on phone, hopefully synco or physio will do it
General discussion thread
- Thread starter Synco
- Start date
If you can add me to Mike's convo I can set it up.
There's a lot of shouts about sweeper-keeper trailblazers, but this guy from the 1920s seems to have a stronger claim than most:
Meant to post this ages ago but I found it interesting how specific the contemporary accounts were compared to anything I've seen re Grosics, Yashin and the like, who came along 30 odd years later, and at least had the potential for corroborating footage that doesn't seem to exist. If it's in any way accurate, it's a bit mad that this guy was trailblazing back then, but it led down a historical cul-de-sac until so recently, with Cruyff as the lone voice shouting into the wilderness in the late 80s/early 90s. Even after the introduction of the back pass rule it took a long time for the possibilities of ball-playing keepers to really be explored.
Meant to post this ages ago but I found it interesting how specific the contemporary accounts were compared to anything I've seen re Grosics, Yashin and the like, who came along 30 odd years later, and at least had the potential for corroborating footage that doesn't seem to exist. If it's in any way accurate, it's a bit mad that this guy was trailblazing back then, but it led down a historical cul-de-sac until so recently, with Cruyff as the lone voice shouting into the wilderness in the late 80s/early 90s. Even after the introduction of the back pass rule it took a long time for the possibilities of ball-playing keepers to really be explored.
Definitely interesting, though that line about having techique on par with most forwards in his team comes off as an unintentionally damning indictment of 1920s German football.
Yeah, it doesn't exactly reflect well on his teammates!I was looking at Marcelo Gallardo and was then reminded of Marcelo Delgado. I remember him being the standout player whenever I watched Boca in the early 2000s on Channel 5. I mostly watched the Brazilian and Argentinian leagues to scout the new up and coming players, for instance the over-hyped Andres D'Allesandro.
So I decided to watch a few vids of Delgado. He wasn't as good as I had remembered him but still an entertaining watch.
So I decided to watch a few vids of Delgado. He wasn't as good as I had remembered him but still an entertaining watch.
With the mavericks draft underway, i thought i'd have a quick look at how each of them did at World Cups they played in, using that most appropriate, scientific statistic for the creative maverick...the Sofascore key pass. Sadly, no data for old Euro/Copa America' or i'd have added that in too.
Robert Prosinecki:
1990 = 2 key passes in 3 games. Played 35, 11 minutes in two.
1998 = 6 key passes in 4 games + injury time vs France. played 67, 68, 78 minutes in three.
2002 = 0 key passes in 45 minutes.
Teofilo Cubillas:
1970 = 9 key passes in 4 games.
1978 = 11 key passes in 6 games.
1982 = 4 key passes in 3 games. Played 57, 50 minutes in two.
Eric Cantona: didn't qualify for 90 or 94.
J.C Valeron:
2002 = 8 key passes in 4 games.
Alvaro Recoba:
2002 = 11 key passes in 3 games.
Carlos Valderrama:
1990 = 8 key passes in 4 games
1994 = 12 key passes in 3 games
1998 = 9 key passes in 3 games
Kazimierz Deyna:
1974 = 29 key passes in 7 games
1978 = 18 key passes in 6 games
Dejan Savicevic:
1990 = 2 key passes in 3 games. played 55, 64, 57 minutes.
1998 = 2 key passes in 2 games. played 27, 33 minutes
J.R Riquelme:
2006 = 15 key passes in 5 games. played 72 minutes in one.
Enzo Francescoli:
1986 = 3 key passes in 4 games.
1990 = 5 key passes in 4 games.
Gheorghe Hagi:
1990 = 9 key passes in 3 games. played 56 minutes in one.
1994 = 14 key passes in 5 games.
1998 = 12 key passes in 4 games. played 77, 73, 57 minutes in three.
Zlatan Ibrahimovic:
2002 = 0 key passes in 2, 28 minutes.
2006 = 3 key passes in 3 games. played 45, 72 minutes in two.
Dragan Stojkovic:
1990 = 17 key passes in 5 games.
1998 = 8 key passes in 4 games. played 69, 63, 57 minutes in three.
Paul Gascoigne:
1990 = 12 key passes in 6 games.
Socrates:
1982 = 11 key passes in 5 games.
1986 = 11 key passes in 5 games. played 68, 70 minutes in two.
Dennis Bergkamp:
1994 = 13 key passes in 5 games.
1998 = 11 key passes in 7 games. played 25, 78,78, 58 minutes in four.
Looking at the performances as a whole, a few players like Prosinecki and arguably Ibrahimovic ( i can't remember much about his 2006 performance, compared to most of the others) just didn't have the world cup come at the right time for them. Of the ones that did have a better chance to showcase themselves in or near their prime, Savicevic (1990) and Francescoli had definitely been the most disappointing imo. Their tournaments were genuine flops and among the worst football i've seen from either.
Robert Prosinecki:
1990 = 2 key passes in 3 games. Played 35, 11 minutes in two.
1998 = 6 key passes in 4 games + injury time vs France. played 67, 68, 78 minutes in three.
2002 = 0 key passes in 45 minutes.
Teofilo Cubillas:
1970 = 9 key passes in 4 games.
1978 = 11 key passes in 6 games.
1982 = 4 key passes in 3 games. Played 57, 50 minutes in two.
Eric Cantona: didn't qualify for 90 or 94.
J.C Valeron:
2002 = 8 key passes in 4 games.
Alvaro Recoba:
2002 = 11 key passes in 3 games.
Carlos Valderrama:
1990 = 8 key passes in 4 games
1994 = 12 key passes in 3 games
1998 = 9 key passes in 3 games
Kazimierz Deyna:
1974 = 29 key passes in 7 games
1978 = 18 key passes in 6 games
Dejan Savicevic:
1990 = 2 key passes in 3 games. played 55, 64, 57 minutes.
1998 = 2 key passes in 2 games. played 27, 33 minutes
J.R Riquelme:
2006 = 15 key passes in 5 games. played 72 minutes in one.
Enzo Francescoli:
1986 = 3 key passes in 4 games.
1990 = 5 key passes in 4 games.
Gheorghe Hagi:
1990 = 9 key passes in 3 games. played 56 minutes in one.
1994 = 14 key passes in 5 games.
1998 = 12 key passes in 4 games. played 77, 73, 57 minutes in three.
Zlatan Ibrahimovic:
2002 = 0 key passes in 2, 28 minutes.
2006 = 3 key passes in 3 games. played 45, 72 minutes in two.
Dragan Stojkovic:
1990 = 17 key passes in 5 games.
1998 = 8 key passes in 4 games. played 69, 63, 57 minutes in three.
Paul Gascoigne:
1990 = 12 key passes in 6 games.
Socrates:
1982 = 11 key passes in 5 games.
1986 = 11 key passes in 5 games. played 68, 70 minutes in two.
Dennis Bergkamp:
1994 = 13 key passes in 5 games.
1998 = 11 key passes in 7 games. played 25, 78,78, 58 minutes in four.
Looking at the performances as a whole, a few players like Prosinecki and arguably Ibrahimovic ( i can't remember much about his 2006 performance, compared to most of the others) just didn't have the world cup come at the right time for them. Of the ones that did have a better chance to showcase themselves in or near their prime, Savicevic (1990) and Francescoli had definitely been the most disappointing imo. Their tournaments were genuine flops and among the worst football i've seen from either.
think this is the first time i disagree with your post....you cant look football through stats.
Also, put 5 people in the room and everyone will have a different interpretation of what a key pass is.
Oh, it wasn't meant to be a particularly serious, proper comparison between the players, i tried to get that across with the line about it being the most scientific, appropriate statistic. Just a bit of fun while i was bored, inspired by mention not long ago about a post by michael (i think ) about numbers of key passes at world cups and Deyna's 1974. Which led to looking through some of the old tournament stats on the site.
Even if was a more serious comparison of key passes alone, you'd need to account for what teams the passes were against...and i couldn't be bothered with the further writing for that, plus i've just realised i pointed out when most subs were made, but forgot to mention extra-times.
On savicevic/Francescoli being the most disappointing campaigns, that's my seperate opinion from having watched the games. I had no idea what their detailed stats were before looking through all of them for this. obviously they have some legit reasons to partially explain that: Savicevic wasn't a regular that had been consistently integrated into the team system before the tournament, and for Francescoli, Uruguay weren't the strongest/most technically skilled team compared to what a lot of the others had to work with, which put extra pressure on him. Maybe he had fitness isssues too, i don't know there.
Last edited:
ohh okay then, as someone who hates stats i had to react
Yeah regarding Savicevic, its maybe the case of tournament coming to quick for him and Prosinecki or Osim not trusting them when he should have. Think the team would have had much bigger success and could have went all the way if they participated in 92 or 94 in the form of Yugoslavia. Both were at their best and fraud Piksi would be away from the team.
Why do you think Piksi was a fraud? I get that the Serbs can be overzealous with him at times, i've spoke to some that are adamant he's one of the greatest players of all-time, despite obviously not having the accomplishments to back anything close to that up (before we even get into talent arguments). From a more neutral perspective, having eventually watched a lot of all three, i don't think there was much difference in quality between them as players; they all had great ability, with similar ways of effecting games/playing badly. Savicevic is probably my least favourite of the three as he could drift slightly further into headless chicken overdribbling/outright liability territory when not in form, and didn't quite have the same range of passing. They all had injury problems, but Stojkovic was the least fortunate there, his knee falling apart at Marseille.
One thing i didn't like about Stojkovic was that he could sometimes get stuck out on that right-wing/side-midfielder starting position too much, similar to Zidane on the left in the first couple of seasons at Juventus, before Lippi gave more license to roam centrally, and wasn't quite as supported by as strong a defensive midfield presence as in later seasons. Stojkovic was more effective when able to play and interchange centrally often, but couldn't always do that depending on who the teammates/opposition were without opening up a highway defensively.
However, tbf, that's a problem a lot of european based creative/attacking midfield types had in the 80s, and 90s; for a time that produced a high number of memorable ones, there was a lot of tactically inflexible use of them, especially if they had been more on the supporting role end of the spectrum. Getting tied down too much to a two-way side-midfielder position, or midfield 2 role in a basic, flat 4-4-2, or put as a 2nd forward/typical italian trequartista (as Capello often did with savicevic) when they were better deeper, happened often.
I think the main issue with the Osim Yugo team was that he kept Susic as the main central attacking/organising midfielder too long. Susic was declining fast by 1990 and should have been in a sub-role after his performance against Germany. Savicevic was only a year younger than stojkovic and his total games played in his career reflected that, so even though he'd not yet become a regular, i do think he had enough experience that he should have made more of an impact.
One thing i didn't like about Stojkovic was that he could sometimes get stuck out on that right-wing/side-midfielder starting position too much, similar to Zidane on the left in the first couple of seasons at Juventus, before Lippi gave more license to roam centrally, and wasn't quite as supported by as strong a defensive midfield presence as in later seasons. Stojkovic was more effective when able to play and interchange centrally often, but couldn't always do that depending on who the teammates/opposition were without opening up a highway defensively.
However, tbf, that's a problem a lot of european based creative/attacking midfield types had in the 80s, and 90s; for a time that produced a high number of memorable ones, there was a lot of tactically inflexible use of them, especially if they had been more on the supporting role end of the spectrum. Getting tied down too much to a two-way side-midfielder position, or midfield 2 role in a basic, flat 4-4-2, or put as a 2nd forward/typical italian trequartista (as Capello often did with savicevic) when they were better deeper, happened often.
I think the main issue with the Osim Yugo team was that he kept Susic as the main central attacking/organising midfielder too long. Susic was declining fast by 1990 and should have been in a sub-role after his performance against Germany. Savicevic was only a year younger than stojkovic and his total games played in his career reflected that, so even though he'd not yet become a regular, i do think he had enough experience that he should have made more of an impact.
He is a big fish in a small pond type of player and i dont like those types(ibra, hagi etc.) as they get overrated to heavens and back.
Everything needs to be built around them and in the end they dont have the quality to pull it of at highest level.
Everything needs to be built around them and in the end they dont have the quality to pull it of at highest level.
Interesting post and I rate Deyna and Hagi’s performances as amongst the very best we’ve seen at a World Cup. Gascoigne, Stojkovic and Valderrama too were very good.
On the flip side Francescoli was magnificent against Scotland in 1986. I am not surprised he didn’t have many key passes as he would’ve had nobody to pass to, playing as a one-man attack for a 10-man team parking the bus. That was a shell of a negative Uruguay side though that didn’t really maximise Enzo’s attacking potential. Point taken that, like Ibra, his most compelling tournaments were continental.
I the all time lists, where are the likes of Ronaldinho and Iniesta etc?
Iniesta in the attacking midfielders list (just below Laudrup at 6th), Ronaldinho is joint 8th in the forwards list with Baggio.
Top tier football song
I think the main reason for Nilton Santos' unfavorable goal difference in relation to Djalma Santos is the fact that Djalma was one of the candidates to take penalties (possibly even free kicks) in the teams he played for, scoring one of Brazil's goals in the defeat to Hungary in the 54 World Cup.
Another factor that may have contributed is the fact that Djalma Santos played for "smaller" teams (Portuguesa-SP in the first half of his career and Athletico Paranaense at the end of his career) compared to Nilton's Botafogo, who to take a free kick or penalty would have to overlap with Didi, for example.
One of the points that is rarely mentioned about Nilton Santos, but that stands out during his documentary (however, like every documentary about a great player, it has a hagiographic inclination) is that he impressed at the beginning of his career with his physical-athletic vigor, being mentioned as a great jumper (from 8m00s onwards in his documentary - (I am not allowed to post media). And this led to, I don't remember if his first coach or a scout who discovered him, considering him "the perfect defender" for combining athleticism (breath + impulsion, although it wasn't highlighted if he had above average speed, so I I remember) plus his great technique (ball control + vision of the game).
Finally, I highlight a curious point in the documentary: as Nilton Santos was a fisherman (I think it was an activity he had with his father, if I remember correctly) he used a fishing trick during the games. As he needed to position himself in the river so that his shadow would not scare away the fish, he began to observe the projection on the ground of the shadow of his markers (that is, when he was facing the baseline with an opposing attacker pressing) and was able to This means knowing which way to go without having to turn your head or wait for physical contact.
As I'm using Google Translate, I don't know if my text will be understandable, but in summary: Nilton learned to observe the shadows of his opponents projected on the pitch to know where they were without having to turn his head and move according to this "information" hehehe (= laughter onomatopoeia in Portuguese).
Great story, thanks for sharing it
The talk about Zidane's defensive work in the match comp thread inspired me to have a browse through the mighty Sofascore World Cup stats database to see how many of the players often classed as 10s/attacking midfielders differentiated in their defensive/number of touches stats. Unfortunately, there isn't one for distance covered, only more specific stuff like tackles/interceptions/possession won/dribbled past/clearances. Not that i place much authority in most stats over analysing full games, but i like the site as a timewaster.
I stuck to 80s/90s players, with a comparison point in CM Matthaus, DM Makelele, a few of the more modern 10'ish types often cited as being far higher in workrate (Iniesta, Sneijder, Muller) ... and Ozil. What became obvious quickly is that for tournaments where the players were in their prime most of the more midfield 8.5/side midfieldish 10s were very close to each other for defensive stats, despite the differing tactics/ability levels of the teams involved. There was usually a more obvious difference between them and the ones that had lined up as supporting forwards, or often played with at most 2 players in front of them (Francescoli 86, Totti, Bergkamp, Nilis, Laudrup 86, Baggio Zico 82). This group was also often very similar, with lower involvement in general for touches and most defensive categories. Often below 1.0 per game
Some of the players with better stats were surprising: Hoddle was solid, and Scifo ( at Anderlecht and Inter he was often criticised for his defensive contribution) 90/94 were among the best. Maradona '86 was clearly more involved overall than anyone else that could be put in the category of often being among the two most advanced positionally. For players in their prime who had a famously good individual tournament, Zico 82 was perhaps the worst for defensive stats, but there weren't many that stood out as quickly indicating a notably lazy off the ball defensive performance ( Ronaldinho 2002 might be the most obvious) not once you became familiar with the expected range for the roles and era. Most of the ones where you could easily tell that someone was not generally involved or putting in some supporting defensive effort were in the past-prime tournaments, and a few of the well-known individual flop/team trainwrecks.
The more recent 2010-14 era didn't show the improvement i expected. Iniesta and Muller 2010 fit in with the more active 80s/90s performances, and looked good, while 2014 Muller defensively/touches was no different to the 80s/90s average. Sneijder 2010 and Ozil 2014 just blend in unspectacularly too, somewhere between the more active 80s/90s 2nd striker performances and the average midfieldish ones. Sneijder 2014 and Ozil 2010 were actually among the worst, no better than some of the past-prime efforts of the 80s/90s crop (which makes sense for Sneijder, tbf).
Players i checked were: Zidane, Platini, Giresse, Zico, Socrates, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Maradona, Riquelme, Veron, Hassler, Moller, Susic, Stojkovic, Boban, Hagi, Gavrilov, Zavarov, Francescoli, Bergkamp, Valderrama, M.Laudrup, Antognoni, Giannini, Baggio, Totti, Valeron, Rui Costa, Scifo, Hoddle, Scholes, Detari, Balakov, Titov.
Valderrama had a huge amount of touches at the 94 World Cup as the conductor of Colombia's possession game. His average was 132, and at 1990 it was 90; for comparison, Xavi 2010 was 111. However, neither are a match for the colossus that is Rodri 2022, with 179. Including a glorious 235 touches as Spain failed to break down Morocco.
I stuck to 80s/90s players, with a comparison point in CM Matthaus, DM Makelele, a few of the more modern 10'ish types often cited as being far higher in workrate (Iniesta, Sneijder, Muller) ... and Ozil. What became obvious quickly is that for tournaments where the players were in their prime most of the more midfield 8.5/side midfieldish 10s were very close to each other for defensive stats, despite the differing tactics/ability levels of the teams involved. There was usually a more obvious difference between them and the ones that had lined up as supporting forwards, or often played with at most 2 players in front of them (Francescoli 86, Totti, Bergkamp, Nilis, Laudrup 86, Baggio Zico 82). This group was also often very similar, with lower involvement in general for touches and most defensive categories. Often below 1.0 per game
Some of the players with better stats were surprising: Hoddle was solid, and Scifo ( at Anderlecht and Inter he was often criticised for his defensive contribution) 90/94 were among the best. Maradona '86 was clearly more involved overall than anyone else that could be put in the category of often being among the two most advanced positionally. For players in their prime who had a famously good individual tournament, Zico 82 was perhaps the worst for defensive stats, but there weren't many that stood out as quickly indicating a notably lazy off the ball defensive performance ( Ronaldinho 2002 might be the most obvious) not once you became familiar with the expected range for the roles and era. Most of the ones where you could easily tell that someone was not generally involved or putting in some supporting defensive effort were in the past-prime tournaments, and a few of the well-known individual flop/team trainwrecks.
The more recent 2010-14 era didn't show the improvement i expected. Iniesta and Muller 2010 fit in with the more active 80s/90s performances, and looked good, while 2014 Muller defensively/touches was no different to the 80s/90s average. Sneijder 2010 and Ozil 2014 just blend in unspectacularly too, somewhere between the more active 80s/90s 2nd striker performances and the average midfieldish ones. Sneijder 2014 and Ozil 2010 were actually among the worst, no better than some of the past-prime efforts of the 80s/90s crop (which makes sense for Sneijder, tbf).
Players i checked were: Zidane, Platini, Giresse, Zico, Socrates, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Maradona, Riquelme, Veron, Hassler, Moller, Susic, Stojkovic, Boban, Hagi, Gavrilov, Zavarov, Francescoli, Bergkamp, Valderrama, M.Laudrup, Antognoni, Giannini, Baggio, Totti, Valeron, Rui Costa, Scifo, Hoddle, Scholes, Detari, Balakov, Titov.
Valderrama had a huge amount of touches at the 94 World Cup as the conductor of Colombia's possession game. His average was 132, and at 1990 it was 90; for comparison, Xavi 2010 was 111. However, neither are a match for the colossus that is Rodri 2022, with 179. Including a glorious 235 touches as Spain failed to break down Morocco.
Spain's commitment to possession really is irrepressible. They've topped the table for possession and number of accurate passes for every WC since 2006, except 2014, where they finished first for possession and second in accurate passes behind Germany.
2006: 62.3% with 473.5 accurate passes
2010: 65.3% with 542.4 accurate passes
2014: 61.7% with 524.7 accurate passes
2018: 74.3% with 771.8 accurate passes
2022: 76.3% with 853.8 accurate passes
You have to respect the well-drilled continuity of style, but it shows how important an in-form, clinical forward usually is for short tournaments.
2006: 62.3% with 473.5 accurate passes
2010: 65.3% with 542.4 accurate passes
2014: 61.7% with 524.7 accurate passes
2018: 74.3% with 771.8 accurate passes
2022: 76.3% with 853.8 accurate passes
You have to respect the well-drilled continuity of style, but it shows how important an in-form, clinical forward usually is for short tournaments.
(Translated via google)
If I understand correctly, this thread is for random discussions, right? So I'm going to present one of my biggest football concerns.
There are certain types of players from the past whose image and historical description have been handed down to us mostly in a form that I call "poetic".
These are players from the past exalted by one characteristic in such a way that the others seem either weak, or did not have the proper description.
For example, here in Brazil, I was born in 90, when looking for information about Garrincha, almost 100% of the time, I saw the following poetic description:
"The best among dribblers." "Everyone knew what he was going to do (dribble to the right, as his *two legs were crooked this way) and, even so, no one stopped him."
"He dribbled past his marker, came back and dribbled past him once again (an elderly taxi driver once told me this story that he had witnessed from the stands)."
"He dribbled through half the team, waited for the goalkeeper again and dribbled him again before scoring the goal (an event that would have occurred during a friendly preparatory match for the 1958 World Cup in Brazil against Fiorentina)."
*Note: In Brazil, it was always said that in addition to pies, one of the legs would be 6 cm shorter than the other (six centimeters!!!). Please, someone with medical-orthopedic or similar knowledge inform me if there is even the slightest possibility of someone like this being able to run, even without driving a sphere; because that seems more like a dramatic exaggeration to me.
In short: dribbles, dribbles and more dribbles. Largely due to the fact that Garrincha's contemporary chroniclers had this dramatic characteristic (for example: Nelson Rodrigues - famous writer, journalist, novelist, playwright, etc. - and Armando Nogueira).
I don't want to disdain this literary style, however, when it alone prevails, we lose a more realistic point of view of the general picture that formed the legendary player Garrincha.
Apart from folklore stories, such as, for example, that he would not have valued the World Cup because, according to what is attributed to him: "it wouldn't even have a second round (in allusion to the Rio championship that Botafogo competed in every year)".
After all, if he were all about irresponsible dribbling, perhaps he would be nothing more than a Magician González with better company, right? And if that were the case, he would be behind many players, who had dribbling (even if inferior to Garrincha) but some other great attribute (passing, finishing, tactical intelligence, etc.)
When I was a child, this description satisfied me, but as I started editing football games to play with these legends, I had to try to fill in the gaps in information regarding the characteristics of legendary players like him.
When looking for more concrete information (like video recordings, or minute-by-minute descriptions of games) I better understood that Garrincha's talent was not restricted to being the "Denilson of big games".
The 62 World Cup game against England gives a great example of this right winger's general abilities. Since I can't post the video (my account on this forum doesn't have this privilege) I'll quote the video that has the name "Is Garrincha vs England The Best World Cup Performance Ever?" published on the YouTube channel called "Harms".
- At 2:18, Garrincha makes a quick cut to the left (one of the names given to this movement in Brazil is "comma", the same used for this spelling sign between the hahtags # , #, it was quite characteristic of Pelé and Zico). In fact, this hyperbole that he only dribbled to one side is not even complimentary;
- At 6:43, the footworking demonstrated to get rid of two markers;
- At 7:12, the corner was taken from the trivela (the outside of the foot) in an attempt to score directly;
Another video, called "Garrincha, Alegria do Povo [Goals & Skills]" from the Barbosa Fútbol Videos channel, shows ball control combined with passing ability:
- At 2:40 comes a header pass and Garrincha, in one touch, with a movement that appears to be a karate kick with the heel, makes the pass to his teammate (Awesome!);
- Furthermore, the free kick against Bulgaria, in 66.
These fragments indicate, in addition to his historical renown, and the more descriptive accounts that people who saw him give of him give us a more realistic overview of what Garrincha's characteristics were like. A great example are the columns by former player Tostão (world champion in 70) who reports that Garrincha was very intelligent when using his dribbling ability, had great vision of the game and was an expert in crossing from the baseline.
Other fragments add capacity and strength to the shot.
The second player I want to exemplify is the historic Englishman Bobby Moore, who also suffers, I think, from this abundance of poetic and allegorical description which has the negative consequence of the absence of a more realistic disclosure of his capabilities.
The reports go as follows: "He knew what the attacker was going to do, before it was done." "He wasn't fast, agile or strong, nor did he have the ability to jump, but he still always recovered the ball." In addition to observations about its spectacular positioning.
If we only consider reports of these types, we form the image of a large clairvoyant brain (with a GPS attached) attached to a rickety body with no mobility.
Even when we consider the mentions of Moore's game vision and intelligence, little is said about his great ability and variety of passes, and mastery of the technical fundamentals of the game.
Only after watching the 66 World Cup, especially the final (for me, the best individual performance in a World Cup final), could I better understand why this guy was special (two assists, right?). He organized the team's attacks from the defense, like a Pirlo defender version, without discovering his main function.
Now I'm wondering about Bobby Moore's supposed weaknesses, was he slower than Figueroa, Blanc, Desailly, Cannavaro or Stam? Or weaker than Baresi, Scirea, Koeman, Sammer or even Piqué and Sergio Ramos?
The absence of reports that aim to provide a more realistic overview of Moore's athletic and technical capabilities contrasts with the presence of much more frequent reports (in addition to audiovisual recordings) from some of his competitors such as Beckenbauer, Baresi and Koeman.
At least this absence did not prevent the legendary Englishman from still being among the highest ranked among the GOATs of his position (contrary to what often happens with Passarella and, mainly, Elías Figueroa).
Finally, I list other players who suffer from this type of poetic description as an almost unique way of being remembered historically:
- Obdulio Varela (his description, almost invariably, boils down to: Leadership. We don't know if his playing style is closer to Roy Keane, Xavi or Matthäus, or any other characteristic that is not a motivator on the field, which, at the same time, it seems, I don't need the ball to be important);
- Bobby Charlton (look on websites that reconstruct historical players for video games as he is described in his technical capabilities: dx84tech, pesmitidelcalcio, SkillsPesefifa, for example);
- Nilton Santos (already discussed in previous subjects);
- Jimmy Greaves (in game videos he was a corner taker, [some] free kicks, he seemed to have speed, skill and passing ability, but none of this is mentioned, beyond the stereotype of a goalscoring center forward);
- Versatile or multipositional players such as Neeskens or Branko Zebec (their athletic capabilities are highlighted and little is said about their technical capabilities that enable them to perform in such diverse roles;
- Expert passers like Gérson or Nils Liedholm (is there anything on the internet about him other than his 2 or 4 years without missing a pass, or without missing a pass playing at home?)
And many others, including Cruyff, who is the curious case of an icon overshadowed by himself, haha.
Do you agree on anything? Do you have any other example of this type?
If I understand correctly, this thread is for random discussions, right? So I'm going to present one of my biggest football concerns.
There are certain types of players from the past whose image and historical description have been handed down to us mostly in a form that I call "poetic".
These are players from the past exalted by one characteristic in such a way that the others seem either weak, or did not have the proper description.
For example, here in Brazil, I was born in 90, when looking for information about Garrincha, almost 100% of the time, I saw the following poetic description:
"The best among dribblers." "Everyone knew what he was going to do (dribble to the right, as his *two legs were crooked this way) and, even so, no one stopped him."
"He dribbled past his marker, came back and dribbled past him once again (an elderly taxi driver once told me this story that he had witnessed from the stands)."
"He dribbled through half the team, waited for the goalkeeper again and dribbled him again before scoring the goal (an event that would have occurred during a friendly preparatory match for the 1958 World Cup in Brazil against Fiorentina)."
*Note: In Brazil, it was always said that in addition to pies, one of the legs would be 6 cm shorter than the other (six centimeters!!!). Please, someone with medical-orthopedic or similar knowledge inform me if there is even the slightest possibility of someone like this being able to run, even without driving a sphere; because that seems more like a dramatic exaggeration to me.
In short: dribbles, dribbles and more dribbles. Largely due to the fact that Garrincha's contemporary chroniclers had this dramatic characteristic (for example: Nelson Rodrigues - famous writer, journalist, novelist, playwright, etc. - and Armando Nogueira).
I don't want to disdain this literary style, however, when it alone prevails, we lose a more realistic point of view of the general picture that formed the legendary player Garrincha.
Apart from folklore stories, such as, for example, that he would not have valued the World Cup because, according to what is attributed to him: "it wouldn't even have a second round (in allusion to the Rio championship that Botafogo competed in every year)".
After all, if he were all about irresponsible dribbling, perhaps he would be nothing more than a Magician González with better company, right? And if that were the case, he would be behind many players, who had dribbling (even if inferior to Garrincha) but some other great attribute (passing, finishing, tactical intelligence, etc.)
When I was a child, this description satisfied me, but as I started editing football games to play with these legends, I had to try to fill in the gaps in information regarding the characteristics of legendary players like him.
When looking for more concrete information (like video recordings, or minute-by-minute descriptions of games) I better understood that Garrincha's talent was not restricted to being the "Denilson of big games".
The 62 World Cup game against England gives a great example of this right winger's general abilities. Since I can't post the video (my account on this forum doesn't have this privilege) I'll quote the video that has the name "Is Garrincha vs England The Best World Cup Performance Ever?" published on the YouTube channel called "Harms".
- At 2:18, Garrincha makes a quick cut to the left (one of the names given to this movement in Brazil is "comma", the same used for this spelling sign between the hahtags # , #, it was quite characteristic of Pelé and Zico). In fact, this hyperbole that he only dribbled to one side is not even complimentary;
- At 6:43, the footworking demonstrated to get rid of two markers;
- At 7:12, the corner was taken from the trivela (the outside of the foot) in an attempt to score directly;
Another video, called "Garrincha, Alegria do Povo [Goals & Skills]" from the Barbosa Fútbol Videos channel, shows ball control combined with passing ability:
- At 2:40 comes a header pass and Garrincha, in one touch, with a movement that appears to be a karate kick with the heel, makes the pass to his teammate (Awesome!);
- Furthermore, the free kick against Bulgaria, in 66.
These fragments indicate, in addition to his historical renown, and the more descriptive accounts that people who saw him give of him give us a more realistic overview of what Garrincha's characteristics were like. A great example are the columns by former player Tostão (world champion in 70) who reports that Garrincha was very intelligent when using his dribbling ability, had great vision of the game and was an expert in crossing from the baseline.
Other fragments add capacity and strength to the shot.
The second player I want to exemplify is the historic Englishman Bobby Moore, who also suffers, I think, from this abundance of poetic and allegorical description which has the negative consequence of the absence of a more realistic disclosure of his capabilities.
The reports go as follows: "He knew what the attacker was going to do, before it was done." "He wasn't fast, agile or strong, nor did he have the ability to jump, but he still always recovered the ball." In addition to observations about its spectacular positioning.
If we only consider reports of these types, we form the image of a large clairvoyant brain (with a GPS attached) attached to a rickety body with no mobility.
Even when we consider the mentions of Moore's game vision and intelligence, little is said about his great ability and variety of passes, and mastery of the technical fundamentals of the game.
Only after watching the 66 World Cup, especially the final (for me, the best individual performance in a World Cup final), could I better understand why this guy was special (two assists, right?). He organized the team's attacks from the defense, like a Pirlo defender version, without discovering his main function.
Now I'm wondering about Bobby Moore's supposed weaknesses, was he slower than Figueroa, Blanc, Desailly, Cannavaro or Stam? Or weaker than Baresi, Scirea, Koeman, Sammer or even Piqué and Sergio Ramos?
The absence of reports that aim to provide a more realistic overview of Moore's athletic and technical capabilities contrasts with the presence of much more frequent reports (in addition to audiovisual recordings) from some of his competitors such as Beckenbauer, Baresi and Koeman.
At least this absence did not prevent the legendary Englishman from still being among the highest ranked among the GOATs of his position (contrary to what often happens with Passarella and, mainly, Elías Figueroa).
Finally, I list other players who suffer from this type of poetic description as an almost unique way of being remembered historically:
- Obdulio Varela (his description, almost invariably, boils down to: Leadership. We don't know if his playing style is closer to Roy Keane, Xavi or Matthäus, or any other characteristic that is not a motivator on the field, which, at the same time, it seems, I don't need the ball to be important);
- Bobby Charlton (look on websites that reconstruct historical players for video games as he is described in his technical capabilities: dx84tech, pesmitidelcalcio, SkillsPesefifa, for example);
- Nilton Santos (already discussed in previous subjects);
- Jimmy Greaves (in game videos he was a corner taker, [some] free kicks, he seemed to have speed, skill and passing ability, but none of this is mentioned, beyond the stereotype of a goalscoring center forward);
- Versatile or multipositional players such as Neeskens or Branko Zebec (their athletic capabilities are highlighted and little is said about their technical capabilities that enable them to perform in such diverse roles;
- Expert passers like Gérson or Nils Liedholm (is there anything on the internet about him other than his 2 or 4 years without missing a pass, or without missing a pass playing at home?)
And many others, including Cruyff, who is the curious case of an icon overshadowed by himself, haha.
Do you agree on anything? Do you have any other example of this type?
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep!
Nice channel! I've edited the videos in by the way.
I think he was slower than most of them — maybe aside from Blanc, who wasn't fast either. As for his lack of strength, I agree that it's exaggerated, he was a tough guy — but I think he mainly gets compared to his partner, Jack Charlton, a classical stopper with strength & aerial prowess being his main attributes; or Wright, his predecessor, who, despite his short stature, was a Terry-like physical menace. But he really was incredible in terms of defensive reading of the game & anticipation — I think only Baresi and maybe Scirea were comparable to him in this regard in terms of the players that I've seen.
I have a big 30-minute video on him by the way if you're interested, I've tried to highlights all of his attributes including his passing ability:
That's a great example. A shame that we barely have any footage of him. That's a nice assist & a goal from him though:
He's one of the players that surprised me the most when I was looking into him. I expected your typical fox in the box type but he was so much more — and usually he played with another number 9 up front!
I think Denis Law often falls into the same category. People think of him as a great striker and nothing more while in reality he (like Charlton) based a lot of his game on Di Stéfano and often ran the show from midfield. Such a fiercely combative player as well! To a lesser extend Gerd Müller too — we've (well, I think it was @Synco or @Joga Bonito) found games where he had played in midfield and as a false 9 which, again, goes against his image of a player that's solely focused on goalscoring.
As I still haven't mastered the forum's features, I'll respond in the same text. I apologize if it gets confusing.
- As for the YouTube channel (Harms), I can only thank you for providing true gems for those who value the stars of this sport;
- As for the incredible specific video "Bobby Moore was even better than you think" I say that I have already watched it a few times, precisely after seeing Moore in action against Brazil in 70 and in the 66 final, I cite as an example the tackle he makes in 15:06 in the way it is poetically attributed to him. Around 5:13 I kept going back and forth and I still don't know if his movement was purposeful or involuntary (I think it's involuntary, but it could just be my mind as a mere mortal who doesn't understand the genius's mind haha);
- I hadn't thought about your point, that he had a classic defender of strength and strength like Jack Charlton at his side in an iconic moment, which reinforced Moore's stereotype of a ballerina defender to the point of exaggeration;
- I didn't know these images of Varela, and even when I looked for his characteristics on Uruguayan websites, I hardly got anything other than the so-called leadership and bravery (in fact, for me, he is the object of the most distressing and disgusting poetic description I've ever read, made by a Brazilian journalist: "Obdúlio's f... didn't tie his boots with laces, but with his veins"... argh, is it just me or does anyone else find this figuration distressing?)
- True, Müller and Law also suffer under the framing of the "static center forward pushing the ball towards the goal", in the game shown in Moore's video that you edited (England x Rest of the World) he was a midfielder for Eusébio and veteran Di Stéfano remained more like strikers. I've seen an interview with Müller in which he said that when he was playing for Bayern for the first time, he played right-back (I don't know if he said it literally or as a force of expression). As this type of center forward (who can play as a playmaker) has always been rare, I imagine that such information has been lost in time (something more difficult to happen with Harry Kane's creative ability, for example, based on visual records).
The only striker from the past that I remember who maintained his reputation in another position was John Charles, some say even exaggeratedly, but that's a subject for another discussion...
Quite an underrated player imo, i've always thought he was as important to '80s Belgium as anyone after Cuelemans leadership/versatility. his work on the left for 75-80 Anderlecht was a big part of taking that team to a higher standard while still allowing Rensenbrink to ignore defence and play his wandering wing-forward role. When De Bruyne was first starting to really draw attention at Wolfsburg with all his assists from wide aras, it was a more two footed Vercauteren he reminded me of...though tbf that was also the sheer laziness of them both being Belgian. De Bruyne was eventually able to develop into a more varied player with the tactical rigour of the modern game, whereas great crossers of Vercauteren's era that were under conservative/simple and direct managers often got stuck in that "punt crosses and long balls into the box " side-midfielder role imo - despite having skills that could offer more central involvement too.
Last edited:
@Šjor Bepo @Physiocrat
Rene Maric (of Spielverlagerung) tried to tackle the Rijkaard mystery in 2015, guess it fits the discussion quite well. He frames the problem like this: "How should you play when you potentially can do everything?"
https://spielverlagerung.de/2015/12/02/tuerchen-2-frank-rijkaard/
Very short summary: Rijkaard could do pretty much everything technically and physically, but this completeness also came with a lack of self-limitation that could make his game somewhat inconsistent and erratic. Forcing too much in terms of decisionmaking, positioning, etc. Maric actually prefers Rijkaard's CB performances, where the position's natural limitations helped applying his immense skillset in a more focused, disciplined, and stable manner. With this kind of balance, he already foreshadowed what only the best of the best modern CBs of later decades could do.
(For context, I think it always shines through that Maric was originally a major Guardiola geek, for better or for worse.)
Rene Maric (of Spielverlagerung) tried to tackle the Rijkaard mystery in 2015, guess it fits the discussion quite well. He frames the problem like this: "How should you play when you potentially can do everything?"
https://spielverlagerung.de/2015/12/02/tuerchen-2-frank-rijkaard/
Very short summary: Rijkaard could do pretty much everything technically and physically, but this completeness also came with a lack of self-limitation that could make his game somewhat inconsistent and erratic. Forcing too much in terms of decisionmaking, positioning, etc. Maric actually prefers Rijkaard's CB performances, where the position's natural limitations helped applying his immense skillset in a more focused, disciplined, and stable manner. With this kind of balance, he already foreshadowed what only the best of the best modern CBs of later decades could do.
(For context, I think it always shines through that Maric was originally a major Guardiola geek, for better or for worse.)
would say rene is a smart man but then again we are in agreement so maybe he isnt
Dont know, he was very complete though many attributes were not at top level and he isnt the only player ever that was complete so you have plenty of players that could do it all but whose game is much more balanced - to stay in GOAT territory lets mention Matthaus.
That's a good article. It seems to me Rijkaard either wants to be a CB or the most attacking CM in a 3 similar to someone like Neeskens.
I wouldn't even say he always plays like an attacking CM, he just rarely holds his position like you expect from a DM in the games I've seen. He definitely can be careless/overly ambitious with his passing too - every so often he'll whip a nice crossfield pass that finds the mark, but most of them are looping into touch. To me, he's much more impressive carrying the ball forward than the typical DM stuff (marking, covering space, simple use of the ball, etc.), although he did seem more effective at those things playing as a CB.
Well if you watch Sjor's comps of Rikjaard he spends a lot of time around the AM position. He might not do it all the time but he's probably best described as an attacking B2B in the mold of Matthaus, Neeskens and possibly Robson.
Yeah I've definitely seen some games like that - there was a European Super Cup game where he spent the entire second half basically playing like Gerrard! Scored a lovely goal too tbf.
Maybe it's down to Milan's pressing concept? (Would be surprised if Sacchi would have tolerated rogue positioning.) Rijkaard is sometimes level with Gullit defensively, probably covering a halfspace each and attacking the oppo buildup when it comes to that zone. Ancelotti covering behind them. Rijkaard with his pace would be a good player to do that.
Just speculation though, I have no clue about Sacchi's tactics.
nah dont buy it its down to tactics, you have others in the team that play more balanced game....you have someone like Donadoni who plays closer to a midfielder then Rijkaard.
But even if it is cause of the press, they get bypassed way too often but get saved by either defence or more often by the ref.
At the end of the day it worked and thats all it matters but based on all games i watched so far i wouldnt put Rijkaard neither among key players nor best players and based on the reputation he should be on both lists.
Despite how much of contemporary football has been influenced by it i'm not sure the Dutch midfield football styles of the 60s-90s produced many players who would (as they played back then) easily transfer into the popular ideas of modern defensive-holding midfielders as positionally cautious, disciplined interceptor and/or distribution focal point. At least not as far as their better international players go. When i look at Dutch midfield (international and the more famous clubs) style of that time, even from 90% of their players that were often primarily mentioned as being more defensive in style, i see an emphasis on high-intensity versatility and covering a lot of ground in a generally b2h approach from everyone in the middle-line, often with lots of aggressive physicality and forcing duels.
Maybe Willy van de Kerkhof was the closest to the most typical DM trends as his main way of playing? He was nicknamed Vacuum cleaner for his disciplined, tactically smart defensive style in midfield and intelligent passing, though from what i've seen he was still quite expansive. Other players noted for defensive prowess like Davids, Winter, Haan, Jansen, Wouters right up to Van Bommel were all proactive (in initiating 1 vs 1s) roaming players (Davids could be compared to Kante in some ways) that would plug into different roles often. Not that they were necessarily defensively too reckless for the systems and era's they were in, or didn't play more reserved at certain times, but it wasn't their main game. In their usual style i doubt any would play as the deepest midfielder were they around today.
Maybe Willy van de Kerkhof was the closest to the most typical DM trends as his main way of playing? He was nicknamed Vacuum cleaner for his disciplined, tactically smart defensive style in midfield and intelligent passing, though from what i've seen he was still quite expansive. Other players noted for defensive prowess like Davids, Winter, Haan, Jansen, Wouters right up to Van Bommel were all proactive (in initiating 1 vs 1s) roaming players (Davids could be compared to Kante in some ways) that would plug into different roles often. Not that they were necessarily defensively too reckless for the systems and era's they were in, or didn't play more reserved at certain times, but it wasn't their main game. In their usual style i doubt any would play as the deepest midfielder were they around today.
Cocu would slot in nicely IMO