That is true.
But you specifically said Platini was necer the best in the world, which implied those Ballons would hace been Diego's. Incorrect, Platini was head and shoulders the BPITW 82-85 (before that it had been Zico, with a less ete-catching challenger in Rummenigge).
Depends on your take on dominance. The Juve of the last decade has been more dominant but in a shit league and with nothing to show for it in Europe.
I'd say 85-90, but you are right Diego did have an extended peak. I meant it more along the lines of being the undisputed best for three years on the trot but that's also a function of your competition so probably unfair.
Don't get me wrong, I am one of those saying Maradona was THE GOAT and I'm not arguing Platini is. What I was getting at earlier was how he was on the cusp of being in that conversation and Diego stealing the show in Mexico (and his insane 86-87 season) put paid to that to the point of knocking him too far down the pecking order.
I really don't think Platini was the best in the world in these years. Maradona had won the south american equivalent to Ballon D'or at aged 19 in '79 an won it again in '80. He moved for a world record fee in '82 and again in '84. What I mean is, that Maradona was already there.
Maybe you're right. I might be the one to prove the point of this thread. He is probably seen as a better player than I have given him credit for. Cheers.
Thank you for this, some well written opinions (and of course nicely referenced from tiers of greatness thread on which I'll have a look later).
It's a rather dodgy "equivalent". It's a football writer's award with one vote per media outlet and Brazilians largely not voting at all (they rarely take part in "South American" stuff for various reasons).
Was the Ballon D'or not given solely by the votes of journalists back in the day?
By the way, although I'm surprised that Maradona didn't won it in 1987, at least. And Maradona's time at Barcelona was largely viewed as a disappointment, especially considering the price tag — very much similar to his 1982 World Cup performance. He played very well by normal standards, but he wasn't in consideration for the best player in the world, which was already expected of him. Hence why Barcelona let him go and won the league the next season for the first time in more than a decade.
Technically yes, they were both awarded by journos. In practical terms the difference is substantial.
You know your stuff. How was the common belief in South America back then? Zico, Maradona or Platini? I guess it depended on whether you asked an argentinian or a brazilian
Platini won three times the ranking of the best striker in Serie A, when Serie A was the most important Championship in Europe, and he was a midfielder. He scored many goals more than Maradona in the same period, and Maradona was not a midfielder.
They played the same positions, attacking midfield. I would argue, that England was the best league up until Heysel.
England had the dominant sides in late 70s but just have a look at the foreigners (max 2 for team at that time) playing for Italian sides starting from 80-81 and how the feck Zico & Edinho were at Udinese, Leo Junior at Torino, Berrgreen and Kieft at Pisa (?), Falcao & Cerezo at Roma, Brady at Juve before Platini and so on
There were definitely some great players in Italy, and Italy was more attractive to especially South Americans. But.. England won the European Cup 7 out of 8 years prior to Heysel when the english teams were banned.England had the dominant sides in late 70s but just have a look at the foreigners (max 2 for team at that time) playing for Italian sides starting from 80-81 and how the feck Zico & Edinho were at Udinese, Leo Junior at Torino, Berrgreen and Kieft at Pisa (?), Falcao & Cerezo at Roma, Brady at Juve before Platini and so on
From about the mid-70s everyone would say Zico. Feck all idea on European players bar World Cups.You know your stuff. How was the common belief in South America back then? Zico, Maradona or Platini? I guess it depended on whether you asked an argentinian or a brazilian
1982 was the first WC I can remember. Besides our national league and the national team we were only able to watch the Euro's and WC's, and one match every saturday from England. Me and my mates were always looking for stuff from papers and magazines of South American football. And we were so excited for this WC to finally watch this fantastic brazilian team. Everybody I knew thought they were gonna win it. And then we finally got the chance to watch this wonderkid from Argentina we've heard about. I remember being dissapointed, both in Zico and Brazil, but also in Maradona. That was the only time I've seen Zico play, so he never really kicked on for me.
I have a lot of time for that side. Probably the only team that could give me nightmares for weeks after and I still thought "fair fecks to them".That WC was the best ever for me. Not just because of Maradona, but also because my country had a great team back then including Laudrup. Our match against you is probably the best match we've ever played
Heysel happened exactly in this period. Platini came in 1982/83, Maradona in 1984/85.
I know Heysel was in '85.. Do you not agree with my point?
It depends on the period that you use but between 75-85 based on UEFA coefficient the Bundesliga would arguably be the best.
For the period I was speaking of the years just before the Heysel, after that Italy won the World Championship in Spain in 1982. In this period in Italy many teams began to sign the best players in the world and Serie A became a very difficult championship. The Premier was the only one with the same quality, I think. Certainly not the Liga in Spain (only two great teams) nor the Bundesliga in Germany. The german star Rummenigge came in Italy in 1984 to join Platini, Zico, Maradona, Socrates, Careca and many other stars.
I don't disagree with you and to be honest I'm inclined to agree with you but one of the poster used European results as a benchmark and while trophies would point to English clubs, game to game results point to Germany over the period that he mentioned. Now the issue for me, is that it's always difficult to accurately rank leagues and it was even more complicated in the 70s and 80s.
You're right. They should have won some more European Cups then.. Italy was way down the list, making an average around 8th of 9th in the same period, so if we're talking England vs. Italy it's a no contest.
Yes, it is certainly difficult but trophies for me are not the best way to judge a whole championship (in many countries there was one or two great teams and then nothing more, as in Spain, Holland, Belgium, France, and so on). You can read the name of many teams from these countries in the list of winners, but that does not mean that their championships were top quality. That is not to say that England was not a top quality championship. For me it was the only one comparable with Italy in this period. I cannot say precisely how to judge Germany on the basis of the european results, but I think that Serie A had a higher medium quality.
