Would George Best be Considered the World's Best Player If He Won the 1966 World Cup?

The question of whether George Best would be considered the world's best player had he been English and won the World Cup in 1966 is highly speculative and depends on various factors. This article explores the possible impact of this hypothetical scenario on George Best's legacy and his rightful place in football history.

Legacy and Influence

George Best is already regarded as one of the greatest players in football history, known for his incredible skill, dribbling ability, and charisma. Winning the World Cup in 1966 would have significantly enhanced his legacy, potentially placing him alongside legends like Pelé and Diego Maradona in the conversation for the greatest of all time.

Context of the Era

The 1966 World Cup victory for England led to a boost in the profile of many English players, including Bobby Charlton and Geoff Hurst. If Best had been part of this success, it might have shifted the focus more toward him, especially given his unique playing style and flair. This would have been amplified by the fact that the 1966 World Cup held a special place in the hearts of English football fans, solidifying Best's place in the national narrative.

Media and Popularity

Best’s appeal was not just due to his footballing talent but also his lifestyle and personality. Winning the World Cup could have amplified his fame, making him a global icon. This would have been similar to how Pelé was viewed after Brazil's World Cup victories. His charismatic and flamboyant lifestyle would have added to his popularity, making him a household name across the world.

Comparative Achievements

While the debate over the greatest football player in history often centers around Argentina's Lionel Messi or Brazil's Pelé, a winning World Cup for Best would have added significant weight to his argument. His unique playing style and flair would have given him an edge over many of his contemporaries, making him a more compelling candidate for the title of the world's best player.

Looking Beyond the Pitch

However, the discussion doesn't end with his on-field achievements. The factors that define a player's legacy in football history include both on-pitch performances and off-pitch personality. While Best was undoubtedly a brilliant footballer, questions arise about his off-pitch behavior and attitude. Many do not believe he had the right mindset to be the World's best. His natural talent was often overshadowed by a big ego and a lack of work ethic off the pitch, particularly away from the game.

Many believe that to excel at the highest level, natural talent is not enough. Elite sportsmen need a winner's mindset, a drive to always improve, and a willingness to work hard. While Best was certainly a talented footballer, his approach to the game and his professional attitude may have been lacking. Winning the World Cup in 1966 would certainly have helped solidify his status, but it is difficult to imagine him truly becoming the world's best player with a mindset that did not fully align with the demands of the sport.

Ultimately, while winning the World Cup in 1966 would have undoubtedly enhanced George Best's standing in football history, the title of the world's best player is a complex and subjective matter. It is likely that various factors, both on and off the pitch, would have played a significant role in the final decision.

In conclusion, George Best would have been a compelling candidate for the title of the world's best player if he had won the 1966 World Cup. However, his personal qualities and mindset would have been crucial in his bid for this honor. While his exceptional skills were undoubtedly one of the hallmarks of his career, the make-or-break factor in terms of his legacy would have been his ability to combine natural talent with the right mindset and work ethic.