Top 10 greatest players of all time

Superden said:
How can you say he played for stacked sides and then use that as an argument against him when comparing to messi?..
Click to expand...
Messi won everything with a far weaker Argentina though…

Pele won 2 world cups also he had zero to do with the middle one apart from playing cheerleader.

Messi got his country to two World Cup finals as the best footballer in the world legit. Brazil would have won the same with or without Pele and that’s a fact.

The Brazilian league back then was “strong” in some terms but in reality it just wasn’t a professional game in those days compared to now. It’s laughable to say it was.

His stats on paper look great but the guy wasn’t a genius like Messi and Maradona. Messi is in another stratosphere to Pele natural ability wise. It’s not even close.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Son said:
Pele was never in the same league as Messi as a footballer.

Both Maradona and Messi did far more impressive things than Pele ever did in his career. He won all his trophies playing for stacked sides against inferior players and teams.
Click to expand...

Whereas Messi was playing for some village pub side and San Marino esque nation? :lol:
 
Son said:
Messi won everything with a far weaker Argentina though…

Pele won 2 world cups also he had zero to do with the middle one apart from playing cheerleader.

Messi got his country to two World Cup finals as the best footballer in the world legit. Brazil would have won the same with or without Pele and that’s a fact.

The Brazilian league back then was “strong” in some terms but in reality it just wasn’t a professional game in those days compared to now. It’s laughable to say it was.

His stats on paper look great but the guy wasn’t a genius like Messi and Maradona. Messi is in another stratosphere to Pele natural ability wise. It’s not even close.
Click to expand...

Are you in the 20-30 sort of age range?
I can't believe anyone older would dismiss Pele with such outrageous ease.

He was the best player in an incredible side that was the strongest in the world in that era. That's quite some accolade.
This was in an era the best players could simply be kicked to bits and taken out, like Pele was in one world cup.
 
Sandikan said:
Are you in the 20-30 sort of age range?
I can't believe anyone older would dismiss Pele with such outrageous ease.

He was the best player in an incredible side that was the strongest in the world in that era. That's quite some accolade.
This was in an era the best players could simply be kicked to bits and taken out, like Pele was in one world cup.
Click to expand...
Garincha was brazils most talented player for a good while was he not? He played on the wing and further back so granted he didn’t get as many headlines but the guy almost single handedly won Brazil a World Cup on his own in 62.

I just don’t really rate Pele as high as some others. Granted I didn’t watch much of him compared to other older people either I’m sure.
 
1. Messi
2. Maradona
3. Pele
4. Beckenbauer
5. Cruyff
6. Di Stefano
7. R9
8. Platini
9. Muller
10. CR7
 
Son said:
Garincha was brazils most talented player for a good while was he not? He played on the wing and further back so granted he didn’t get as many headlines but the guy almost single handedly won Brazil a World Cup on his own in 62.

I just don’t really rate Pele as high as some others. Granted I didn’t watch much of him compared to other older people either I’m sure.
Click to expand...

Pele was by far the best player in the world in 1962 and dominated his first game. He got injured in his second game (completely out of his control). Brazil can't be so stacked and loaded and then Garrincha wins the World Cup on his own in 1962, it's a contradiction.

It would be like in 2014 if Messi got injured in the first game and then Aguero takes charge, scores 5-6 goals and Argentina won the final. Aguero, like Garrincha, was a very fine player. It could have happened. It wouldn't mean that Aguero was better than Messi.
 
The fact that Cruyff is the only footballing legend that could be considered as both one of the 10 greatest players of all-time, and one of the 10 greatest managers of all-time, really stands out to me.
 
GuybrushThreepwood said:
The fact that Cruyff is the only footballing legend that could be considered as both one of the 10 greatest players of all-time, and one of the 10 greatest managers of all-time, really stands out to me.
Click to expand...

Zidane could be in that list. He makes a lot of people's top 10 players.
 
Son said:
Messi won everything with a far weaker Argentina though…

Pele won 2 world cups also he had zero to do with the middle one apart from playing cheerleader.

Messi got his country to two World Cup finals as the best footballer in the world legit. Brazil would have won the same with or without Pele and that’s a fact.

The Brazilian league back then was “strong” in some terms but in reality it just wasn’t a professional game in those days compared to now. It’s laughable to say it was.

His stats on paper look great but the guy wasn’t a genius like Messi and Maradona. Messi is in another stratosphere to Pele natural ability wise. It’s not even close.
Click to expand...

The good thing with these kind of takes is that it helps making friendly reminders of Pelé's genius:
  • Pelé debuted oficially in 1957 with 16 years, and on his first season he became the tournament's top goal scorer. He then proceeded to defend that title for 8 consecutive seasons.
  • The Campeonato Paulista had been played since 1902. Until 1957 when Pelé debuted, his team got the title a total of 3 times. Then during Pelé's 16 year period in Santos FC, he managed to win it 10 times. After that they won only 2 in the next 30 years.
  • Of course, we consider the campeonato Paulista because when Pelé started playing there wasn't a unified brazilian championship. The first one was in 1959 and Santos was second to Bahía. Mainly because Pelé didn't play the final game (IIRC cause he was in military duty as he was 18 years old). They didn't participate in the next one (as Santos lost the Paulista final to Palmeiras), then proceeded to win the tournament 5 times in a row. This is the tournament where Didí, Garrincha, Vavá, Amarildo, Zagallo, Tostao, Gerson, Jairzinho and Rivelino were all playing in other teams.
  • Even so, maybe the problem is that the league was too weak. So maybe we should compare it to the rest. Santos didn't get to play the first two editions of Copa Libertadores because only the brazilian champion (Bahía in 1960 and Palmeiras in 1961) were allowed to do so. When they won the Taca do Brasil in 1961, they got to participate and proceeded to win it two times in a row. Pelé only took place in one more Libertadores (1965, when he was the top scorer) and when he left the club, Santos had to wait 38 years for Neymar to lead them to the title again.
  • As the Libertadores champion got to play with the European Cup champion in the intercontinental cup, we got to see Pelé 's playing against the best teams in Europe. First was Eusebio's Benfica, who lost 8-4 on agreggate with Pelé scoring 5 times in 2 games (note: he was 21 at that time). Then it was Gianni Rivera's AC Milan, in which he only took place in one match due to injury, scoring twice again. That's 7 in 3 games and 2 titles in a row again. Of course, Santos never won this again after Pelé left.
  • Going into NT territory, Brazil was really good even without Pelé. Unfortunately, they only managed to get one title in 30 years before Pelé's arrival (the 1949 southamerican championship, while having home advantage) and after him leaving the squad they had to wait 19 years for another title and 24 for another world cup (both thanks to Romario). During his period in Brazil squad he managed to win 3 world cups, playing 14 matches and scoring 12 goals. He only played one southamerican championship and while he didn't win, he was the top scorer with 9 goals in 7 games.
  • As for the "stratosphere" and "professionalism", I tend to recommend the 'Pelé did it first' videos on Youtube. I'm sure you'll appreciate them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Invictus
Son said:
The Brazilian league back then was “strong” in some terms but in reality it just wasn’t a professional game in those days compared to now. It’s laughable to say it was.
Click to expand...
This argument is so dumb...

Why didn't tons of "Pelés" appear so? Only him was receiving modern training and tactical advices?

Brazil was the strongest NT, as you said, but no other player came close to what Pelé did here. Why?
 
Son said:
Pele was never in the same league as Messi as a footballer.

Both Maradona and Messi did far more impressive things than Pele ever did in his career. He won all his trophies playing for stacked sides against inferior players and teams.

He had too many luxuries all through his career and wasn’t a genius like Messi or Maradona.

The fact he did arguably his greatest moments at 17 shows probably how poor the game was back then. In reality a 17 year old Pele was a million miles from a prime Maradona or Messi. They both would have destroyed him on a football pitch at any point skill wise and IQ wise.

Maradona especially didn’t have the luxury of taking on nothing sides most weeks either.
Click to expand...
Have you ever watch Pele played during his prime though? I am not questioning your view here, but I didn’t watch that much of him to form such a strong opinion. What I do know is that most people who has witnessed football during 60s would say Pele was the best ever.
 
Messi=Maradona*
Pele
Cryuff
Di Stefano
Ronaldo
Beckenbauer
Charlton
Platini
Zico

Honorary mention: Yashin

*trying to be objective to the uttermost Messi probably has it tied down by now if not only for his sheer longevity that trumps Diego but I couldn't bring myself to do it.

Overall I feel it's a pretty solid list, you can probably spot my inclination toward pettite mastreos of the ball who's conduct was not much diffrent from say a houdini but merely in a different avenue than theatrical stage.

I also somewhat included their cultural impact on the world beyond football as well, so Charlton's sheer story perseverance and triumph gave him bump, almost every single player that I included has a whimsical tale of achievement to go with it whether it being Beckenbauer leading his nation to football glory helping to restore his nation's honor or di stefano's massive influence on creating football's most successful dynasty.

I can see some objections to my inclusion of zico but I am absolutely in love of his sheer talent and he had he not had the unfortunate fate of sharing the same era that he did with Diego I think he'd be much more highly regarded and his lack of success with the national team weighs heavily on his legacy. ( on a side not what a crazy era it was , each one of the footballing triumvirate of maradona/zico/plattini would be heads and shoulders above anyone playing today)
 
Red the Bear said:
I can see some objections to my inclusion of zico but I am absolutely in love of his sheer talent and he had he not had the unfortunate fate of sharing the same era that he did with Diego I think he'd be much more highly regarded and his lack of success with the national team weighs heavily on his legacy. ( on a side not what a crazy era it was , each one of the footballing triumvirate of maradona/zico/plattini would be heads and shoulders above anyone playing today)
Click to expand...
I don't think it affected his legacy that much. Prime Zico was from 1975 to 1982, therefore before Maradona reached his best.

What really hindered his status, especially abroad, were his failures with Seleção(as you said) and that his prime didn't coincide with the onset of Brazilian players going to Europe(he was 30 years old when he went to Udinese and his knee was already destroyed by injuries). Falcão went to Roma in 1980, but he was an anomaly(the only "foreigner" in WC82 team).

Skill-wise, I think he's was inferior to Maradona just in dribbling; a better finisher, passer and free kick taker in my opinion(he was still a great dribbler; way better than Platini, for example).
 
Anyone claiming Pele wasn't a genius like Maradona or Messi can't be taken serious.

Almost all of the popular moves players do today was something Pele did back in his heyday 1st. Heck even the Cruyff turn was something Pele did 1st.
 
Gehrman said:
Zidane could be in that list. He makes a lot of people's top 10 players.
Click to expand...

He could make the top 10 players, but that's still debatable and I think he's behind Cruyff in that list; Cruyff's top 10 place seems more clear cut.

But I don't think he has been a manager long enough to be in consideration to make the top 10 there. Even excluding Cruyff, in no-particular order, Ferguson, Michels, Guardiola, Ancelotti, Sacchi, Busby, Herrera, Mourinho, Happel, Hitzfeld, Trapattoni, Shankly, Capello, Clough and Lippi would all rank ahead at this point in time IMO (and I could easily be missing other names), of course not just counting trophies but also looking at overall influence on the sport, the resources that they had to work with etc.
 
devaneios said:
I don't think it affected his legacy that much. Prime Zico was from 1975 to 1982, therefore before Maradona reached his best.

What really hindered his status, especially abroad, were his failures with Seleção(as you said) and that his prime didn't coincide with the onset of Brazilian players going to Europe(he was 30 years old when he went to Udinese and his knee was already destroyed by injuries). Falcão went to Roma in 1980, but he was an anomaly(the only "foreigner" in WC82 team).

Skill-wise, I think he's was inferior to Maradona just in dribbling; a better finisher, passer and free kick taker in my opinion(he was still a great dribbler; way better than Platini, for example).
Click to expand...
I think it still did harm him in the sense that after 86 both him and plattini were relegated to footnotes overshadowed by the main play which was marfona's mercurial world cup glory, didn't help that both Brazil and France had relatively disappointing campaigns, zico even had the misfortune of missing a penalty.

But yeah you're spot on, had Brazil won it he'd be remembered much more fondly, and they did get agonizingly close to it too which must sting all the more(one could argue 1978 was rigged even but what's done is done.)
 
devaneios said:
I don't think it affected his legacy that much. Prime Zico was from 1975 to 1982, therefore before Maradona reached his best.

What really hindered his status, especially abroad, were his failures with Seleção(as you said) and that his prime didn't coincide with the onset of Brazilian players going to Europe(he was 30 years old when he went to Udinese and his knee was already destroyed by injuries). Falcão went to Roma in 1980, but he was an anomaly(the only "foreigner" in WC82 team).

Skill-wise, I think he's was inferior to Maradona just in dribbling; a better finisher, passer and free kick taker in my opinion(he was still a great dribbler; way better than Platini, for example).
Click to expand...
Maradona was the better passer. Free kicks and finishing was close. Dribbling, ofcourse Maradona was on another level but Zico was no slouch.

Gehrman said:
Zidane could be in that list. He makes a lot of people's top 10 players.
Click to expand...
A controversial top 10 player; for me, maybe top 20- 25. Cruyff is clear-cut in top 10.
 
Krakenzero said:
The good thing with these kind of takes is that it helps making friendly reminders of Pelé's genius:
  • Pelé debuted oficially in 1957 with 16 years, and on his first season he became the tournament's top goal scorer. He then proceeded to defend that title for 8 consecutive seasons.
  • The Campeonato Paulista had been played since 1902. Until 1957 when Pelé debuted, his team got the title a total of 3 times. Then during Pelé's 16 year period in Santos FC, he managed to win it 10 times. After that they won only 2 in the next 30 years.
  • Of course, we consider the campeonato Paulista because when Pelé started playing there wasn't a unified brazilian championship. The first one was in 1959 and Santos was second to Bahía. Mainly because Pelé didn't play the final game (IIRC cause he was in military duty as he was 18 years old). They didn't participate in the next one (as Santos lost the Paulista final to Palmeiras), then proceeded to win the tournament 5 times in a row. This is the tournament where Didí, Garrincha, Vavá, Amarildo, Zagallo, Tostao, Gerson, Jairzinho and Rivelino were all playing in other teams.
  • Even so, maybe the problem is that the league was too weak. So maybe we should compare it to the rest. Santos didn't get to play the first two editions of Copa Libertadores because only the brazilian champion (Bahía in 1960 and Palmeiras in 1961) were allowed to do so. When they won the Taca do Brasil in 1961, they got to participate and proceeded to win it two times in a row. Pelé only took place in one more Libertadores (1965, when he was the top scorer) and when he left the club, Santos had to wait 38 years for Neymar to lead them to the title again.
  • As the Libertadores champion got to play with the European Cup champion in the intercontinental cup, we got to see Pelé 's playing against the best teams in Europe. First was Eusebio's Benfica, who lost 8-4 on agreggate with Pelé scoring 5 times in 2 games (note: he was 21 at that time). Then it was Gianni Rivera's AC Milan, in which he only took place in one match due to injury, scoring twice again. That's 7 in 3 games and 2 titles in a row again. Of course, Santos never won this again after Pelé left.
  • Going into NT territory, Brazil was really good even without Pelé. Unfortunately, they only managed to get one title in 30 years before Pelé's arrival (the 1949 southamerican championship, while having home advantage) and after him leaving the squad they had to wait 19 years for another title and 24 for another world cup (both thanks to Romario). During his period in Brazil squad he managed to win 3 world cups, playing 14 matches and scoring 12 goals. He only played one southamerican championship and while he didn't win, he was the top scorer with 9 goals in 7 games.
  • As for the "stratosphere" and "professionalism", I tend to recommend the 'Pelé did it first' videos on Youtube. I'm sure you'll appreciate them.
Click to expand...

That's an exceptional post.
 
Krakenzero said:
The good thing with these kind of takes is that it helps making friendly reminders of Pelé's genius:
  • Pelé debuted oficially in 1957 with 16 years, and on his first season he became the tournament's top goal scorer. He then proceeded to defend that title for 8 consecutive seasons.
  • The Campeonato Paulista had been played since 1902. Until 1957 when Pelé debuted, his team got the title a total of 3 times. Then during Pelé's 16 year period in Santos FC, he managed to win it 10 times. After that they won only 2 in the next 30 years.
  • Of course, we consider the campeonato Paulista because when Pelé started playing there wasn't a unified brazilian championship. The first one was in 1959 and Santos was second to Bahía. Mainly because Pelé didn't play the final game (IIRC cause he was in military duty as he was 18 years old). They didn't participate in the next one (as Santos lost the Paulista final to Palmeiras), then proceeded to win the tournament 5 times in a row. This is the tournament where Didí, Garrincha, Vavá, Amarildo, Zagallo, Tostao, Gerson, Jairzinho and Rivelino were all playing in other teams.
  • Even so, maybe the problem is that the league was too weak. So maybe we should compare it to the rest. Santos didn't get to play the first two editions of Copa Libertadores because only the brazilian champion (Bahía in 1960 and Palmeiras in 1961) were allowed to do so. When they won the Taca do Brasil in 1961, they got to participate and proceeded to win it two times in a row. Pelé only took place in one more Libertadores (1965, when he was the top scorer) and when he left the club, Santos had to wait 38 years for Neymar to lead them to the title again.
  • As the Libertadores champion got to play with the European Cup champion in the intercontinental cup, we got to see Pelé 's playing against the best teams in Europe. First was Eusebio's Benfica, who lost 8-4 on agreggate with Pelé scoring 5 times in 2 games (note: he was 21 at that time). Then it was Gianni Rivera's AC Milan, in which he only took place in one match due to injury, scoring twice again. That's 7 in 3 games and 2 titles in a row again. Of course, Santos never won this again after Pelé left.
  • Going into NT territory, Brazil was really good even without Pelé. Unfortunately, they only managed to get one title in 30 years before Pelé's arrival (the 1949 southamerican championship, while having home advantage) and after him leaving the squad they had to wait 19 years for another title and 24 for another world cup (both thanks to Romario). During his period in Brazil squad he managed to win 3 world cups, playing 14 matches and scoring 12 goals. He only played one southamerican championship and while he didn't win, he was the top scorer with 9 goals in 7 games.
  • As for the "stratosphere" and "professionalism", I tend to recommend the 'Pelé did it first' videos on Youtube. I'm sure you'll appreciate them.
Click to expand...
That’s a great post. I’ll take a look and always open to been educated on something before my time. Thanks for all that information and I will look at those YouTube videos you mentioned.
 
a friend of mine once told me he'd take messi over CR7 (his wording) any day. Though CR7 is the better player, said friend, messi is the greatest GOAT of all time


Krakenzero said:
The good thing with these kind of takes is that it helps making friendly reminders of Pelé's genius:
  • Pelé debuted oficially in 1957 with 16 years, and on his first season he became the tournament's top goal scorer. He then proceeded to defend that title for 8 consecutive seasons.
  • The Campeonato Paulista had been played since 1902. Until 1957 when Pelé debuted, his team got the title a total of 3 times. Then during Pelé's 16 year period in Santos FC, he managed to win it 10 times. After that they won only 2 in the next 30 years.
  • Of course, we consider the campeonato Paulista because when Pelé started playing there wasn't a unified brazilian championship. The first one was in 1959 and Santos was second to Bahía. Mainly because Pelé didn't play the final game (IIRC cause he was in military duty as he was 18 years old). They didn't participate in the next one (as Santos lost the Paulista final to Palmeiras), then proceeded to win the tournament 5 times in a row. This is the tournament where Didí, Garrincha, Vavá, Amarildo, Zagallo, Tostao, Gerson, Jairzinho and Rivelino were all playing in other teams.
  • Even so, maybe the problem is that the league was too weak. So maybe we should compare it to the rest. Santos didn't get to play the first two editions of Copa Libertadores because only the brazilian champion (Bahía in 1960 and Palmeiras in 1961) were allowed to do so. When they won the Taca do Brasil in 1961, they got to participate and proceeded to win it two times in a row. Pelé only took place in one more Libertadores (1965, when he was the top scorer) and when he left the club, Santos had to wait 38 years for Neymar to lead them to the title again.
  • As the Libertadores champion got to play with the European Cup champion in the intercontinental cup, we got to see Pelé 's playing against the best teams in Europe. First was Eusebio's Benfica, who lost 8-4 on agreggate with Pelé scoring 5 times in 2 games (note: he was 21 at that time). Then it was Gianni Rivera's AC Milan, in which he only took place in one match due to injury, scoring twice again. That's 7 in 3 games and 2 titles in a row again. Of course, Santos never won this again after Pelé left.
  • Going into NT territory, Brazil was really good even without Pelé. Unfortunately, they only managed to get one title in 30 years before Pelé's arrival (the 1949 southamerican championship, while having home advantage) and after him leaving the squad they had to wait 19 years for another title and 24 for another world cup (both thanks to Romario). During his period in Brazil squad he managed to win 3 world cups, playing 14 matches and scoring 12 goals. He only played one southamerican championship and while he didn't win, he was the top scorer with 9 goals in 7 games.
  • As for the "stratosphere" and "professionalism", I tend to recommend the 'Pelé did it first' videos on Youtube. I'm sure you'll appreciate them.
Click to expand...

an excellent post detailing pele's arrant genius, which some upon the internet have curiously disregarded. i cannot remember the offender's name, but i read an american commentator, to zero scrutiny, claim pele's race as the reason he was constantly rated near the top

it is important brute facts and timely reminders are forthcoming, especially in our misinformed times
 
Eddy_JukeZ said:
Anyone claiming Pele wasn't a genius like Maradona or Messi can't be taken serious.

Almost all of the popular moves players do today was something Pele did back in his heyday 1st. Heck even the Cruyff turn was something Pele did 1st.
Click to expand...
 
Just a side note, the Cruyff turn was made by many players way before, fellas like Losteau from like maquina and prior to him usually did versions of that move, in fact some moves like la marianela and the let's call original bicycle made in those days are almost forgotten.
 
I still cannot believe that people put R9 in these lists:

I saw the guy at his peak - it was phenomenal. It lasted a grand total of 3 seasons. one of which was in Eredivisie.

Man won 1 league titles in Europe.

The easy comparison can be at Madrid, where R9's best season there was worse than Cristiano Ronaldo's worse season at Madrid.
 
Pes6Monster said:
If you have Lionel Messi at number one, it's a good indication it's time to leave the internet.

Best for me is Pele. WC at seventeen, in his first, not fifth, attempt. Maradona second though he'd have likely been first if his career did not die out ignominiously. Cruyff/Beckenbauer afterward as both also changed how football is played. Never seen Puskas or di Stefano save for brief highlights.

Don't get me wrong on Messi, he's an absolute legend of the game, but not anywhere near the top.

Please do not argue with me on the basis 'Pele never played in Europe'. It's just silly.
Click to expand...

This is just utter nonsense by anyones standards. To disagree he’s number 1 is quite an edgy call in itself, to be so passionately against it is plain wrong.
I’m all for opinions and everyone’s entitled to them, but yours is just wrong son.

You also don’t make sense… You have really strong opinions of 1958 Pele, but not of Di Stefano and Puskas, who peaked at the same time (or later in Ferenc’s case)… bit weird.
I also suspect you must be 70 to have seen and appreciated Franz at his peak.

Clearly you are trolling, but I’d have Messi at No. 1 and comfortably but I’m not leaving the internet on your say so :)
 
Messi vs Pele is a dumb comparison - how the hell do you compare to a guy whose footage only consists of international games in grainy black and white and then weird friendly tours that Santos did when colour TV became more widespread.

People have nostalgia bias - for example Cryuff's total football. Glorified, Revered....

Then I actually watched "Total Football" in actions...and well...it genuinely made me howl with laughter:




image.png


9 Players chasing down 1 guy for the ball...
 
AfonsoAlves said:
I still cannot believe that people put R9 in these lists:

I saw the guy at his peak - it was phenomenal. It lasted a grand total of 3 seasons. one of which was in Eredivisie.

Man won 1 league titles in Europe.

The easy comparison can be at Madrid, where R9's best season there was worse than Cristiano Ronaldo's worse season at Madrid.
Click to expand...

Cause he had a career ending injury in 2000 when he was 23 years old, spending 21 months in recovery. Post injury Ronaldo was a shadow of his former self, who won the World Cup, a Golden Boot and a FIFA World Player anyway.
 
I see a lot of overeating for Zidane.

While Zidane had moments of brilliance, his overall consistency is questionable. Across club and international play, he often drifted in and out of games and had entire seasons where he was not particularly dominant. Compared to legends like Messi, Ronaldo, or even players like Xavi or Iniesta, Zidane didn’t consistently influence matches week in, week out at the same elite level.

Zidane’s goal and assist numbers are modest for an attacking midfielder. For example, in 155 games for Real Madrid, he scored 37 goals—not terrible, but not legendary either. Especially when compared to modern midfield greats or even older icons like Platini or Maradona, his output lacks that elite productivity that one expects from a top 10 all-time player.

Zidane’s reputation is largely built on a handful of iconic moments: the 1998 World Cup Final (2 headers vs Brazil), the 2002 Champions League Final volley, and the 2006 World Cup performances. No to mention the infamous headbutt in the 2006 World Cup Final, which arguably, cost France the title. All time greats should be celebrated for leading and elevating their teams, not losing their cool at critical moments.

Zidane was a beautiful, elegant player with legendary moments but football isn’t just about style. If judged by consistency and statistical impact he falls short of true top 10 status. He’s more a mythologized figure than an empirically dominant one. Great? Yes. All-time top 10? No.

My top 10:

Messi
Maradona
Pele
Cristiano
Cruyff
Beckenbauer
Di Stefano
Fat Ronaldo
Platini
Iniesta
 
Krakenzero said:
Cause he had a career ending injury in 2000 when he was 23 years old, spending 21 months in recovery. Post injury Ronaldo was a shadow of his former self, who won the World Cup, a Golden Boot and a FIFA World Player anyway.
Click to expand...

Yeah but Greatest of All Time's list isn't about what they could have achieved had they stayed injury free/mentally well. It's about what they actually achieved.

R9 just didn't have the longevity or the accolades to belong to this list.

It's like putting Michael Owen in "PL Greatest Strikers List", by justifying that had he not been an injury wreck he would have beaten Shearer's record.
 
tentan said:
1. Messi
2. C.Ronaldo
3. Pele
4. Maradona
5. Cruyff
6. Beckenbauer
7. Di Stefano
8. Charlton
9. Ronaldo
10. Zidane

For you?
Click to expand...

I agree with your list overall but Zidane feels very out of place in that company… he’s always been a player who makes me ponder.
Style of play over substance?? Is there any reading into him winning just 3 league titles in 10 years at Juve and Real?

Yes, granted he had massive clutch moments, like the 98 WC final goals and the CL final goal. But I always feel it’s his style of play that puts him higher than he should actually rank. Yes he was a Beautiful player to watch, graceful, elegant and immaculate first touch. But there’s been great players who have been more productive. Was Zidane a more productive midfielder than Maldini was defender for example? Or even Nesta?

Zidane and Iniesta both have WC final goals, Zidane has a great CL final goal but his overall performance in that final wasn’t as good as Iniesta’s against us in 2011. So is he actually better than Iniesta or just had a sexier style?

Is Zidane a better midfielder than - 700 goal - Lewandowski is striker? Honestly not sure he is.

I understand nostalgia plays a part in all these rankings. But I do think, In 20 years time when we conduct these lists the players from 2005 onwards, who are in no ones lists now, will appear on many.
 
G97 said:
I agree with your list overall but Zidane feels very out of place in that company… he’s always been a player who makes me ponder.
Style of play over substance?? Is there any reading into him winning just 3 league titles in 10 years at Juve and Real?

Yes, granted he had massive clutch moments, like the 98 WC final goals and the CL final goal. But I always feel it’s his style of play that puts him higher than he should actually rank. Yes he was a Beautiful player to watch, graceful, elegant and immaculate first touch. But there’s been great players who have been more productive. Was Zidane a more productive midfielder than Maldini was defender for example? Or even Nesta?

Zidane and Iniesta both have WC final goals, Zidane has a great CL final goal but his overall performance in that final wasn’t as good as Iniesta’s against us in 2011. So is he actually better than Iniesta or just had a sexier style?

Is Zidane a better midfielder than - 700 goal - Lewandowski is striker? Honestly not sure he is.

I understand nostalgia plays a part in all these rankings. But I do think, In 20 years time when we conduct these lists the players from 2005 onwards, who are in no ones lists now, will appear on many.
Click to expand...
He's just Matt Le Tissier with a French name.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
I still cannot believe that people put R9 in these lists:

I saw the guy at his peak - it was phenomenal. It lasted a grand total of 3 seasons. one of which was in Eredivisie.

Man won 1 league titles in Europe.

The easy comparison can be at Madrid, where R9's best season there was worse than Cristiano Ronaldo's worse season at Madrid.
Click to expand...

He's in these lists, because of his peak.

Also, R9 was clearly not the same player after his knee operations, so using his Madrid seasons make no sense.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
Yeah but Greatest of All Time's list isn't about what they could have achieved had they stayed injury free/mentally well. It's about what they actually achieved.

R9 just didn't have the longevity or the accolades to belong to this list.

It's like putting Michael Owen in "PL Greatest Strikers List", by justifying that had he not been an injury wreck he would have beaten Shearer's record.
Click to expand...
R9's WC legacy dwarfs CR7's for one.

And how does R9 have not have accolades? You're looking at team achievements.

His individual accolades are great.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
Yeah but Greatest of All Time's list isn't about what they could have achieved had they stayed injury free/mentally well. It's about what they actually achieved.

R9 just didn't have the longevity or the accolades to belong to this list.

It's like putting Michael Owen in "PL Greatest Strikers List", by justifying that had he not been an injury wreck he would have beaten Shearer's record.
Click to expand...

And how did Cristiano Ronaldo do in the greatest tournament of all time? Which is the best reference for greatest player of all time?
 
G97 said:
I agree with your list overall but Zidane feels very out of place in that company… he’s always been a player who makes me ponder.
Style of play over substance?? Is there any reading into him winning just 3 league titles in 10 years at Juve and Real?

Yes, granted he had massive clutch moments, like the 98 WC final goals and the CL final goal. But I always feel it’s his style of play that puts him higher than he should actually rank. Yes he was a Beautiful player to watch, graceful, elegant and immaculate first touch. But there’s been great players who have been more productive. Was Zidane a more productive midfielder than Maldini was defender for example? Or even Nesta?

Zidane and Iniesta both have WC final goals, Zidane has a great CL final goal but his overall performance in that final wasn’t as good as Iniesta’s against us in 2011. So is he actually better than Iniesta or just had a sexier style?

Is Zidane a better midfielder than - 700 goal - Lewandowski is striker? Honestly not sure he is.

I understand nostalgia plays a part in all these rankings. But I do think, In 20 years time when we conduct these lists the players from 2005 onwards, who are in no ones lists now, will appear on many.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’d think someone like Xavi should be closer to the top 10 then Zidane, IMO.
 
G97 said:
I agree with your list overall but Zidane feels very out of place in that company… he’s always been a player who makes me ponder.
Style of play over substance?? Is there any reading into him winning just 3 league titles in 10 years at Juve and Real?

Yes, granted he had massive clutch moments, like the 98 WC final goals and the CL final goal. But I always feel it’s his style of play that puts him higher than he should actually rank. Yes he was a Beautiful player to watch, graceful, elegant and immaculate first touch. But there’s been great players who have been more productive. Was Zidane a more productive midfielder than Maldini was defender for example? Or even Nesta?

Zidane and Iniesta both have WC final goals, Zidane has a great CL final goal but his overall performance in that final wasn’t as good as Iniesta’s against us in 2011. So is he actually better than Iniesta or just had a sexier style?

Is Zidane a better midfielder than - 700 goal - Lewandowski is striker? Honestly not sure he is.

I understand nostalgia plays a part in all these rankings. But I do think, In 20 years time when we conduct these lists the players from 2005 onwards, who are in no ones lists now, will appear on many.
Click to expand...

That clutch moment / game outperformance is more important to a lot of people than volume of performances. He dominated those big games. I recalled he made a great Brazil team look ordinary in 2006. Ultimately, football is about memories and entertainment and not about statistics. I will never forget his WC 98 final goals or the CL final goal.

Similarly, I will never forget the Ronaldinho dance where he knocked Terry on his backside on route to score.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.