People are surprised with the performances of Ferenc Puskás at the V. World Cup. I wonder: surprised with what? Puskás played two games and 2/3 of the match, in the group stage, against West Germany. He, moreover, played in inferior conditions for the final, due, of course, to being returning from injury.

What did people expect? That he would have been outstading in that edition, given the situations mentioned above? Many times I've read recent texts claiming that Ferenc Puskás was the best in that World Cup. Well, that is clearly far from the truth. It's just one more proof that the history of football is told in a way that is, on most occasions, wrong — and with some stories going very far from being true.