier & probably Kaltz).
Midfielders list is a bit of a mess though (Guardiola, Alonso, Seedorf over the likes of Keane, Robson, Davids, Modrić, van Hanegem...).
Glaring omissions: Kahn/Dasayev (- N'Kono), Nesta, Zanetti/Alves (-Suurbier & probably Kaltz).
Midfielders list is a bit of a mess though (Guardiola, Alonso, Seedorf over the likes of Keane, Robson, Davids, Modrić, van Hanegem...).
I'm sorry, but Koeman and Ramos over Rio and Nesta? Gerrard as a DM? This list is a travesty.
I bet the caf can come up with something that is miles better than this...
I bet the caf can come up with something that is miles better than this...
You clearly haven't been around long enough.
Sergio freakin Biscuits for the best defensive midfielder of all times 
Are they sure this is not Fallon D’Floor rather than Ballon D’Or?
Are they sure this is not Fallon D’Floor rather than Ballon D’Or?
A few things: Where is Nesta and Zanetti?
Why is Gerrard a DM?
No Scholes?
Why is Gerrard a DM?
No Scholes?
This really isn’t that controversial. In 20 years from now Busquets will be universally accepted as one of the greatest defensive midfielders of all time. His trophy cabinet and achievements speak for themselves.Sergio freakin Biscuits for the best defensive midfielder of all times
Totti and gerrard and scholes has no business being in this list.
Scholes isn't GOAT category, overrated as feck by United supporters because "xavi says he's good once"
/run for cover
Guardiola’s managerial exploits elevating his footballer exploits. Don’t get me wrong, he was a good midfielder, but there’s a bunch of names that should be there before his.
Well, thats your opinion. If you ask for instance Vieira he would say Scholes is the best player he ever played against. The teammates on England mostly say the same.
I consider him better than Gerrard. Gerrard wasnt even best as a central midfielder.
I would also have Vieira on that list
Decent pool of players all things considered, especially in the defensive department — you can't satisfy everyone, and at least there aren't too many outrageous nominations in most of those categories!
I'd have gone with...
I'd have gone with...
- Goalkeepers: Oliver Kahn instead of Thomas N'Kono.
- Centerbacks: Elías Figueroa, Jürgen Kohler and Alessandro Nesta instead of Ronald Koeman, Marcel Desailly and Fabio Cannavaro.
- Rightbacks: Javier Zanetti and Daniel Alves instead of Wim Suurbier and Manfred Kaltz.
This is rather petty, to be honest — objectively, the guy has long established himself as one of the reference points for the position in modern football, and as such the nomination is entirely merited. The likes of Guardiola and Gerrard and more debatable, though I guess the latter earns brownie points for streaks of individualistic brilliance and impact-plays. Ditto Hagi over someone like Michael Laudrup in the attacking midfield department.Sergio freakin Biscuits for the best defensive midfielder of all times
Are they sure this is not Fallon D’Floor rather than Ballon D’Or?
Heh. Ultimately there are levels in every list. They got the 3-4 players who actually belong in the conversation, and then threw up a bunch of other greats with an angle to representation(N'Kono was great, but he's there because of what he represented. Gerrard is there because they needed a liverpool player. Guardiola because they needed to give a shout-out to the dream team. Etc. Imo)
Exactly my point, when Zidane is hailed as the best of his generation, the world agrees, the trophies agrees.
When it comes to scholes.... well Viera says something, so that must be true.
Gerrard as DM?
Guardiola wasn't that great as a player was he? If Gerrard wins this....
Keane & Ferdinand are so criminally underrated it's a untrue.
Missing people like Kroos, Ramos, Irramendyy, Irramendi
Some of the “recent” picks are pretty funny. Pep Guardiola and Francesco Totti.
Seedorfs accomplishments speak for themselves, especially at European level.
what he says belowSergio freakin Biscuits for the best defensive midfielder of all times
Are they sure this is not Fallon D’Floor rather than Ballon D’Or?
Scholes wasn't really in contention for these awards/accolades during his playing days
Gerrard as DM is a baffling one. Was he even the best DM in the Liverpool sides he played in with Mascherano or Alonso? Really weird. At no point was he ever considered a great DM like Keane or Makelele in the same league for example. Suppose the cult of Gerrard knows no limits.
Not when you compare him to the rest in that list. Don’t get me wrong, I genuinely love the guy, but he wasn’t even the best midfielder in his own teams for most of the time. Litmanen was at Ajax (with Davids, Seedorf, old Rijkaard and de Boer playing equally important roles), Redondo was at Madrid, Pirlo was at Milan. Davids has also been more important than him for the NT.
He’s around Scholes’ level all things considered. Not quite good enough to truly rival the big guys, but still somewhere close.
I presume the striker list will be awesome with Messi, Ronaldo, Best, Ronaldo (Brazil), Batistuta, Van Basten, Cruyff etc.
He's right up there. Definitely the best of his generation.Sergio freakin Biscuits for the best defensive midfielder of all times
Are they sure this is not Fallon D’Floor rather than Ballon D’Or?
Surely Dani Alves has to make it?!
I think I can find more people agreeing with me than you. Even top top players
Fair assessment. Although to win CL with 3 different teams and perform at a high level (particularly in 2007) can put you on the shortlist.
Guardiola 
As usual with France Football they get suckered in by current popularity with the likes of Ramos and Guardiola, and team/national agendas with Totti and Gerrard. Decent list outside that though.
Don't belong:
Ramos
Guardiola (was never more than very good as a player)
Desailly (though it is France Football)
Gerrard
Pele (since when was he an offensive midfielder?)
Totti
Missing:
Cruyff (if Maradona and Pele are offensive midfielders, he must be too)
Best (same as above)
Nesta
Alves
Kahn
Don't belong:
Ramos
Guardiola (was never more than very good as a player)
Desailly (though it is France Football)
Gerrard
Pele (since when was he an offensive midfielder?)
Totti
Missing:
Cruyff (if Maradona and Pele are offensive midfielders, he must be too)
Best (same as above)
Nesta
Alves
Kahn
A tired old debate I know, but I think it's worth discussing in detail.
As we all known Pele used to have several "versions" - be it the young striker that lit up the world cup as a teenager or the more laid back classic #10 during that famous 1970 win, Pele was such a complete player capable of playing in multiple positions in attack and midfield contributing to both phases of the game.
There is one very long (yet interesting) article that describes in detail his playing position and during his peak, where unfortunately we don't have as much footage as for example Maradona or Messi.
Some important bits from the article:
"In order to understand Pelé’s position on field, it is necessary to explain the tactical formation of Brazilian football during his reign. Almost every Brazilian team played in a 4-2-4, organized like this (adapted, not literal translation): goleiro (goalkeeper); lateral direito (right-back), quarto-zagueiro (centre-back on the left), zagueiro central (centre-back on the right) and lateral esquerdo (left-back); médio-volante (defensive midfielder) and meia-armador (midfield playmaker; also called meia-direita); ponta-direita (right winger), centroavante (centre forward), ponta de lança (literally “spearhead”, to be explained later) and ponta-esquerda (left winger) — about the origin of such terms, I recommend reading an article in Portuguese written by experienced Brazilian journalist Alberto Helena Júnior).
The most traditional number assignment from midfield to attack was this: 5, volante; 8, meia-armador; 7, ponta-direita; 9, centroavante; 10, ponta de lança; and 11, ponta-esquerda. About the number 10, it is important to inform that it only became a synonym of the ponta de lança after Pelé wore it in 1958 (Brazil’s numbers were determined randomly). "
-------------------
The origin of the 4-2-4 of course coming in the 50's when Pele was learning his trade and as a teenager he was more like a striker as explained initially.
The same formation(or close to it, but different personnel) was again used in that 1970 triumph 12 years apart (compared to 1958) with Zagallo now as a manager, rather than industrious left winger.
More from the article to showcase how some Brazillian teams implemented it on domestic territory.
-------------------------
"Botafogo, Brazilian Champions in 1968, and the Santos, that won basically everything in 1962, strictly followed that criteria (none the less, some times, like Cruzeiro, used to invert numbers 8 and 10: Tostão, ponta de lança, played with the 8, Dirceu Lopes, meia-armador, wore the 10):
In this classical formation, the team’s main organizer was the meia-armador (responsible mainly for playmaking; usually did not score much). However, the ponta de lança (regularly the team’s leading scorer), besides going forward to make plays with the centroavante, had a double job, because he also went back to help the meia-armador in making plays; that was the famous “8 and 10” duo in the midfield.
To illustrate what was explained above, Santos formation in 1962 (very nice work done by the excellent webpage “Imortais do futebol“; personally, I would add an yellow arrow going back for Pelé, showing his retreating to midfield during parts of the game):"
-----------------------------------
It's also important to mention (some full Santos games are up on various sites) that players like Dorval and Pepe contributed little to the midfield and they were more like modern day forwards in a free role. They didn't track back or drop deep to actively participate in the build up, rather than looked to get into goalscoring positions and attack the box.
-----------------------------------
"One can notice that, during a significant part of the game, the ponta de lança played behind three other forwards (pontas and centroavante), specially when coming back to make plays. When he went on to the attack, he would make a duo with the most advanced player, o centroavante.
Few Brazilians know that this division of roles remained predominantly in Brazilian football until the end of the 80’s. In 1988 it was still used for the “Bola de Prata”, awarded by “Revista Placar” (the most famous football magazine in the country) to best players (by position) of the national league (notice that the great Zico is in the list as a ponta de lança; pay attention, those are only the preliminary results from that year):"
"Only in 1989, (picture below), the magazine went on to make a team with: two “Meias” (attacking midfielders), putting both meia armador and ponta de lança into the same position (for example, Cuca and Toninho, pontas de lança in 88, were placed as “Meias” in 89); and three atacantes (forwards), placing both wingers and centre-forwards in the same spot. From 1996 on, another defender was added in place of a forward in the final team of the year — both remaining forwards were usually a duo of a second striker and centre-forward)."
-----------------------------------
Pele also has said in interviews that he felt he was more of a midfielder, rather than a forward because he started from deep and also dropped deep to actively influence the game and also participate in the build up. Also bear in mind that Zito was a classic DM, who in the national team had Didi who was the main playmaker and his role in the buildup was limited.
-----------------------------------
1958 and 1970 Brazil
That foundation was kept throughout the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, but, we still saw changes, innovations and adaptations in the period, mostly in the Brazilian National Team in World Cups.
In 1958, Zagallo, ponta esquerda (left winger), was brought to the midfield, and Brazil played in a 4-3-3.
-------------------------------------
of course the above (1958 example was when Pele was used more of a goalscorer and playing closer to Vava).
The 1970 team however in terms of explanation is much closer to his role during his peak:
------------------------------------
Brazil in the 1970 World Cup, as explained by the competent Brazilian journalist, André Rocha (free translation here and everywhere else):
Zagallo, Brazil’s coach in that World Cup, stated another characteristic of that unforgettable team: “We defended in a 4-5-1. Only Tostão stayed upfront. But even he went back, if needed“.
It is usually claimed that the Seleção in 1970 played with five “number 10’s”. In their teams, Rivellino, Gérson (at São Paulo FC in that year), Jairzinho and Pele, played with that number. However, in regards to what really meant to be a “10”, Brazil had four of such players (since Gérson was a meia armador): Rivellino (who also could play as a meia-armador, but he won his only “Bola de Prata” as a ponta de lança), Tostão (although he wore the 8 for Cruzeiro), Pelé and Jairzinho (“I was a ‘ponta de lança’ a number 10”; Rogério was the right-winger for Botafogo).
---------------------------------------
With Pele of course having an arrow pointing backwards in the formation, explaining his role.
--------------------------------------
To cap it off I'll copy paste in length the positional analysis and the comparison with other classic #10's like Maradona and Zico from the above source:
--------------------------------------
PELE’S POSITION
Some journalists and football fans, when discussing a “true number 10”, usually mention Maradona, Zidane, Zico, Platini, among others. A few of them define Pele like that. However, from the information reported here and later on, I believe it’s possible to state that Pele was a “true number 10”, like Zico, Platini and Maradona. The more careful reader notices that I did not mention Zidane. Yes, in my opinion, Zizou, in the Brazilian tradition, was closer to the old number 8, the meia armador. Let’s see, the main playmaker of his teams, the French player did not use to enter much the opponent area and scored very few goals (0.19 career average). On the other hand, players in the mold of Zico, Pelé, Platini and Maradona, helped in making plays, but were also great scorers with goal averages considerably superior to Zidane’s in official games: Platini and Maradona with a little more than 0.5 per game; Zico, approximately 0.7; and Pelé, 0.93. Because of that, I consider a mistake to talk about a “true number 10”, as someone supposed to be “the brain of the team” (the main playmaker), because that was the role of “the true number 8”.
1981 Flamengo by André Rocha. Notice how the traditional tactical base (with small variations) is still there: : volante (Andrade), meia-armador (Adílio), ponta de lança (Zico), ponta-direita (Tita), centroavante (Nunes) and ponta-esquerda (Lico).
Furthermore, other evidences suggests Pele played in the same position as Zico and Maradona. Both 80’s legends were called “ponta de lança” in Brazil. Regarding Zico, check again the picture of the 1988 “Bola de Prata” and Flamengo’s tactical formation above . As for Maradona, César Luis Menotti, who coached Argentina in the their 1978 World Cup victory, said the following words, reported by “Placar Magazine” in the end of that year (image below — in the article, the 18 year old Diego is called a ponta de lança): “In the current stage of world football, Maradona is Pelé. There is a difference in physical structure, but a lot of similarities in the space in which he plays, in the kind of long passes he makes. And he is a goal scorer”.
In their teams, Maradona and Zico always played in advanced roles, behind only one or two forwards. The Argentine, for example, in the 1986 World Cup, highlight of his career, only had Valdano in front of him; and for Napoli, there were two forwards, Careca and Carnevale. Likewise, Zico and Maradona were capable of playing as second-strikers.
See below how similar were the positions of the three legends on field:
1970 Brazil by André Rocha.
1982 Brazil, by André Rocha
1989 Napoli by “Imortais do futebol”.
Also relevant to reinforce the comparison of Pele to Zico and Maradona, the opinion of the legendary Tostão, “O Rei” teammate in 1970 and, currently, a brilliant columnist:
As we can see, Tostão calls Pelé, Maradona and Zico as ‘Pontas de Lança”. Although he used the word “forward” to describe such position, it is clear, by his explanation, that those players had similar roles to current and recent attacking midfielders like Kaká and Rivaldo.
Moreover, it is important to read the words of Jairzinho, leading scorer for Brazil in the 1970 World Cup: “I was a ‘ponta de lança’, a number 10 (…) Botafogo from that Time had Roberto Miranda as the centre-forward. Pelé, at Santos, had Coutinho. Evaldo for Cruzeiro. And so on. None of was really a forward”.
Well, we have seen that Pele was a ponta de lança, with similar roles as Zico and Maradona. All those three great footballers made plays and scored lots of goals. Hence, I think it is possible to state that the most proper contemporary term for Pele’s position is attacking midfielder, an active player in both midfield and attack, like recently were Kaká and Rivaldo. To corroborate those arguments, it is essential to inform that Pelé himself called himself in his autobiography “an attacking midfielder” (London: Simon & Schuster UK Ltd. 2006. p. 41) and that he talked in an interview about his similarities with Kaká:
Still in that perspective, Cláudio Adão, great centre-forward from the 70’s and 80’s, Pelé in the early 70’s, recently explained, in an interview for “ESPN Brasil”, why he had to change his position in the beginning of his career (I’ve edited this post and added this quote in 07/19/2016):
Pelé can’t be considered a pure forward, because, despite constantly entering the box to shoot at goal, he used to retreat back to defense with a much higher frequency than current footballers from that role (Messi, for example, unlike Pelé, has even played as the most advanced forward in his teams, the “false 9”). In this sense, observe the map done by the French newspaper L’Equipe, showing where Pele touched the ball in the 1970 World Cup final:
Nonetheless, several football all time XI selections put Pele as a forward, or, astonishingly, as a centre-forward. It was not like that during his playing days, as we can see in the yearly World XI in the 60’s, done then by English journalist Eric batty, in the renowned “World Soccer Magazine”. Next 1962 and 1966, respectively, as examples (images taken from the blog “Beyond the Last Man”):
Oddly, Batty chose the outdated 2-3-5 formation, where, between the “five forwards”, two had similar roles to today’s attacking midfielders (playing behind three real forwards, as taught by Alberto Helena). Where was Pele placed? Precisely at the position that today would be the attacking midfielder, behind three forwards. Incongruously, “World Soccer” in 2013, made a worldwide survey among journalists to choose the all time XI, and, disregarding its own history, put Pele in the same section as centre-forwards like Romário, Ronaldo, Van Basten and Gerd Müller. Several journalists even committedthe sin of putting Pele as the most advanced forwards of their “dream teams”. On the other hand, the webpage of Globo (Brazil’s biggest TV station), rightly put Pelé among the attacking midfielders (“Meias”), together with players like Zico, Rivaldo, Rivellino, Ronaldinho and Kaká, in its online survey to choose Brazil’s all time XI; Pelé was the most remembered players with over 306 thousand votes.
Separated cartoons taken from the “ESTATÍSTICAS DE ESCALAÇÃO” area from Globo’s site.
There stills lies a question: what role would Pelé have in the most used tactical formations today?
The King would definitely not be a pure playmaker like Iniesta, Ozil and Fabregas, players similar to the meias-armadores (number 8) from the past, main organizers from their team and who don’t score much. In his original position, Pelé could play in a 4-2-3-1 as the central attacking midfielder or as the sole attacking midfielder for the team in a 4-3-1-2. Although not ideal, he would also be effective as a second striker (in some forms of 4-4-2 or 3-5-2), ou even as side forward in a 4-3-3 (not as winger, but as someone who would cut to the middle a lot and would participate in the playmaking there, like Messi, recently, for Barcelona).
Therefore, based on everything I’ve written, I believe Pele was an attacking midfielder, a “true number 10”.
-----------------------------
my thoughts are separated, whilst the author quotes are in italics and/or quotes.
Gerrard's two incredible seasons came when he was playing on the right and behind the striker. Aside from that he was a very very good box-to-box midfielder in his prime with the ability and physicality to take games by the scruff of the neck.
But as a defensive/holding midfielder he was bang average. Poor positionally and with an ego and a lack of footballing intelligence which made him prone to forcing the Hollywood ball instead of picking the right pass at the right time. If I didn't dislike him so much his last few seasons would have been sad to watch.
But as a defensive/holding midfielder he was bang average. Poor positionally and with an ego and a lack of footballing intelligence which made him prone to forcing the Hollywood ball instead of picking the right pass at the right time. If I didn't dislike him so much his last few seasons would have been sad to watch.
Too many brazilians in that list if they included Alves.
I would still have a number 10 as a forward rather than a midfielder.
The reasoning that him dropping deeper and getting involved in creating plays made him a midfielder would also have strikers like R9 classified as a midfielder. They might have done that, but it wasn't their primary job.
If Pele is not a forward, nobody is.
Gerrard as a DM is just plain stupid.
They literally filled him there just so they can have a liverpool player on the list or else the scousers will be hounding them on twitter.
They literally filled him there just so they can have a liverpool player on the list or else the scousers will be hounding them on twitter.
They probably want to put Pele as AM so Ronaldo and Messi can both occupy the forward spots.
Having Messi fight with Maradone for an AM spot would be just asking for trouble.
The finalised lineup will probably be very politically correct and try to please as many fan boys around as possible.
That'f fair enough – but when you look at that list it's quite clear that they're mostly focusing on number 10s, so Pelé doesn't look out of place there. Maradona, Zico, Di Stéfano, Gullit, Puskas, Baggio – I can't imagine Pelé being put in any other list, quite frankly. Maybe they should've picked a more neutral term than "offensive midfielders", but that's always an issue with categorisation – no matter what you do, it's always going to be too problematic one way or another.
Having Messi competing with Maradona wouldn't make much sense unless you're using the current version of Messi. Both of Messi's peaks were clearly in forward positions – as a false 9 and as a right forward, while Pelé, Maradona etc. usually had at least one player playing directly in front of them (usually two). Cristiano's peak was, again, as a left forward. They're competing with the likes of Rummenigge & Stoichkov in terms of their roles; for Messi a case can be made for him to be competing with Cruyff as both were at their best as false 9s. Pelé only played as a clear forward in his younger days – most notably during his breakthrough 1958 World Cup campaign.
If that is the case, surely Souness would make more sense?
Not only because he won 3 European Cups, but also because he was an actual DM.