◊
◊
RULES/GUIDELINES UPDATED AT:
24-05-2023
◊
◊
In order to publish balanced and reasonable squads, the All-Time Country Squads are established using the following rules and guidelines:
— • 1 • —
Each football player can only represent one country. I will use the player’s football nationality to determine his country. If the footballer played for a former National Football Team I will decide his country in one of the following ways:
• Spent their youth career and started their senior career in that same country;
• Lived their prime years in that country.
I will also apply the same logic to footballers that were from defunt colonies or protectorades, under the condition that they didn’t play international games for others NT.
If a footballer played for two National Teams, he must be (if able) in the country that he played for in his prime years.
◊
◊
— • 2 • —
Each Country will have a 23-player squad (with three goalkeepers, like a traditional World Cup squad). If the country has other good football players who are worth mentioning (according to research), additional squads will be added. The number of squads for each country may differ according to the number of worthable footballers (next rule). The maximum number of squads per country is four.
◊
◊
— • 3 • —
The main criteria of choice is the individual peak that the footballer/manager reached in his prime years. A very important note to all readers: peak is not football skills. Football skills is the footballing’s attributes of the footballer (it’s not a secret that a skilled footballer doesn’t always grant a great footballer). Peak is how good and recognizable was the footballer/manager while in his best version.
Main preference:
• Footballers who were nominee among the Best Footballer in their position on a continental level, at least.
The highest and most consistent peak, better. I do research in order to understand how good the footballer was at his prime. My main sources and references are available here. If I do not manage to find options enough to do a full 23-player squad, I will go further into secondary preferences:
Secondary preferences:
• Footballers that had a solid career in competitive European or South American leagues
• Footballers that showed well against strong teams with some regularity
• Footballers that had a large international career with a more inclination into international competitions
• Footballers that had a solid career in the top teams or leagues from AFC, CAF and CONCACAF
Other additional and helpful information for less traditional countries will be added at the end of each post. Still, it may not be enough to fill a 23-player squad for some countries.
◊
◊
— • 4 • —
Each manager can only represent one squad. Each squad can only have one manager. If able, the manager must be native from the country. If the manager is from a former country I will decide his country’s squad in the following way:
• Lived their coaching’s prime in that country.
However, if the country doesn’t have standouts native manager to worth a mention, the most successfull coach of that country’s NT will be the manager.
◊
◊
Some keys:
★ – Golden Star: The Best Footballer
★ – Silver Star: The 2nd Best Footballer
★ – Bronze Star: The 3rd Best Footballer
© – The Team’s Captain
◊
◊
Football Classic Teams 
Good morning! I’m glad your site is back up and running. You are a great professional. I have also been an all-star teams for 23 years. I share 90-95 percent of your views and principles on the compilation of these teams. Good luck!
That’s cool! Thanks for the comment.
Me alegra saber que estás de vuelta. Tu trabajo es increíble y se nota que lleva una amplia investigación. Saludos.
Thanks for the comment!
Bom saber que o website está de volta, amigo.
Você por aqui? Eu não sabia que era fã do site 🙂
Fico feliz que tenha voltado.
I rewrited some text/phrases, just to make the rules a bit more clear.
Good evening! Firstly, I want to say that you have done a very high-quality job. I know the football of the former USSR very well, because I was born in this country. And I worked as a professional historian and journalist of Soviet football. I saw thousands of matches of the USSR championship and talked with many great football players and coaches. I can share with you the knowledge about Soviet football that I am sure of.
Thanks for the comment!
I can’t wait for your valuable contribution. Be welcome!
Updated the 4th Rule about managers.
The previous version wasn’t clear concerning managers from former countries like URSS and/or Yugoslavia.
Hello, I would like to know your opinion about some things.
1) Everybody says football is now (a lot) quicker than in the past. Do you agree? What is quicker exactly? When I watch games from the 70s, 80s or late 60s, I don’t see much difference to be honest. If there is a difference, it is not big and negligible imo.
2) Do you also think the general level in football is nowadays lower than ever? I mean to what is possible in each era (I am of course not putting hypothetically a footballer from the 40s in nowadays football). I team countries as well as club teams have never been weaker. Everyone always says it used to be much slower. Yet I think the level used to be higher, or at least the quality of the players.
Historically great soccer countries like, for example, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Sweden, Scotland, Peru, Czech Republic/Slovakia, Netherlands are almost nothing today.
I can actually count England, Germany, Spain and Brazil among them. Some real top players but weak compared to the greats of the past. Bulgaria and Romania used to have pretty good players but are zero now.
On the other hand, who is better than before? Just us over the past decade and Portugal. Same for club teams: Marseille, Leeds, Fiorentina, Hamburg, Schalke, Köln, St-Etienne, Reims, Mönchengladbach, Frankfurt, Nantes, Bordeaux, Werder Bremen, Valencia, AC Milan, Inter are all big football teams but are all shit nowadays or at least a lot weaker thay they used to be. You could say: each team has its top period, but who has his top period now then? Only Man City and PSG, who are ruled by oil money.
People say also for example that you need to put into perspective Haaland’s numbers cause the defenders he is facing are weaker than those who faced Drogba for instance. Van Dijk almost won the Golden Ball but has been defending like a ballerina for two-three years. And Jorginho was in the top 3 recently, he must be the weakest top 3 Ballon d’Or-player ever.
Brazil in recent years played with Fred from Lyon, Richarlison (0 goals in Premier League), Fred from Man U, Luiz Gustavo, Bernard, Willian, Hernanes, Ramires…. Those would never make the selection in any team of the last century. Neymar, Vinicius and Casemiro are also not exactly a Rivaldo, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho and Roberto Carlos, nor Zico, Socrates, Falcao, Eder and Tostao, nor Pele, Jairzinho, Rivelino, Gerson… The country is also known for having produced the best flank defenders ever but Hazard played in 2018 against the worst ever to wear a canary yellow duffle.
Italy loses to North Macedonia in World Cup qualification and Germany has been playing badly for 2 World Cups. Brazil can’t win anymore. The team Argentina made the final of the 2014 World Cup with is laughable.
Now Morocco almost were in the final, they would never have reached the semifinals before. Imagine a player from Angers in the final, a player from the worst Standard ever and a bad player from at Club Brugge. A defender from Wolverhampton as well.
Immobile pees in his pants when he sees Del Piero, Totti, Inzaghi, Baggio, Vieri. And who played as striker at Germany recently? Füllkrug? He is not yet in the top 100 German strikers in my opinion. Check Germany’s defense: Rüdiger, Raum, Ginter, Kehrer, Henrichs, Gosens, Schlotterbeck, Wolf, Thiaw. Maybe you only know one of them. If I had said this was Switzerland’s defense, many would probably have believed me.
3) Do you think midfielders from the past (70s, 80s, 90s) can be considered lucky to play in these times where there was less pression from the opponent and they had more space to think what to do, less likely to miss passes? And thus that nowadays players have a harder time to appear in a country’s/club’s best player’s list because they make more faults because of the higher rhythm? My common sense, though, says I’m wrong.
-> something in me says only or especially midfielders had this advantage, not the other positions? Like keepers also had to save balls (ok did not need to play football), defenders had to defend and strikers had to score goals.
What you say here can’t be said better. I agree with you on everything, but especially about the second point. That’s why I find it hard to make current players automatic choices over older legends only because they’ve had a bunch of great seasons. The majority of the players are laughable nowadays. Napoli won the Serie A this year after dominating the competition but managed to get eliminated by Milan in Champions League. Then Osimhen was Serie A top scorer. He’s an excellent player, no doubt, but would he have had the same chances against the likes of Maldini, Vierchowod and Facchetti (to name a few)? The same goes for someone like Haaland who does whatever he wants against weak defenders, and I don’t mean only technically but also physically. I wonder if he would’ve thrived in other eras against defenders like Burgnich, Kohler, Adams, Hyypia, or ruthless defenders like Roy Keane and Vinnie Jones.
You mentioned teams like Manchester City and PSG that go on by spending hundreds of millions nearly every year and only the English team managed to win the Champions League, and that after risking to take a goal a couple times against Inter that is nowhere near the team of Mazzola or even Zanetti, Milito and co. Now even the Saudi want to have a team compete in the European Champions League because they’re rich and their clubs signed dozens of European top stars, so why not?
You think so that is “that” hard to nowadays footballers?
You would be surprised by the number of past footballers, now labelled as all-time greats of their countries with unanimity, who achieved, actually, just two seasons worth of being among the world’s best footballers. I repeat a sentence in my reply to KDBEL: You don’t think so because you are using, as a reference, the idealised and perfect version of the player that only exists in your (and others) minds and not the real one. That’s why it is so easy to argue that the past player “looks” much better than the recent one. 😉
1) In my humble opinion, the most noticeable difference (at least after watching some World Cup games and consulting some available stats) is that today’s players often make more passes and shoot less than the previous generation, when they made fewer passes and shot more, yet the shots weren’t accurate as today.
2) I will respond with two different answers, one about eras and another about countries’ football competitiveness.
2.1) I do not think that the general level of football is lower than ever. What most people don’t realise about football is that football is, above everything, cyclical. I think that now we are living in a transitional era (and transitional eras aren’t generally as good as the previous or following eras), but it doesn’t bother me; that’s how things work. Better times will come. The 30s are amazing. The era between the end of the 1954 WC and the beginning of the 1958 WC was called the “little crisis”. The sixties and early seventies need no words. The late 1970s and early 1980s were awful (really). The second half of the 1980s was great. Although I’ve started watching football since 2001, the first half of 2000 wasn’t as brilliant as my imagination (boosted by nostalgia) described. I usually classify the first half of 2010 as the best era in a span of 30 years. Better times will come. 🙂
It also applies by positions: some eras had better centre-forwards than others, and other eras had better attacking midfielders than others. The greatest era of defensive midfielders and the worst era of side-backs can be from the same era.
2.2) Concerning countries football competitiveness through eras, I will be metaphorical here:
Who else remembered MySpace? MySpace was a social media site that used to dominate the world of social media, but now it is nothing. MySpace never owned the world of social media; it just reached the top in its best phase.
Who else remembered Nokia? Nokia was a brand that used to dominate the world of phones, but now it is nothing. Nokia never owned the world of phones; it just reached the top in its best phase.
And how about Xerox? Xerox used to dominate almost 100% of the photocopier market in the early 1970s. Today, it is just about 2% of the market. Xerox never owned the world of photocopiers; it just reached the top in its best phase (despite the fact that it actually ruled the market).
I would provide other examples.
It also applies to the world of football. No country owns the world of football.
I’m answering to Brazil, Germany, and Italy (because they are actually weaker than in the past, especially Germany, which had a brilliant Bundesliga in the first half of 2010): Always keep improving your football, even if you are a traditional country, or you will be replaced by other nations. You doubt? Ask to Austria, Scotland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. Most of their best players are pre-1960s. 😂
Both 2.1) and 2.2) answers apply to clubs as well. There’s no big mystery or miranbolic theories. Simply as it: one day at the top, the other day at the bottom. 🤷♂️ That’s how the world of football works.
3) I think that midfielders of the past enjoyed much more space than today’s because opponents defenders let them. After all, why waste energy if the defender can stop the midfielders with a simple hard tackle? Football used to be tough, and it was even worse in the past. There are descriptions from the 20s that describe defenders intentionally injuring the opponent’s main player. It changed after van Basten’s infamous injury. Since hard tackles are heavily punished, what is, now, the most reliable option to stop the opponents? It’s 50/50. Midfielders of the past enjoyed much space but aren’t protected as today. Present midfielders are protected but don’t enjoy such space. In some way, it may explain the gameplay changes described in my 1st answer.
Some small notes:
I can grant you that there are some players whose level is close to the Morocco’s players you listed from sides that eventually finished in the top-4 for the World Cup. You don’t think so because you are using, as a reference, their idealised and perfectionist version that only exists in your (and others) minds and not their real version. After 13 years researching classic football, I’ve learned that not everything from the past shines like gold. There are great past players that aren’t that great, actually. The World Cup is, simply, a highly overappreciated competition by football’s historians (despite the fact that, ironically, it is my favourite football competition). It’s just 6–7 games in every 4 years. 😅
About Jorginho’s 3rd place at the Ballon d’Or, I agree it’s ridiculous and lame, but it doesn’t prove a weak era. The thing is, any award edition held in World Cup and/or Euro years tends to be highly biased. Modric 2018, Cannavaro 2006, Ronaldo 2002, Zidane 1998, Van Basten 1988, Rossi 1982, and those are just the winners.
1) What do you mean by “You think so that is “that” hard to nowadays footballers?”
2) “all-time greats of their countries with unanimity, who achieved, actually, just two seasons worth of being among the world’s best footballers”
-> you are referring to Milla, Fontaine, Walter, and some others you named in the past (who again?), but I mean: they are few…
And even then, two seasons as one of the best in the world is insane. Not many players from today can say that.
3) I don’t get it. You say you don’t agree but in the things you say, I deduce you agree?
– “transitional era”, so it is one of the weakest eras now in any case. And the other weak eras were a lot better I’d say, check point 4, 5 and 6 below
– you say yourself England, Brazil, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Scotland are weaker than ever. You say yourself their best players are from pre-60s. So it was better in the past.
4) why the little crisis in 1954-1958?
For Belgium alone, I can name already these world class players who could all feature in your Belgium selection here: Mees, Jurion, Mermans, Houf, Rik Coppens, Van Brandt. Moreover, they all should except Houf.
I quickly looked what players some other nations had in 1956:
Brazil: Nilton Santos, Didi, Canhoteiro, Pepe, Djalma Santos, Gilmar, Mauro Ramos, Zito, Dequinha, Zizinho.
England: Edwards, Finney, Haynes, Wright, Matthews, Milburn, Lofthouse, Byrne.
Argentina: Sivori, Mouriño, Rossi, Labruna, Corbatta, Zarate, De Bourgoing, Maschio.
Italy: Boniperti, Cervato, Rosetta.
Netherlands: Wilkes, Lenstra, Moulijn, Van der Hart.
And also: Gento, Rial, Segarra, Di Stéfano …
5) why was end 70’s-begin 80’s awful?
I can name also here a lot of world class players, many more than there are now. Pfaff, Van Moer, Vandereycken, Lambert, Dalglish, Zico, Cerezo, Socrates, Junior, Maradona, Kempes, Scirea, Zoff, Cabrini, Rossi, Bettega, Pruzzo, Causio, Tardelli …
The Italy team from 1978 is like 100 times better than the actual. Almost all the national teams from then would include more “all time top players” than nowadays teams (will have).
6) why was begin 2000’s not that good?
Zidane, Nedved, Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Buffon, Henry, Cannavaro, Maldini, Nesta, Totti, Ronaldinho, Raul, Casillas, Simeone, Veron…
7) MySpace and Nokia were once ‘world class’ you mean, but ALL national teams kinda ‘suck’ nowadays. Same for club teams, they almost all suck too, apart from Man City, Real Madrid and Bayern. Barcelona knocked out for two years in a row in CL group phase. All the historical teams I already mentioned, are bad nowadays. Even a lot of them play in 2nd division.
8) So you don’t think midfielders from the past have it easier to appear in top-lists of countries/clubs / that nowadays players have it harder?
9) I only (in fact a little part of me) consider midfielders to maybe have had an easier time in the past, what do you think of GK, DEF, ST?
10) about Morocco: maybe some players from South Korea 2002 or Turkey 2002, but I am talking about first eleven players. No other players in history (almost) qualify for being ‘that bad’ I guess. And they would have to play in the same team, not one single less good player. That is possible, like the left back of Croatia 2018. Talking about Croatia, Subasic must be the weakest goalkeeper to ever play a world cup final. Again an argument for the weak present.
But I agree about your World Cup advocacy.
11) I didn’t think that you, of all people, would disagree with me saying that it was (a lot) better in the past. Like, for instance, the past years I sometimes did a proposition for a player to enter in the all time team here, namely really good players that were famous and that did not appear here. But almost always you didn’t agree: Alisson Becker, Eriksen, Lukaku (until recently) and others I forgot. Or players for the first eleven like Lahm and Alaba. I get that they have to be consistent during some time, but even then I always got the feeling players from the past must be really good cause you denied many of my propositions. F.i. Alisson to appear in Brazil’s top 3 goalkeepers, or Thiago Silva.
What players from nowadays have a shot at appearing in the all time teams here? From Italy: zero. From Netherlands: zero. From Spain: zero. From England: maybe one (Bellingham). I think you didn’t even put Harry Kane (which is absolutely no criticism I’m giving!). From Argentina: zero. From Poland: zero. From Romania: zero. From Hungary: zero. From Austria: zero. From Serbia: zero. From Croatia: zero. From Czech Republic: zero. From Scotland: zero. From Wales: zero. From Uruguay: zero. (I’m excluding old players that I don’t consider from today’s generation and that I associate with the 2010’s like Lewandowski or Alaba).
13) In any case, a strong argument to say that football was better in the past, is that almost all the teams pre-Bosman had very good players. You could find a world class player/very very good player in every team, f.i. Thijssen and Muhren in Ipswich. Caminero, Peternac, Yanez and Eusebio in Valladolid. Lon Polleunis in Sint-Truiden (they say he was just a little inferior to Van Himst). Schönberger in Beveren, Lehnhoff, Fazekas and Kodat in Antwerp. Guilherme and Morena in Vallecano. Arza, Campanal and Araujo in Sevilla. Wilson, Worthington, Metcalfe and Law in Huddersfield. Francis and Bradford in Birmingham. Lolo Fernandez, Terry and Chumpitaz in Universitario. Kist, Nygaard, Tol and Arntz in AZ. Bjerre, Boskamp, Teugels, Olsen and De Bree in RWDM. Lato, Lubanski, Larsen in Lokeren. Serie A nowadays <<<<<< Serie A from any other year. Van Hanegem and Jansen in Feyenoord.
I can go on for days. Nowadays none of these teams have players from that quality. When quality is spread out of the league, the level is automatically higher cause you get top opponents every week.
And even now, when all the top players are concentrated in a few teams like Man City, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Man United (do I have to include them in fact??), Bayern. And even then these teams are not better than in the past, excluding City. And all the other teams are weak.
I have been talking to Wim Hofkens and he says "If you put the average footballer of then and now side by side, the level of in our time was much better than now … we also had more top players worldwide than now … in the 50s to 90s, everyone played square football every day . now that has disappeared from the scene … that multi-hour training has fallen away in the last 20 years .. darker players are taking over football."
Also this man for instance, https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0gu3VNCbfHRiDYQZKRybvGWtPpJtmEvAeLoJtKhQw1xgRsC4t9pYgXGhrSz6gB1tQl&id=100069379163650.
I have been analysing club's history for a couple of years and it is always the same story: the players of the last 5 years have NO chance to appear in a list of the best players of the club, with very few exceptions like Leicester, Man City and PSG. I analysed Rayo Vallecano's history for instance, and the greatest player of the club, Felines, played in 3rd division. And in an interview with Anero and Onésimo, Anero says they played in 2nd division but that that level is nowadays first division level. Two of Huddersfield's best players played bottom of league, Metcalfe and Glazzard. Frank Worthington is described as a wizard for Huddersfield and Leicester, but he is not known. Elite players of the past didn't get many caps cause there was too many competition. Nico De Bree was world class in RWDM and Netherlands but didn't appear once for the national team. Now you have a lot of weak players with many caps, cause there is nobody else to give caps to. Steve Bruce didn't get any cap, but he would be England's best defender nowadays since years. Batistuta and Effenberg relegated with Fiorentina, they would be top 3 if not champions today.
If I had to believe those who say the level of players is the same as in the past, it makes me laugh. All the people commenting players from the past must be exaggerating IMMENSELY then, which is not the case. Yes, there is a part nostalgia, but their comments are in proportion to the ranking of players in a list made of team's best players. The legendary ones get the right comments and the not very good ones get less praise. It is not because there is a part of nostalgia that the old people commenting old players are nuts. Most of the times, it is very accurate, what they say. They agree, for instance, that De Bruyne is our greatest player, which they wouldn't do if they are immensely nostalgic and overidealise the past.
Another example: Pierre Carteus was a wonderful footballer for Club Bruges. But people also say he was a bit lazy… If you read many comments, truth will rise.
“1) What do you mean by “You think so that is “that” hard to nowadays footballers?”
2) “all-time greats of their countries with unanimity, who achieved, actually, just two seasons worth of being among the world’s best footballers”
it wasn’t for you, it’s for Tenshi 🙂
Surprisingly, a “little crisis” (that didn’t last) was reported in newspapers in the middle 50s, a perception that the top European nations of the period weren’t as good as the 40s and/or the beginning of the 50s, despite all the stars. I would also say the same about Argentina.
The late 70s and early 80s were funny. Despite the stars (any era has its own stars), it is generally perceived by the most traditional nations like England, Germany, Spain, France, and even Italy (despite the 1978 WC results; as an example, Germany in the early 2000s was one of their worst generations ever and still reached the WC final) as an era that wasn’t as good as their past or as their next generations. In South America, it is not much different. The competitiveness of late-80s South America is perceived as ahead to the late 70s. Looking at South America’s Team of the Year from both eras, I must agree: the late 70s had some so painful, so lame, so average footballers, oh God… Naturally, there’s the opposite; the best era ever of the Jupiler League was in that period; they were a top-5 league in Europe. Peru had his best era in the second half of the 1970s.
The beginning of the 2000s is great, but not that great (I might have poorly explained here, I just wanted to illustrate that nostalgia did its job on me). They had great stars. Awesome and enjoyable footballers. But is not an all-time great era like 2008–2015. I generally see the main stars of 2001–2006 ahead of the 1977–1982 era.
Sweden at 1950 WC, Sweden 1994 WC, Bulgaria 1994 WC, Poland 1974, Poland 1982 They have a couple of pretty average footballers, but the worst example that I would provide to you is Yugoslavia and the USA in the 1930 WC.
Most of the players you had listed weren’t actually worthy names for the top 30-50 world-best footballers while at those minors teams. I understand your enthusiasm about the past (I was similar 10 years ago 😅), but don’t exaggeratee, friend.
One thing I’ve realised through different eras is that people (related or not to football) always, ALWAYS, A-L-W-A-Y-S complain about how pitiful is “modern football”, praising that the past was much better. Pelé even said, in 1969, that old football “was more classic, more of a spectacle…and now it become dirt and tough”. Following such reasoning, the best football era was before the Cambridge Rules🤣
They weren’t worthy of the best 50 footballers, no, but the general level was higher. There were more players that you could say they could have played in +- any team of the world, which qualifies them thus as world class. Maybe Mees was the 100rd best player of the world then, but he would rank higher than nowadays 100rd player.
Can I deduce that for the most part, you agree with me? You said football is cyclical (and now is a bad period).
“I was similar 10 years ago”, so now you aren’t enthusiastic anymore? Or how should I understand this? Fact is that each time I see pictures of teams of the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s it occurs to me that I think: “damn that were good players”, “damn another club that now is shit and then was elite”, it often happens that I think for instance when checking national team sides in European qualifiers (Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria, Czech Republic) or legendary club teams as Juventus, Milan, Inter, Bordeaux, Valencia “oh god it was better in the past”… All those players rank (much) higher than nowadays’ players…
Where do I exaggerate, in your opinion? I think almost everything I say is ‘correct’, maybe I exaggerated about Morocco cause indeed, looking at the national teams you named, there were also not great players in these World Cup-semifinalists.
At the same time, these teams – unlike Morocco – had world class players such as Deyna, Lato, Stoichkov, Ravelli, Andersson, Boniek (but ok not all). Maybe also in the “zero players” part, where you could say Gvardiol, Rakitic and Andy Robertson qualify for the all star teams. But I mean, the predominant thought in my case is correct, no?
My criterion in judging players or clubs is always: “where do they rank in the history of football?”, and following this criterion the players I see nowadays and of which I am reading commentaries seem weaker to me. Look at Italy national team, Alvaro Morata for Spain, the German defense, Netherlands’ pityful team…
For the rest, “the late 70s had some so painful, so lame, so average footballers”, who then? You say “I must agree”, whereas I did not say that?
Honestly, I don’t understand why such subject bother you so much. 😅
Answering:
“Can I deduce that for the most part, you agree with me? You said football is cyclical (and now is a bad period).” -> in a short sentence, yes. Football used to be more enjoyable during Messi-Ronaldo peak or during Henry-Ronaldinho peak. But I’m not worried; better times will come.
No, is not lack of enthusiasm. It’s a mature and balanced view of the football past. Too much enthusiasm leads to an alienated mentality. You are providing too much value to the old fat man’s opinions that are just missing their favourite players in their favourite teams in their youth years. It’s normal. When they were younger, they wre easily impressionable and easily influenced by the context in which they were inserted. Everything is so new and different, and everyone looks so great or so good. It influenced their opinion.
“seem weaker to me.” -> Think a little about it: “SEEM” is not a synonym for “IS”.
I repeat: It’s just your imagination. Instead of reading biassed comments from the past that create in your mind (and others) an idealised and perfect version of a past footballer that never actually existed, you should look more into contemporary sources. Things become a bit more clear. 😉
You know, Morocco had one of the world’s best right-backs, one of the world’s best keepers, one of the best playmakers based in Europe and a bunch of guys with experience in the big five leagues and in the UCL, but you only had eyes to that Standard Liège guy. 😂
Most football historians don’t have much love of the late 1970s. It is usually classified as the worst era since WWII (for me, it’s the worst since 1930). Take a look at the South American Best XI of the Year or L’Onze Mondial shortlist by position. In comparison with other eras (including the ones after the late 70s), the average quality by position went into decline. Not an interesting era, actually. 🤷
Absolutely agree with you
You are talking about the lower level of nowadays players I think? 🙂 What do you think of my 3rd point?
I am convinced that the technique of the midfielders has deteriorated markedly. Today, midfielders, even when they have space (they are not always under pressure), often cannot perform simple technical elements. De Bruyne is the best playmaker today. But is he up to the level of Maradona, Platini, Zico, Zidane… Imagine these players under heavy pressure and they’ll be fine. As before. The only role in the 21st century who can adequately compete with the best in the 20th century is goalkeepers. You wrote everything correctly about the degradation of modern football
So you think also that midfielders from the past would cope well with the pressure nowadays and would be better than those from now.👍(in fact, the question does not have to be asked, as players should only be judged about what was needed in their era) Indeed, De Bruyne is quite the only one, whereas in the past there were a bunch. It is just a matter of little talent nowadays I think, it cannot be because of the higher athleticism and more pressure, can it?
Exactly
You are comparing the attacking midfielders’s greatest generation ever with the present one (just a good era at best). Isn’t it a bit unfair? 🙄
You can take midfielders from any decade, they will always be better than the best ones now.
Hi to all! Sorry for not replying in the lasts weeks. I had a lot of work, vacations, my grandfather was is hospital (it’s ok, now) and I met my lovely goddaughter 😍
Hello, I have another question. Do you think that nowadays it is more difficult for players to excell, to be ‘world class’, to appear in these artificial best selections of nations? I maybe already asked something similar, but I have been hearing different approches of people saying:
– players are less devoted nowadays than players before (Miroslav Klose said it this week): they are busy with their shoes, their hair, their car, their Instagram, don’t do extra exercises after training…
– players’ heads are full of information, running lines and tactical guidelines (wasn’t this so 20 years ago?) that they no longer play spontaneously, that they are almost more concerned with this than with, say, breaking open a defence.
-> I think a top player should be ablo to cope with this, like Jude Bellingham for instance. It cannot be that
– football is played more defensively nowadays
– children and teenagers play much less square football, where you learn unpredictable actions and play freely.
– much more is being played according to a system where players are sometimes in positions where they do not do well and cannot give their best. Someone once gave the example of Sterling at Chelsea.
-> I would consider this stupid of the coach, wouldn’t I?
– there is just less talent (look at the miserable teams of f.i. Valencia, Juventus, Inter, Milan, Marseille, Bremen, Schalke …) cause f.i. Modric, De Bruyne, Musiala, Pedri, Bellingham, Vinicus, Haaland, Mbappé prove you can excell. In the past (especially before Bosman), every club had talents and very good players, now it is the opposite. Levels of competition were also higher before Bosman because every team had good players (that top nearly every ranking of any club’s top players) and you had good opposition nearly every week. Less talented players were better than nowadays cause they trained with better players that stayed in their clubs.
Why it bothers me? Cause I want to correctly appreciate levels of players, from the past and from nowadays and some comments confused me heavily.
A reason why I ask is also: I read a top 100 of Dutch football players in december 2020, so nearly 3 years ago (!) https://www.dutchmultimedia.nl/top-100-beste-nederlandse-voetballers-aller-tijden-met-beeld/.
And I was a little shocked of following places:
– Khalid Boulahrouz 98th
– Quincy Promes 89th
– Wim Kieft 88th (should be way higher)
– Kevin Strootman 81th
– Gregory Van der Wiel 80th
– Ibrahim Afellay 75th
– Jasper Cillessen 71th
– Maarten Stekelenburg 69th
– Ryan Babel 66th
– Nigel De Jong 60th
– Joris Mathijsen 58th
– John Heitinga 57th
– Matthijs De Ligt 39th
– Frenkie De Jong 32th
– Georginio Wijnaldum 16th
– Virgil Van Dijk 8th
First, Boulahrouz, Promes, Strootman, Van der Wiel, Babel, N. De Jong, Mathijsen, Cillessen, Heitinga have no place in the top 100 imo. Afellay and Stekelenburg maybe. Wijnaldum 16th is hilarious, he is maybe 50th. De Ligt three years ago that high already, lol. The last years he wasn’t even that good. Frenkie De Jong is a good player but even today I would never rate him that high. He has not had good years the last years. To put him, let alone at 23 years of age, above Van Beveren, Overmars, Kieft, Israël, Rep, Makaay, Rijvers, Van Breukelen, Jansen, Mühren, Moulijn, Geels, W. Van de Kerkhof, Huntelaar and Van Hooijdonk is bad. The level of the last years is just bad, there are few good opponents in the leagues. Van Dijk 8th??? For one world class season, maybe two? He has been really bad the last years. Top 20 okay, maybe top 15.
The more you pay attention to the list, the more you get confused and angry about modern football. 🤣 Ignore it, just ignore it…
The way I see it, it’s easier to be “world-class” while being absolutely not world-class at all.
Let me explain: a player can be decent and having a few remarkable seasons only because he played in a successful team that includes some world-class players or at least one per position (excluding goalkeeper). An example that comes to mind is João Cancelo, who is a great player but definitely not world-class. His value was allegedly 70 million last November. Seriously? But what team was he playing in? Manchester City, of course. Lukaku is another example. Signed by Chelsea for +100 million due to an excellent period at Inter. Then what?
In conclusion, I’d say that today it’s just easier to be world-class. You need less requirements to have the media adore you or calling you “the next this, the next that”.
No, friend, don’t be a “negacionist”.
Cancelo has its owns faults, but who doesn’t have? Cancelo is a world class player because he was the world best left back in 2/3 seasons. Simply and plain as it, PERIOD. We cannot change it. I’m Portuguese and he is by far our greatest side-back ever (Hilário and João Pinto were not even close to equalize his peak – they have just a regular career, an easy way to be a legend – reaching the world number 1 spotlight in his position in diferents seasons is not easy, regardless the era).
About the values (for both Lukaku and Cancelo), that’s not player’s fault. The problem lies with the teams and those willing to pay for the value.
One thing I’ve realized about researching the football’s past trought newspapers is it might be more easy to be a world class player in the past than nowadays. It was common a footballer to be labbelled a “world class” player just based in a couple of international games. 🤣 Look at the most recent article I’ve published… The players listed are all, actually, that indisputable “world-class”? For real, not everyone… 🙂
Now that you bring up that topic, how about Raphael Guerreiro? If you consider his longevity, regularity and performances for both club and NT, HE might actually be the greatest Portuguese LB ever.
Based in the combined regularity in the domestic level and in Portugal NT contributions (though not brilliant), yes, he is.
Portugal had no great names conserning side-backs, neverthless.
I ain’t being a “negationist”. I simply don’t see Cancelo as a world class player. He had a couple great seasons at Manchester City, possibly the best (no doubt one of the best) team in the last few years. Then he wasn’t as good anywhere else he played. Your statement that Cancelo is the best left back in Portugal’s history says a lot.
Yes, even in the past there were too many players who were labeled among the best ever of a specific team or country. But now you can actually watch the players in action, and I see a few players who can be world class. But the media tend to find the “new Messi”, “the new Ronaldo” every season. I’m already waiting for the “new Haaland”. So that a random player can have a made up boosted value for whatever team that wants to waste dozens of millions. And that’s how you have your “world class player”.
Then we agree in disagree about Cancelo. 🙂
About “new Messi” or “new Ronaldo”, it’s the sensasional media job – at people who follow it passionately do the rest, but I’m not like them.
I’m not aiming for the “new Messi” in player X, I’m aiming for the Player X’s best version.
I’m not aiming for the “new Ronaldo” in player Y, I’m aiming for the Player Y’s best version.
About money, I repeat: It’s not the player’s fault. And, interestingly, it is also not a recent problem that only exists in our time. As strange as it might be to say, large sums of money spent on footballers was also a common factor in the past in order to get competitive squads.
While researching about Welsh footballers a few weeks ago, I read an article from the 1950s or 1960s whose author shared his ideas about the high sums of money spent on players, providing some good and bad examples of it. Nowadays football is not THAT much diferent from the past 🙃
Perhaps I will translate and publish the article here so you (and the blog readers) can read it.
I didn’t see anyone disagree with you that current players aren’t as good as the greatest from the past. I think everyone agree with that. The problem is that you are comparing a 3-4 years spam with decades and decades of football. In this exact moment, yes, you’re correct, but we can be just experiencing a transitional period in football. In the last decade alone we had 2 of the greatest players of all time playing in their prime. That era is over now, and we should give time to see if things are still gonna be like that in the next years. Remember when Porto won the Champions League? And in the same year, Once Caldas won Copa Libertadores, which led to probably the worst Intercontinental game of all time? Remember how shitty was Brazil in 1990 WC with only Careca as a star (Taffarel and Dunga weren’t in their prime yet), but completely dominated the football for the next 15 years?
Also, I’m surprised by your thoughts considering you’re Belgian, as a lot of the greatest players of your country played just in the last decade or are still playing (Courtois, Kompany, De Bruyne, Hazard, Lukaku).
Good comment. Football is cyclical and, also, not everything from the past shine like gold…
Everything you wrote is the absolute truth
To KDBEL:
1) I can’t comment much on it. I see it more as divergences from different generations, and we are just getting old 🤣. Some footballers from previous generations to Klose used to be heavly smokers and drinkers, and they were still great. The same applies to the younger ones. They have their odd tics but they are still great and enjoyable to watch.
2) Believe it or not, people in the past century (even before the computer!!) used to complain about exactly the same “full of information”, “running lines”, the loss of spontaneous, free play, etc, in the game. I repeat the same statement I’ve replied to you in a previous comment:
People always, ALWAYS, A-L-W-A-Y-S complain about “modern football” throughout history.
I think you’re too worried (and unnecessarily so) about the future of football. I’ve been watching football for over 20 years and there are still great footballers to watch. An honest question: should you be worried about the future of football after listening to people’s opinions who are just missing their past? A past that will never return (in which they complain strongly for it never return)? They are just complainers; don’t waste your time reading them.
3) Think a little about it. In the early 2000s, Valencia was a top team, but Atletico Madrid wasn’t. One day at the top, the other day at the bottom. It’s not an isolated case. There are more examples of it throughout football’s history. Football is, above all and everything, CYCLICAL.
4) Contrary to other people’s narratives, I don’t think that every single team before Bosman “had talent and very good players” (at some point, it started to be too good to be actually true). The more I go further into newspapers and magazines that are contemporaries of these players, the more I realise that these players greatness perception has been so badly interpreted and so badly overomatizated by others.
5) Does it confuse you heavily? It happens because you are providing too much value of then (most of the comments are, essentially, very subjetive, build by emotional, illogical, and irrational thoughts – and we cannot use subjective comments to build an objetive idea, it simply doesn’t make sense; it’s like trying to mix water and olive oil). Do a favour to yourself and ignore that kind of comments. It’s just noise…
Hi! First off, I do not necessary agree with your guideline and rules and some of comments but I must say that you are doing a good job. Some small profiles and infos you write about some footballers shows that you do a cool research and it was educational for me. What is the next team?
That’s cool, happy to read that.
The next team will be Argentina but it will takes a lot of time.
Thanks for the comment.
Glad the next is Argentina. It will be interesting.
Why did you delete all your previous work? Can the reactions below still be seen?
I didn’t deleted. I’ve turned them into drafts mode.
Since I’ve gained acess to a large number of newspapers and magazine, and to do not enter into a huge mess while updating the teams, a restart from the drafts was necessary.
Don’t get me wrong. It was actually necessary. 🙂
In looking at the statistics of players from the “old days” (20-30-40-50s), and especially strikers, I notice that there are many who have scored a lot of goals. Do you think we should put ‘outstanding’ stats from that era into perspective? I have already discovered several players from that era with improbable stats but who have not (become) famous at all.
They aren’t famous because, unlike in our present days, the goalscorer in the past wasn’t much regarded as a top footballer. There may exist some exceptions, but generally, people in the past used to evaluate football players more on the basis of their combined skills, their football action’s efficiency and their understanding of the game than in the number of goals. It used to have a very clear view and perception that “the best footballer” and “the best goalscorer” weren’t the same. Sadly, it had been lost in recent times.
We cannot rewrite history, but, interestingly, revisionist researchers have emerged in recent times, elevating goalscorers (based on pure stats) above other guys of the same era who have (by contemporary sources) actually been perceived as better than the goalscorers. Those researchers were just lazy…
I can provide two examples.
Dixie Dean, sure thing a great goalscorer, a fearsome and a brilliant header of his time, but not much perceived as the top British centre forward in his time (Hughie Gallacher), nor the best English centre forward pre-1945 (GO Smith and/or Lawton).
Peyroteo. In recent times, people have started to evaluate him as the greatest Sporting footballer ever, perhaps the world’s best centre-forward based solely on stats. I’ve already done research on Peyroteo, and there was very little evidence of Peyroteo as a top-5 best centre-forward in Europe at least. Travassos was much more remembered as a world-top footballer than him.
What about Fred Morris , West Bromwich player in 20’s ?
and Thanks
A one-season wonder and not the top english guy in early 20s.