LE JEU DES CLASSEMENTS OFFICIEUX ET INTUITIFS
— Gabriel Hanot | 30/01/1953 —

The habit has become commonplace, almost everywhere, at the turn of the year, to take a general look at the past twelve months and to draw up a ranking of the best nations, the best players, the best teams, the best referees. Soon the best journalists will come...

The establishment of such hierarchies is more a game and a fantasy than a science. How can we decide between nations that have not met and that have not met the same opponent who could serve as a common measure? Does a country like Argentina, which has played two matches, deserve to be included in the same table as Hungary, which has played 11, or Sweden, also 11, or England 7, or Brazil, 5? And does the latter, which has not played in Europe, bear being ranked among the nations of the Old Continent, which have not played in the New World?

We can cite results, line up figures and go as far as goal average (ratio of goals for and against), all this is subjective, arbitrary, intuitive, and only has the value of entertainment.

HUNGARY, ENGLAND, BRAZIL, ARGENTINA.

Let us therefore consider these summaries as such, and first look at the ranking of the best nations in the world in 1952.

France Football (December 30) lists, in order of value, 37 nations: 1. Argentina; 2. Hungary; 3. England; 4. Brazil; 5. Chile and Romania; 7. Sweden and Yugoslavia; 9. Germany; 10. France.

Belgium is 13th; Italy and Bulgaria 14th, Austria 20th.

The United Press, after a survey of renowned journalists in Europe, gives the following hierarchy:

1. Hungary; 2. France; 3. England; 4. Yugoslavia. 5. Bulgaria.

We see that no South American journalist was consulted!

I.S.K. (Internationale Sport Korrespondenz), of Stuttgart, draws up the table as follows:

1. Hungary; 2. England; 3. Sweden; 4. Yugoslavia; 5. France; 6. Brazil; 7. Chile; 8; Germany; 9. Belgium; 10. Scotland.

Austria is 13th; Argentina 14th; Italy 17th.

One thing is certain: 1. Hungary; 2. England. Can we say, however, that England, beating Belgium (5-0) in November, in London, made an even stronger impression on us than Hungary beating Switzerland in Berne (4-2) in September?

PUSKÁS INDISCUTABLE.

The United Press referendum on the individual ranking this time gave the following result:

1. Puskás (Hungary), 150 votes; 2. Billy Wright (England), 44; 3. Lofthouse (England), 43; 4. Boniface (France), 5. Ocwirk (Austria), 16; 6. Cjokowski (Yugoslavia), 13; 7. Kocsis (Hungary), 10; Matthews (England), 6; 9. Zeman (Austria), 3.

Of course, no South Americans; but no Swedes (Jeppson), no Spaniards (Basora), no Scots (Liddell), no Germans (F. Walter) and no full-backs either!

A small reservation about Puskás: everyone plays for him and on him in the Hungarian team. Perhaps it is precisely because he is unrivaled.

LES ONZE SUPER-VEDETTES.

The best team in the world?

France Football proposes:

Merrick (England) — Lombardo (Argentina), Ocwirk (Austria), Ramsey (England) — Hanappi (Austria), Wright (England) — Méndez (Argentina), Puskás (Hungary) — Basora (Spain), Jeppson (Sweden), Nyers (Hungary).

On Kicker (19-1-53), from Munich, Dr. Friedebert Becker forms a world team, not a complete one, but in view of the England-Rest of the World match, scheduled for October on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the Football Association (English Federation). It is therefore a team without Englishmen. A team? Of several teams, in truth, since Mr. Becker, if he is satisfied with two goalkeepers (a Turk, Turgay, and a Spaniard, Ramallets), constitutes 4 lines of backs, 4 lines of halves and 4 lines of forwards. Among the backs are Marche and Jonquet; among the halves, Bonifaci. But the ideal team, according to the Kicker, would be:

Ramallets (Spanish) — Young (Scotland), Posipal (Germany), Cox (Scotland) — Cajkowski (Yugoslavia), Bozsik (Hungary) — Fritz Walter (Germany), Puskás (Hungary) — Ghiggia (Uruguay), Ademir (Brazil), Gainza (Spain).

Ramallets was very weak against Argentina, and he bears the entire responsibility for the only goal of the match. Gainza only lasted one half! Posipal and Fritz Walter looked very pale in October at Colombes! Ademir and Ghiggia seem to be in decline; however, Ademir has played well recently; we can see from this how fleeting or capricious the form is.

It was an Englishman, Mr Drewry, former chairman of the FA Selection Committee, who was put in charge of this training by FIFA.

It would have been better understood if he had selected the England team!

M. HARZIC À L'HONNEUR.

There remains the ranking of referees. It was drawn up by an Austrian magazine, Sport-Schau:

1. Ellis (England); 2. Harzic (France); 3. Danko (Hungary); 4. Latichef (Soviet Union); 5. Best (United States); 6. Evans (England); 7. Wyssling (Switzerland); 8. Podubski (Yugoslavia); 9. Leafe (England); 10. Bernardi (Italy).

Three English out of ten; an unexpected American; an ignored Russian. Well done for this ranking, and bravo for the Amiens Mr. Harzic. But has not the Southerner Mr. Tordjmann been forgotten?