Theon
Lord of the Iron Islands
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,370
Rijkaard/Iniesta/Effenberg is no better than Xavi/Davids/Platini. Completely ludicrous to think so, even with your inflated opinion of Iniesta it doesn't add up.
Come on NM!
Where the hell are you?
It's like 4.30 in the morning for him I think.
I'm not getting into this again. "If Rijkaard marks Platini then you are left with Effenberg and Iniesta, which is worse than a pairing of Davids and Xavi". Nutter.
Beckenbauer lazy? That's news to me. Strode around like an emperor demanding things be done his way but when you see him carry out that man-marking job on Charlton or play on with the disolocated shoulder v Italy the last thing you'd think of was lazy! Interesting. The only flaw I ever noticed in his game was those stupid fecking outside of the boot free kicks. The sheer arrogance of thinking he can not only get the ball up and down with the outside of his boot from 18 yards out, but he can outsmart the keeper too - outrageous!
Well yeah okay, good point. But still, Beckenbauer isn't the typical german footballer, is he? That would be Matthäus, imo.Remember these are Germans we are talking about. Different par for the course.
Beckenbauer's career path is set on tangents, though. After '66, he could've easily gone on to play a career doing the same thing in midfield. I was going to come in and post some of the stuff you did in your second post below, actually.Felix Magath once said, Beckenbauer was so lazy, they had to invent a position for him to make it work in the team. Obviously it was a joke, but there is some truth to it. Basically he got a complete defense around him, so he can operate with so much freedom wherever he wanted to. That setup allowed him to use all his strenth, but it also made up for his flaws which was necessary to build the legend, imo. Of course he's a magnificent footballer first and I get where Fortitude is coming from. But he had his flaws, especially in workrate and concentration. He was known for scoring a lot of own goals and was for sure the worst penalty taker out of all the alltime greats, for example. He wouldn't play as a center back in the modern game, imo, at least he wouldn't be the best defender of all time, if he had to play in a back 4 all his career. So it's no coincidence when he's seen as the greatest libero of all time first. Even in germany it's used that way most of the time, you rarely hear him called one of the greatest footballers of all time.
I'm not really here to change anyone's stance. I know for many Beckenbauer = 'libero' in the most ambiguous sense of the word and that's that as far as they're concerned.Get ready for the warped reality of fantasy discussions, where Edgar Davids, let alone Matthaus, can shut out an entire top quality midfield, while Beckenbauer is this funny old chap that was a bit good but is always invariably out of position for half the people out there.
Well, the problem is, if you only look at the big games, you get a different impression. For this draft it probably shouldn't be taken into account, but it was one of the reasons why he moved to that libero position.
Bayern in the seventies was frustrating very often. It's mind blowing that Gladbach won more league titles than Bayern with Beckenbauer in 13 years. In 74/75 and 75/76 Bayern finished 10th and 3rd in the league while winning the champions league (I don't know how it was called in english back then). Beckenbauer himself stated often, he didn't care about league games in those years, he was only able to motivate himself for big games. Of course it's explainable by winning everything between 72 and 74, but still it shows how wasteful he could be if he wasn't interested. Similar problems showed after 66. Bayern really struggled in 67 in the league while winning the cup winner's cup in europe, for example. So they found a way for him to have fun and play to his strenth at the same time while others did the dirty work. Bayern started to perform consistently the moment Beckenbauer moved into his new position in 68/69, winning the first league title in the Bundesliga and finishing top2 every season until 74/75.
Your example for his arrogance points into a similar direction, it was even worse in normal games. In no way would he do a similar job to that man-marking of Charlton during his prime, let's say between 70 and 76.
And this is why neutrals should not be picked randomly to decide games.
Cling always favours recent players + a few flash oldies. Nothing wrong with that mate, and many prefer to stick to what they know, which is fair enough. It's fine to vote on that basis, but it's not good enough for me as an objective and fair all-or-nothing game-deciding mechanism.
So when is the cut-off point for when the standards rose to an acceptable level? Is Di Stéfano seen as a worse player than Ronaldinho because he was at his peak 60 years before the Brazilian? Is Pelé worse than Zidane?
So when is the cut-off point for when the standards rose to an acceptable level? Is Di Stéfano seen as a worse player than Ronaldinho because he was at his peak 60 years before the Brazilian? Is Pelé worse than Zidane?
Giggs is going to play into his 40s and there's three reasons for that - he has terrific technique, a wonderful footballing brain and he's an outstanding professional. Matthews played on for that long not because the standards were so poor but because he looked after himself well and his core qualities were timeless. You know Di Stéfano, Pelé, Beckenbauer and Maradona would still be tearing teams apart today because they were complete masters of the ball first and foremost, and because they turned up on the big occasions.
Why do you think Matthews is still regarded above Bryan Robson for example?
Beckenbauer's career path is set on tangents, though. After '66, he could've easily gone on to play a career doing the same thing in midfield. I was going to come in and post some of the stuff you did in your second post below, actually.
I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever that he would have a similar legacy even if he never played 'libero' or in defence at all, as in big games and against the great opponents he was imperious and relished the occasion.
I'm getting at the notion Beckenbauer is out of place in midfield when, in fact, he's superior there to all but a minute percent in the whole draft and also the idea a manager would be penalised for utilising him there. which is absurd to me.
I'm not really here to change anyone's stance. I know for many Beckenbauer = 'libero' in the most ambiguous sense of the word and that's that as far as they're concerned.
You have to remember this draft is about prime.. form.. in the case of someone like Beckenbauer whose actual peak is pretty difficult to define. In big games, like this whole draft would be, he would be 100% switched on and relishing the challenges ahead of him.
He's one of the biggest big game players in the draft, so he's likely to show his best form in games like these.
Rijkaard/Iniesta/Effenberg is no better than Xavi/Davids/Platini. Completely ludicrous to think so, even with your inflated opinion of Iniesta it doesn't add up.
It's hardly as black and white as that. Do you seriously disagree about standards across the board, professionalism and fitness amongst other things being better now?!
Both the old timers you name are better, so that's the answer btw.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-English-footballs-greatest-wing-wizards.html
Their top 5 are
1.Giggs
2.Best
3.Matthews
4.Ronaldo
5.Finney
I'd agree that these are the top 5, though might quibble slightly with the order. Long live the wing wizards.
Matthews stayed close to the touchline and rarely scored goals.
Finney was a transitional figure, more like Best, and held the England goalscoring record for a while.
Best took goalscoring wingplay to a new level.
There are so many I wouldn't like to pick a 'best' but a few that come to mind are.
Matthews (with Stoke), Pele, Eusebio, Banks, Moore, White (Spurs)
Stanley Matthews
Kaz Deyna
(not counting live TV here)
1. Duncan Edwards
2. Bobby Charlton
3. Tom Finney
4. Stanley Matthews
5. Gordon Banks
That I've seen:
Ron Harris (but of course )
Bobby Moore
Kevin Keegan (surprised no scousers have mentioned him)
Stanley Matthews
Gordon Banks
I can't believe you've even got the audacity to come out with that after the swathes of one-sided bias you fed the Caf during our match. Which is fine. But don't go pretending you're somehow seperate from this "warped reality" that others seem to encourage.
I agree with everything in your post. I wrote all that stuff because Brwned talked about the reasons for him revolutionising the libero role and I thought it would put his move into that role into context. I wrote in one of the threads, that I'm sure Beckenbauer would play in midfield in the modern game and would be the standout player in that role without a doubt. I usally don't reduce his influence to defending, when he played as a libero. He was well known for his 1-2s with Müller in the penalty box while playing as a defender, which should speak for itself. The position gave him the possibility to influence the game wherever he thought it was needed. His great reading of the game, his tactical awareness and his abilities on the ball made him one of the most influential players to his team ever. Your absolutely right, he's one of the biggest big game players of all time. He could influence tactics, motivation, score when a goal is needed, organise the defense. And he did it several times in the most important games in the world.
Btw just read that according to some guy in this thread, Messi and Ronaldo are not yet in all time greats!
What type of lunacy is that?
Oh OK.
I'm assuming you are a collector of Kicker magazine?
That '72 side is the best footballing side you guys ever produced. It's a shame for Netzer he never got the nod in '74. His ability deserves a much higher standing in the game than it has. He's got to be top 10 passer of all-time.
Similar problems showed after 66. Bayern really struggled in 67 in the league while winning the cup winner's cup in europe, for example. So they found a way for him to have fun and play to his strenth at the same time while others did the dirty work. Bayern started to perform consistently the moment Beckenbauer moved into his new position in 68/69, winning the first league title in the Bundesliga and finishing top2 every season until 74/75.
I inherited about 2000 Kicker magazines from the fifties to seventies from my grandfather, read a few of them. I stopped buying and collecting them in 2004 when the drop in quality started to annoy me more than I enjoyed reading it.
Yes, that '72 side is magnificent. My father would instantly bang his head into a wall if I asked him why Germany didn't play with Netzer and Overath . After all, no one really cares what could have been in 74. We won the world cup at home, great stuff.
I have a realistic appreciation of all players, old or new. I lean only towards players who I think are better.
But lots of people saw them live and have passed on what they saw. Then there are books, magazines, newspaper cuts... I explained how my grandfather was a founder of the Uruguayan FA and went to several pre-TV World Cups. I wouldn't expect to have any chance of winning a final with a bunch of players being bigged up (and perceived as manager's bullshit) on account of his views, but if you can't play these fellas and pass on the stories, like Balu has done for Janes, for instance, then what is the point? These sort of players should be cut some slack early on, will most likely be gone by the final, but certainly should participate and be appreciated.Fact is with Varela - and in my defence I know who he is now it was mentioned - is nobody has seen much of him play. Footage from that era dictates this. So it's all well and good picking players from the 1930s to 1950s World Cups, but nobody on here can pretend they've watched lots of them and your age doesn't come into that. Simply, the coverage wasn't as good. Even worse I'd say that any YouTube highlights available of a current player.
True for most cases, but otherwise we would wind up with no all-time draft. There are certain positions where that is way more relevant than others and I would expect that to be a major factor indeed.Apart from anything else, the standard 60 years ago is not what it is today. That makes a big difference. Stanley Matthews may have been a wing wizard then, but I question how easily he's beating Ashley Cole, Paolo Maldini or Bixente Lizarazu. He played into his 50s because he was ahead of the game. Comparatively, everyone is ahead of the game now.
I think Netzer is in that bracket behind Walter, Beckenbauer and Matthäus. I really don't read as much german all time lists or german football boards to know about his rank. I think Germans are proud of him because of his time at Real, he was the first german player to leave for such a huge club. He was talked a lot about when Özil and Khedira left and lots of comparisons to Netzer/Breitner were in the media. You know, two germans at Real, one working hard the other one the magician. He worked as a tv pundit for years, so he's well known to the public as well. Not sure if his ability is fully appreaciated, though.
That's quite a fortune you're sitting on!
Lucky for you! Excellent magazine that it used to be!
How is Netzer regarded in Germany? He's very rarely spoken of over here or in general, which is a shame.
I inherited about 2000 Kicker magazines from the fifties to seventies from my grandfather, read a few of them. I stopped buying and collecting them in 2004 when the drop in quality started to annoy me more than I enjoyed reading it.
For a German side to rework it's entire foundation to accommodate a player, you can only conclude he was a once-in-a-generation talent. Nothing new, but I wonder how many players they would have ever done that for. And the great part is it worked, and they were immensely successful at the highest levels.
You also have to qualify that by pointing out something some may not know: Bayern was not the powerhouse it is today. It was only with that generation that they came to prominence, so I can see how the road from promotion to conquering the football world was more appealing than the week-in week-out discipline needed to dominate the league consistently.
The expertise you get from people or sources that have lived through the era is always so much more insightful. I had a similar inheritance recently through my uncle's World Soccer magazines dating back to the 1980s.
Ah yeah, okay. I thought, that was well known. Bayern weren't allowed to play in the Bundesliga in its first season in 63/64 because two clubs from one city didn't make sense to the FA and local rival TSV 1860 München were the more successful team back then. Bayern first played in the Bundesliga 2 years later in 65/66, finishing 3rd (with the local rival winning the league). Bayern won the german FA Cup that season and the european cup winner's cup the next season. Those years were the start of the club's success over the next decades.
More importantly, there are 2 funny stories about Beckenbauer and Gerd Müller and why they played for Bayern and not for 1860.
In 1958, 13 year old Franz Beckenbauer already had the plan to play for 1860 next season, but in a youth game with his childhood club against 1860 he got into a fight with one of their players who gave him a slap in the face. So he decided to sign for Bayern instead.
Gerd Müller played for Nördlingen in 1963 and 1860 wanted to sign him. One day Bayern's director found out that Müller was expected to sign the contract later that day and decided to drive to his home. He arrived an hour earlier than his rival and convinced Müller to sign for Bayern.
Both were maybe the most important players for Bayern ever and after 1965 1860 München never won anything again while Bayern are dominating the league until today. Probably two of the more important reasons why Munich is red and not blue (1860's colour) and we have very bitter neighbours.
Yes, it helps to put all the highlights and big games you actually can watch to put into context. So, reading 2000 magazines takes so much time, I picked out a few with interesting topics.
Wonder who that 1860 youth player was. They should crucify him
No I don't disagree, I was asking a genuine question. Would something like pre-TV era be the point where doubt creeps in?
The whole club is a joke. The fans would tell you that they didn't want that arrogant prick to play for the club anyway or something like that.
There seems to be a cut-off period around about the mid-1950s. The lack of video footage doesn't help, nor does the absence of a European Cup or Ballon D'Or to contextualise quality. I'd be surprised if there's a single player starting in the quarter-finals who didn't kick a ball competitively after 1960 which is a shame when we're losing talent of the calibre of Moreno and Nasazzi. But it's clear that those players simply are not going to accrue votes as MBR's fate amply demonstrated.
The Manchester parallel becomes increasingly uncanny
Yep, one reason we went for Zanetti now.