Alfredo Di Stéfano | 1953-1958

Moderators: Korinov, Adrien, Albo7, jurgens, Brezza, Korinov, Adrien, Albo7, Brezza, jurgens

User avatar
PES Stats Database
Posts: 16631
Joined: 2008 Dec 09, 12:06
Been thanked: 319 times

Alfredo Di Stéfano | 1953-1958

Postby PES Stats Database » 2008 Dec 10, 17:54

Club: Real Madrid

Nickname: "Blond Arrow"


Growth type: Standard/Lasting

INFO:

Spoiler: show
Arguably the most complete footballer of all time. Physically powerful, with unparalleled stamina, amazing skills and unwavering determination to win. He was capped by three countries, but ironically failed to take part in a World Cup! His other achievements were sensational enough to warrant him a place among the top players in the history.

After making a name for himself as a all-round attacker in Argentina, he went on to play in the then "outlawed" Colombian league with Millonarios from Bogota, where his goal average was almost one per game. He was approaching what was then considered veteran age when signed by Real Madrid.

It was the balding Argentinean who turned Real Madrid from Spanish also-rans into the biggest club, on the planet. He lead them to five consecutive European Champions' Cups, scoring in each and every final!

His most famous display was perhaps the one against Eintracht Frankfurt in Glasgow, when he netted three times (Puskas went one better) in a 7-3 win for the Spaniards.

Di Stefano is not far behind Pele or Maradona, and he's probably even more complete than Cruyff. His teammates often said that he was fantastic in defense (and could even play in goal), and probably no one had more stamina than him, ever. His position was a striker along side Puskas but from the videos I watched and the stuff I read he played like a DM more than half the time. He would often drop deep to defend his goal, win possession and play it to the wingers or bring it up himself hence high defense, lowish aggression and covering.

"Alfredo Di Stéfano was the greatest footballer of all time - far better even than Pelé. He was, simultaneously, the anchor in defence, the playmaker in midfield, and the most dangerous marksman in attack." - Helenio HERRERA

VIDEOS:

Spoiler: show


ADDITIONAL LINKS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_di_St%C3%A9fano

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_di_St%C3%A9fano

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/alfredo-di-stefano/

http://www.football-history.net/who-is- ... tefano.htm

http://www.ifhof.com/hof/alfredodistefano.asp

Last edited by vinnie on 2014 Jun 07, 21:28, edited 21 times in total.
Reason: updated picture
fitzcarraldo
Posts: 262
Joined: 2012 May 10, 21:43
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Alfredo Di Stéfano | 1953-1958

Postby fitzcarraldo » 2014 Jul 07, 16:51

One of the best in history. Hasta siempre Don Alfredo.
Raúl-7

Re: Alfredo Di Stéfano | 1953-1958

Postby Raúl-7 » 2014 Nov 02, 20:51

Korinov and Yazid agreed to raise his shot accuracy to 95 and his shot technique to 96 (see page 7) last June, already. So, wouldn't it be a good idea to give him a little update?
Hans
Posts: 27
Joined: 2015 Jun 21, 01:05

Re: Alfredo Di Stéfano | 1953-1958

Postby Hans » 2015 Jun 21, 01:38

I see him as equal to Xavi on teamwork; but why 60 on KS? Because of the legends about he being good on goal as well?
Kazuotyan
Posts: 6
Joined: 2016 Jan 26, 14:34
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Alfredo Di Stéfano | 1953-1958

Postby Kazuotyan » 2016 Feb 25, 20:15

Hans wrote:I see him as equal to Xavi on teamwork; but why 60 on KS? Because of the legends about he being good on goal as well?

if im not mistaken he played as GK in a pair of occasions
simmo
Posts: 33
Joined: 2014 Dec 31, 00:18
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Alfredo Di Stéfano | 1953-1958

Postby simmo » 2016 Dec 27, 14:42

Some people on here are suggesting dumbing down the stats for old time players. Thats totally missing the point. They were hampered by heavy balls, boots, awful pitches, poor knowledge of nutrition and recovery etc
If you do that an average side today would beat the best XI of yesteryear. Their ratings should be in relation to their peers. Im not all nostalgic as im a child of the 70's so I have no rose tinted memories of cruyff and beckenbauer let alone di stefano. But its clear to see they were class players and shouldnt be penalised by the resources of their time. If anything players back then were trusted more and expected to solve problems and think for themselves. Nowadays some players look lost without the coach constantly telling them what to do
User avatar
Oriello
Posts: 1686
Joined: 2008 Dec 10, 04:46
Location: Dream Land
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 250 times

Re: Alfredo Di Stéfano | 1953-1958

Postby Oriello » 2016 Dec 27, 18:44

How does this relate to Di Stefano? With current stats he is at least as good - if not better - than prime Gerrard, probably the best example of a modern day superhuman athletic midfield dynamo...

I'm on the other end, I rather have a the differences in fitness reflected in PES so that matches between era teams showcase this. DA is something that might be rated a bit higher in players from the past on account of crappy mud pitches and irregular quality of balls and boots, but that disparity in fitness ought to be there (save for a handful of exceptions i.e. why they were exceptional in their time)..It only makes sense to rate them according to their peers if you only play confined to that era in PES, but since (I assume) people play ex. 1950s Real Madrid vs 1990's Juventus, there should be a fitness difference highlighted between the two overall, yes even an "average" modern team would most likely be more athletic than a 1950s Real, but lacking the technical abilities on an individual basis...Personally I think there should be caps on certain stats for eras pre-1950s/60s, I'm not sure some attackers would be such a legendary danger vs a modern organized, drilled and compact defense having not been exposed to that sort of style regularily, there was no off-side to contend with either (it takes skill to navigate that tight-rope), sure their technical mastery would remain intact, but ATT 90 or so could be an era cap, aside for maybe a few exceptions. So many teams and players were amateurs, no matter how much as a kid you practiced, if as an adult you had to work for a living and play footy in your spare time - your overall level is just going to be less than what a professional could achieve - so many of the legendary "greats" made their names vs amateurs, this should be accounted for.

Footballers playing in two different environments: poor equipment/conditions & loose organization/individual approach vs disciplined tactical formations & and modern fitness regimes - ought to produce players with strikingly different styles/abilities..this should be reflected in the stats. There is always some exceptions, not just individual, but teams; Mighty Magyars among the first to employ a collective press, Dutch in early 1970's took this to a whole new level with exceptional fitness levels for the time thus pushing the boundaries of football.
simmo
Posts: 33
Joined: 2014 Dec 31, 00:18
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Alfredo Di Stéfano | 1953-1958

Postby simmo » 2016 Dec 31, 23:39

define fitness. rugby has more strength, marathon runners more stamina. there was no rotation in the 50's. fewer substitutes. players played more games and played the whole 90 mins far more often. pitches havent got bigger so the players running the whole pitch like di stefano and neeskens were going just as far as todays players. put todays players in 50's kits & boots, using old balls on muddy pitches would struggle. there are aspects of fitness where todays players are better but in terms of leg power and body strength id bet the olden day players were superior, they would have to be to play in those conditions and there was far more physical contact.
User avatar
Oriello
Posts: 1686
Joined: 2008 Dec 10, 04:46
Location: Dream Land
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 250 times

Re: Alfredo Di Stéfano | 1953-1958

Postby Oriello » 2017 Jan 01, 13:29

You can google a definition of fitness - in PES it encompasses all aspects of physical abilities, its Stamina, Top Speed, Acceleration, Jump, Balance, Agility and Response (in some ways) can be related to it, it is not any single one but the total combination.

Generally fewer matches were played by the majority of players, yes players in successful teams might play 40+ matches in all competitions (and depending on year with national team break 50+), Pele is one of the few that I seen played 60-70 matches in a season in a non-modern era. But the speed/tempo of play often did not match some of today's frenetic games and when it did it was in smaller bursts.

I can't put current players in 50's kit & boot, with old balls on muddy pitches in PES, despite graphic mods to balls/boots the game's code remains untouched and reflects only a simple set of parameters for modern conditions/variables - pristine pitches, lightweight balls and paper shoes - and you can only rate players on what you see, it would be silly to assume, "oh yeah he would be 3-5 points more in TS or ACC if was not burdened with those boots". This is the dilemma in mixing players from different eras together in one game environment. Ultimately I would want a player to look/play in PES as he did in real matches - that means two screens side by side (PES/vid of real match) and seeing no glaring differences from the PES player and the record of the player.

The kicking power, yup we all need to hack edit our option files so that those players who knocked keepers unconscious with shots have 104 Shot Power.

Don't know why you keep bringing up Di Stefano, is someone advocating for reducing his set? I mentioned that there were exceptional players, the likes of these guys with exceptional fitness (all around physical abilities) like Cruijff/Neeskens helped them to dominate games in their eras (in addition to good techinal abilities). But in general (i.e. take a cross section don't focus on just the legends) the level of play and fitness was not equivalent. Yes, BB can be higher in early era players to better replicate the brutal encounters of the era (actually giving defenders max DEF 90, so that average joes of the era would be in DEF 60's-70's and DEF 80+ treated like todays 90+ range, along with higher BB for most would help to reflect that crzy era of hard tackling).
simmo
Posts: 33
Joined: 2014 Dec 31, 00:18
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Alfredo Di Stéfano | 1953-1958

Postby simmo » 2017 Jan 02, 00:17

People on this thread suggested reducing physical stats for old time players thats why I commented here. You say you want it to be realistic but if players of di stefanos era played today they would have the equipment of today. Allowances should be made for that. To not take that in to consideration would be like rating F1 drivers based on how fast their car was. Players certainly recover faster today due to better knowledge of diet anatomy etc. But are they more agile, faster, stronger, im not so sure. As you confirmed players played far more minutes per season in days gone by. Sure the game is faster now, but if players are physically superior why do they need so much rest? Wouldnt they be able to play all the matches?
simmo
Posts: 33
Joined: 2014 Dec 31, 00:18
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Alfredo Di Stéfano | 1953-1958

Postby simmo » 2017 Jan 02, 00:30

Sorry for the double post but using england as an example it used to be 42 league games its now 38 most teams put out weakened sides in the flc and fa cup until maybe the qf or sf as the money for league positions and getting in champions and europa lge and avoiding relegation is all that matters. Leading players back then were looking at 54 matches if they got to both domestic cup finals, of which most players would have played 50+ thats before internationals and euro comps are included, how many do that now? Only the 3 or 4 key players the rest probably would play 30-40 games max
simmo
Posts: 33
Joined: 2014 Dec 31, 00:18
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Alfredo Di Stéfano | 1953-1958

Postby simmo » 2017 Jan 02, 09:20

Would a reduction in mentality be a good solution to the difference in playing styles between the ages? I dont believe players are necassarily fitter now or tactically superior but the game is more coach orientated. Fear of failure and job security and financial gain have made winning more vital. I think games were more open in the past not because of tactical naivety or poor defending but more to do with less pressure to win and players played for pleasure so a more open style was common. Reducing mentality would replicate the slower more open style without penalising the individual players who if they were inferior wouldnt be dominating all time XI selections would they? Comments regarding attack being capped for old classics is a bit harsh. Logic would then dictate defenders should be capped nowadays because they have more protection and more defensive tactics than the classic defenders had. Great players with intelligence will always find solutions. If not, 1system would dominate forever. Things evolve and players adapt
User avatar
Oriello
Posts: 1686
Joined: 2008 Dec 10, 04:46
Location: Dream Land
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 250 times

Re: Alfredo Di Stéfano | 1953-1958

Postby Oriello » 2017 Jan 05, 00:45

simmo wrote:People on this thread suggested reducing physical stats for old time players thats why I commented here. You say you want it to be realistic but if players of di stefanos era played today they would have the equipment of today. Allowances should be made for that. To not take that in to consideration would be like rating F1 drivers based on how fast their car was.
That is a bit hyperbolic with the F1 car analogy..To me you then start to guess too much at what stat should be where because you have to make a "technology-adjustment", what is that standard for that then in terms of pes stats (+3 Acceleration to all pre 1970)?

Would then this not impact how old players interact with modern footballs? Would they even be as skilled dribblers and shooters!? Should they have a handicap here? Modern balls are crazy in the way they float about in mid air or can be curled, I had the fortune of playing with a ball similar to what might have been used in the 50's (leather parallel patches stitched together..http://www.memorafootball.com/shopping/ ... ingdom.jpg something like this) its characteristics are COMPLETELY different from a circa 2014 football, it was heavy and a dream to dribble at a slow pace, it stayed put and could be manipulated..to me would players transported magically into the present immediately pick up the skills to master today's ball despite learning all their skills on those old balls, maybe their passing and shooting accuracy would be worse, as today's ball can easily get away from you and have a mind all its own. Or are we going to assume these transported classics also benefit from learning their skills in today's environment..then let me ask, who are these "classics" anymore? As they will no longer be the players from our past, forged in conditions that made them uniquely of a certain era, but instead of Pele I would get Neymar Sr. right?

To even out the speed thing a bit, shin guards were not mandatory till 1990, and few players used them (they actually seem to have been abandoned after the 1950's) - so here we have a bit of give either way, heavier boots earlier on, forsaken shin pads made mandatory in a time of lighter and lighter footware - its about the same impact, if not tit for tat (as a player personally who hates shin guards, they actually throw me off whenever I've used em).

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/20 ... this-a.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... fe8aa3.jpg
http://worcesterherald.com/wp-content/u ... -Today.jpg

He gots no shin pads :shock: it is all fine, so what we see on the screen of em being slow tempo gits is inexcusable by boots :lol: .

simmo wrote:Players certainly recover faster today due to better knowledge of diet anatomy etc. But are they more agile, faster, stronger, im not so sure. As you confirmed players played far more minutes per season in days gone by. Sure the game is faster now, but if players are physically superior why do they need so much rest? Wouldnt they be able to play all the matches?

I did not confirm that. I stated that some players fortunate enough to have their club and national team perform well might play 40-50+ matches in a season, something that is regularly done by players from mediocre teams currently, and stated that Pele was one of the lone exceptions in the past that equaled what some modern players do in a single season. By this reasoning Championship players ought to be athletic beasts as they do a marathon of games in a league season compared to low table EPL sides..Yes in England teams played 42 or so matches a season in the past, but many foreign leagues were much smaller, Serie A and La Liga were like 30 matches in a season... The trend for 20 team leagues is a "recent" one of the 1990's to make more money of television, only in England and I think Brazil (long ago had some regional leagues of like 60 games a year) was this ironman thing popular in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Drogba Drogba 2003/04 55 appearnces for Marseille, Ivory Coast 7 app in both 2003 and 2004 / 2006/07 60 app for Chelsea, Ivory Coast 14 app in 2006 and 8 app in 2007.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lewandowski Lewa consistently many years near 60 games a season, last season went 60+


It is not just about playing lots of games, use this analogy, you can walk and jog 10km every day for a week, but try to jog (start to finish) 10km and have 10 sprints of 30 sec in that jog of 10 km, do you think your body could as easily cope with doing that for 7 straight days? That is the case with modern players, the speed of some of the actions that they undertake in match, and the clustered schedule of games, couple this with as you mention a very competitive modern environment, if a player struggles he gets subbed off because there is an equivalent star on the bench, otherwise rested to be at a peak level...I am not saying that players in the past were incapable of matching what today's players can do, but how frequently they do it, and that all their competitors are also playing at an extremely high level gives modern matches consistently a more frenzied energy - which was present in the past, but I just did not see it as often in matches and when it did happen it was in shorter bursts followed by long lulls.


simmo wrote:Sorry for the double post but using england as an example it used to be 42 league games its now 38 most teams put out weakened sides in the flc and fa cup until maybe the qf or sf as the money for league positions and getting in champions and europa lge and avoiding relegation is all that matters. Leading players back then were looking at 54 matches if they got to both domestic cup finals, of which most players would have played 50+ thats before internationals and euro comps are included, how many do that now? Only the 3 or 4 key players the rest probably would play 30-40 games max

Addressed some of this above, keeping intensity up at a high level is more difficult - a car analogy, a bit F1 if you like, you know how it is to make a car go faster and sustain that speed you need exponentially more horsepower to offset the rolling resistance and drag encountered as you move faster - I forget the exact numbers but at ~ 400km/h something like 100hp extra is needed to attain a 10 km/h increase. Same deal at lower operating speeds my Honda Fit ~130hp I can average 30,000 km in a year and my mom's Infiniti Q50 330hp only does 20,000 km in year, WAT!!?? Oh yeah I have a longer commute (play in the Championship), but most definitely the Honda Fit is only happy at 60-110km/h, the Infinit comes alive only at 120km/h (and burns a silly amount of fuel) also 4.4 sec to get to 100km/h :lol: . Distance (Matches played) does not communicate how quickly/intensely those distances were traveled.


simmo wrote:Would a reduction in mentality be a good solution to the difference in playing styles between the ages? I dont believe players are necassarily fitter now or tactically superior but the game is more coach orientated. Fear of failure and job security and financial gain have made winning more vital. I think games were more open in the past not because of tactical naivety or poor defending but more to do with less pressure to win and players played for pleasure so a more open style was common. Reducing mentality would replicate the slower more open style without penalising the individual players who if they were inferior wouldnt be dominating all time XI selections would they? Comments regarding attack being capped for old classics is a bit harsh. Logic would then dictate defenders should be capped nowadays because they have more protection and more defensive tactics than the classic defenders had. Great players with intelligence will always find solutions. If not, 1system would dominate forever. Things evolve and players adapt

Yes the MEN idea makes sense, a different approach by non/semi-professionals, with less at stake .. it might make some of those "heroic" leadership figures stand apart some more, you know the kind who raised the morale/effectiveness of the whole team when they played.

Older sides were not necessarily tactically naive, its just football was such a new game with little in terms of innovation (those "pyramids" were around for a long time), and all subsequent tactical innovations have been ways to exploit/capitalize on law changes in the game and an "arms race" of new ideas to counter existing ideas. So modern sides have the benefit of all the mistakes from the past, and the collective experience of "tacticians" that can negate other teams just by adjusting their own team slightly - its not something that I seen in the past, aside from a specific DMF kinda guy coming on to disrupt things or to man-mark a danger man...I always wonder when will be the next leap/if there will be in tactics..lol 3-5-2 was supposed to be dead by the end of the 90's cuz the 4-4-2 then 4-5-1 made it obsolete, yet it seems to be back in a big way..I thought the 4-6-0 of Spaletti's Roma a few years back to be a new door, but no idea is really making sweeping trends its all just isolated instances to certain teams later being mixed and matched/melted together by other teams..I suppose this might be the new "frontier", a melting pot of all available ideas.

I know in PES I've used ancient 2-3-5/3-2-5 formations (with mediocre players) with great success agaisnt a range of modern formations/teams - but that is in a video game not coded to really expect that I guess, in real life Pep is one of the few to employ anything close to a 3-2-5 with Bayern vs domestic mid-table or lower sides (with mixed effectivness) - otherwise I've only ever seen old formations like 4-2-4 kinda being used in desperation by Championship sides in playoff games...I guess Chile used a 3-3-4 ish formation a couple years ago, but they worked harder than most modern teams forget about any side from the 60's, to make that system function vs modern sides.


About DEF.
But is that not a bit the case with today's defenders? How many 90+ DEF defenders are there, 13 according to the ladders and only 8 are not retired (Godin is the only RED one) - it seems to me that there were a bit more better tacklers even a decade ago and I think the 1990's had even more of those kinds of guys - its something that has been noted that players today seem to lack the ability to make a proper clean slide tackle (that might be again impacted by the laws of the game, where sliding tackles from behind tend to be frowned upon these days unless they come off perfect - it thus sets up an environment where fewer players engage in the practice and lowering the standard in that area)..This thing with enforcement of the law of the game is another thing, modern players are given much less margin for sloppy tackling - cards are dispensed much more frequently - which it seems to make for cleaner challenges in general, some games even in the 1960's were madness comparatively...Well Pele was one of the greatest and the solution in 1966 was to kick the fuck out of him, he quickly found the way home to Brazil :lol: .. I just think that some of the early greats like Dixie Dean, G. Meazza, Wwilimowski etc. would struggle a bit vs modern defences, and would not be instant monsters - I could be wrong though.


P.S.
In the future please edit your post, rather than 3 consecutive posts ;) , I completely missed the first two originally as the link takes me only to the most recent post .

Return to “50's”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests