Top 10 greatest players of all time

[Wand of a right foot]

Indeed, this all just opinions

People say this, but how then did he win Ballon D'Ors, FIFA WPOTYs, Serie A Footballer of the Year, even Ligue Un footballer of the year awards? Do you think that (especially with the domestic awards), that the people who voted for them were not watching him consistently? Think about the people who win the PFA or FWA Footballer of the year awards in the Premier League nowadays, do you think the voters do not watch the recipients play throughout the season? How did he break the world transfer record twice? Something is not adding up here.

I honestly believe that this view has become something people parrot about Zidane, without really thinking. And his meh stats then help them to bolster this view.

i mean, I'm sure if Zidane had played in a side that had another player that scored nearly 700 goals, then you might have a point. As it is, I don't think you do.

That team was not the greatest international side of all time in my view, but the key word here is 'arguably'. It was not arguable that Zidane was the linchpin of his French sides: the team went as he went. Iniesta can't say the same.


Whilst winning those titles

Zidane- 1 Ballon D'Or, 1 Serie A POTY
Iniesta - 0 Ballon D'Ors, 0 La Liga POTYs (Messi won 9)

Whist playing internationally

Zidane - I WC golden ball, 1 Euros Best player

Iniesta - 0 WC Golden balls, 1 Euros Best player

It's a team sport.

I love Iniesta, but It's not clear at all, for the reasons i stated

I mean, the last statement is clearly false. Even if you take the most basic metric of 'goals', Zidane has considerably more in less games. And more than double the goals internationally, also in less games. And he's far from a prolific scorer.

There is a pattern here:
Zidane vs Iniesta: you choose Zidane
Maradona vs Messi: you choose Maradona

Very weird for a Barcelona fan. Trying hard to be unbiased me thinks, like a certain Gary Neville.

My point was rather that you said Robaldo's knee injury was his saving grace because of his lifestyle when a player you have in your top 4 only trained twice a week because he was too busy snorting coke and getting drunk. Who knows how Maradona's career would have went on had he suffered a serioursly grave injury. After all, Ronaldo also had two of the absolute best individual world cup performances in 1998 and 2002. And many already claimef he was the best in history back then as well, just like it was the case with Maradona after 86.

Worth mentioning as well that Inter's physicians claim that Ronaldo showed remarkable dedication and professionalism in his rehabilitation process after the knee injury. Apparently he worked tirelessly on his comeback back then.

Maradona has Mexico 86. That is the difference otherwise he too wouldn't be in this discussion.

Oof, a real rollercoaster post!

This and that is invalid and “let's be real”... followed by no Alfredo Di Stéfano or Franz Beckenbauer in the Top 10?

Why should Ferenc Puskás be in Tier 2, when players with lesser talent and weaker resumés are in Tier 1?

• Age 19: already scoring more than a goal per game.
• Age 22: scores almost 60 goals in a season for club and country.
• Age 23: can't play in the 1950 World Cup as Hungary withdraw from the competition for political reasons. Has just scored 23 goals in 14 matches for Hungary, so very much in the form of his life.
• Age 25: wins the Olympics when it meant something.
• Age 27: World Cup Golden Ball and runner-up. Also helps Hungary defeat England by margin of 13—4, a real watershed moment.
• Age 29: At this point he has a record 84 goals in international matches (no one will touch this for decades). And Hungary has lost just 1 match in the last 6 years. Puskás is arguably the greatest player in football history, already.
• Age 31: joins Real Madrid.
• Age 33: wins the European Cup.
• Age 34: wins his second European Cup. Also the top scorer, and scores 4 goals in the final.
• Age 39: wins his third European Cup, leading the new generation of Real Madrid.

At the time of retirement he is the leading scorer in international matches (no European player surpasses this for half-a-century, not even Müller), the leading scorer in European Cup finals (a record he shares with Di Stéfano for more than half-a-century), the second highest scorer in the European Cup (only Eusébio surpasses him over the next 40+ years), the player with the highest goal ratio in the European Cup (only Müller betters this ratio over the next 60 years), 4 times La Liga top scorer while playing only 8 seasons in Spain, and so on and so forth. All of that despite missing close to 2 years of top football (Hungarian revolution), as well as handicaps like no standardized European Championship till 1958, no formalized European Cup till 1955, no formalized Ballon D'or till 1956 (things that would have made his resumé even more impressive).

Yep, Puskas is the forgotten one. The drag back is legendary though. Remember Messi producing one vs Celtic in 2007.

 

[Fortitude]

As a Bayern fan, would you agree that had Gerd Muller had those accolades, records & stats he had in Bundesliga, European Cup, World Cup and Euros in today's stat obsessed generation (if he played in this era), he would be considered a rival to Messi as a GOAT candidate?

I'd think he would win 4-5 Ballon D'ors in this era and Beckenbauer probably 1 at most, opposite of 70s.

Beckenbauer breaks the conceptualisation of football like maybe only Di Stefano can; he’d do so again in this day and age, but I doubt he’d be kept in defense, instead probably moved forward not only into midfield, but utilised as a primarily attacking force who had carte blanche to drop deeper when he felt like it. His numbers would go through the roof and he’d likely revolutionise the attacking midfield position and have it redefined. Think of Rodri’s impact and accolades, multiply it by 10, factor it to a more attacking position, and there you go.

Beckenbauer might even be more idolised in this time than his own. He’d break the game that is currently known.

 

[G97]

I mean, the last statement is clearly false. Even if you take the most basic metric of 'goals', Zidane has considerably more in less games. And more than double the goals internationally, also in less games. And he's far from a prolific scorer.

Judging by all your other comments Zidane is your hero and that’s fine.
But this is your defence when I say Iniesta eclipses Zidane… goals???
You are trippin if you don’t think Iniesta had a better career than Zidane…

Domestic league titles, Champions leagues and Major International trophy count:
Zidane - 6
Iniesta - 14

 

[antohan]

A few patterns on what drives preferences get across quite clearly:

Recency vs legacy: Messi vs Cristiano is the modern, and easier to compare, Maradona vs Pelé. Those inclined to be dismissive of other eras can't fathom Cristiano out of a top tier. Those more inclined to allow for the pros and cons of different eras can easily imagine Pelé under current sports science and training regimes being a comfortably superior cross-breed of those two that leaves Cristiano no grounds to cling on to that tier.

Longevity vs top peak: all four of the above actually had longevity, Maradona was easily world class for a decade. The main difference is, as someone quoted "can't tell if he was the best but his best was the best". Conversely, you could argue the other three spent much longer consistently hitting their top level, which Maradona on average did not.

Wow factor vs numbness: This is directly linked to the above. Messi and Cristiano were so dominant for so long and piled up so many achievements that some instantly put them in the first spots... while some of us just became somewhat numb to it all. We remember the times when they were still developing but can't quite put our finger on that one definitive moment when they blew up and graduated into the GOAT conversation like Diego.

In Pelé's case it's worse because none of us ever watched him expecting anything but GOAT performances from him. It's not just an ex-post thing, same holds for his contemporaries: at age 16 he already scored six goals in three knockout games to win a World Cup. Let that sink in. No loans, no phasing him in with sub appearances on the wing, no waiting for the development of end product, no protecting from the pressure and demands of first team football, just "BOOM! Good luck mate, keep your head screwed on tight, will ya?". And yet, we give all that for granted because we already know he didn't stray.

A lower tier version of this finds us arguing over Zidane's consistency over almost a decade while nobody questions Ronaldinho's because, well, we all know it was a shorter peak, Brazilians party a lot, etc. I love Ronaldinho and am inclined to rank him higher, but have a hard time establishing how his body of work compares favourably to Zidane's. Heart over head really.

Projecting what might have been: a further step of the above. We extrapolate Ronaldo without injuries, Ronaldinho not being a party animal, Best not having a penchant for ladies and booze, etc. But then, you should also extrapolate Puskas with no Hungarian uprising, Duncan Edwards missing a plane, Pelé not getting hacked out of two World Cups, Zico if that Brazil side could defend, Platini if Battiston didn't get pole-axed, Maradona not being into cocaine, a fit Marco van Basten playing well into the 90s, the list goes on... Sometimes we can only judge on a smaller sample than we would all have loved to, unfortunately.

Quality of competition vs underdog factor: many argue the quality of competition is better these days. You can only beat what's in front of you, so somewhat unfair, but it certainly is. We can be equally unfair and question whether Messi or Cristiano would have dragged RCD Mallorca to their first La Liga title. You can go around in circles with this and superteam advantages all day.

Relevance of international football: this was always a killer for the legacy of the likes of Best or Giggs but the absolute gold standard as it was the one occasion when all the best around were on display. I'd agree it's no longer what it used to be as a litmus test. It used to be the case that you saw many players for the first time and got exposed to different styles and tactics, which made true genius shine brighter. Today it's all quite bland, uniform and predictable so younger people don't see it as having that much weight. In fact, I'm pretty sure most of the top NTs in Qatar would lose to their 1998 incarnation 9/10 times.

Simply irrational stuff Overall, it's quite easy for perceptions of all the above to swing you one way or the other, heart>head. In fact, I'll add a personal one re: Cristiano. Younger fans are all about being player fans, but with pre-Millennials I very much doubt I'm the only one that remembers him more fondly as CR7 v1.0. Everything he did at Madrid was hugely impressive, but I don't particularly care for it or CR9 to be honest. So you work your way through the ranking and while your head says he should be there your heart just cares for CR7 and, frankly, you may as well give that scarce slot to Best, whom we lost to babes and booze, not feckin' Real Madrid.

So no, it's a football ranking made by football fans, there's never going to be a right answer.

 

[Ddannidom]

Oof, a real rollercoaster post!

This and that is invalid and “let's be real”... followed by no Alfredo Di Stéfano or Franz Beckenbauer in the Top 10?

Why should Ferenc Puskás be in Tier 2, when players with lesser talent and weaker resumés are in Tier 1?

• Age 19: already scoring more than a goal per game.
• Age 22: scores almost 60 goals in a season for club and country.
• Age 23: can't play in the 1950 World Cup as Hungary withdraw from the competition for political reasons. Has just scored 23 goals in 14 matches for Hungary, so very much in the form of his life.
• Age 25: wins the Olympics when it meant something.
• Age 27: World Cup Golden Ball and runner-up. Also helps Hungary defeat England by margin of 13—4, a real watershed moment.
• Age 29: At this point he has a record 84 goals in international matches (no one will touch this for decades). And Hungary has lost just 1 match in the last 6 years. Puskás is arguably the greatest player in football history, already.
• Age 31: joins Real Madrid.
• Age 33: wins the European Cup.
• Age 34: wins his second European Cup. Also the top scorer, and scores 4 goals in the final.
• Age 39: wins another European Cup, leading the new generation of Real Madrid.

At the time of retirement he is the leading scorer in international matches (no European player surpasses this for half-a-century, not even Müller), the leading scorer in European Cup finals (a record he shares with Di Stéfano for more than half-a-century), the second highest scorer in the European Cup (only Eusébio surpasses him over the next 40+ years), the player with the highest goal ratio in the European Cup (only Müller betters this ratio over the next 60 years), 4 times La Liga top scorer while playing only 8 seasons in Spain, and so on and so forth. All of that despite missing close to 2 years of top football (Hungarian revolution), as well as handicaps like no standardized European Championship till 1958, no formalized European Cup till 1955, no formalized Ballon D'or till 1956.

Puskás and Di Stéfano were incredible no doubt, but what sets my tier-one players apart is how they dominated their eras while pushing the game to new heights. Pelé wasn’t just a superstar..he shone on the world’s biggest stage, winning three World Cups and redefining what a forward could do. Maradona carried Argentina and Napoli almost single-handedly, thriving in an era where defending was brutal and space was scarce. Ronaldo conquered multiple leagues, evolving his game to remain at the top for over a decade. Messi didn’t just play the game he rewrote it, blending playmaking, dribbling, and goal-scoring in a way no one has ever seen.

Puskás and Di Stéfano dominated in their contexts, but they played in a time when football was more disjointed globally, with fewer tactical complexities and less athleticism across the board. Puskás was a phenomenal goal-scorer, but he lacked the versatility of my tier-one players. Di Stéfano was a pioneer, but his brilliance was largely contained within Real Madrid's golden era, without the same international impact. My tier-one players didn’t just succeed.. they transcended their eras and left a permanent mark on the game’s evolution.

That’s the difference.

 

[harms]

Puskás and Di Stéfano dominated in their contexts, but they played in a time when football was more disjointed globally, with fewer tactical complexities and less athleticism across the board. Puskás was a phenomenal goal-scorer, but he lacked the versatility of my tier-one players.

And what exactly did he lack if you don't mind me asking? Especially compared to, say Romário who had made onto your list.

My tier-one players didn’t just succeed.. they transcended their eras and left a permanent mark on the game’s evolution.

Also, Puskás and, especially, Di Stéfano had left a bigger permanent mark on the game's evolution than at least half of the players on your list. If you consider influence and transcendence (tactical, positional, temporal...), it's impossible not to include Beckenbauer as one of the first names on the list as well.

 

[adexkola]

@antohan remember the Tiers of Greatness graphic you created/modified a few years back?

 

[Kwabs]

There is a pattern here:
Zidane vs Iniesta: you choose Zidane
Maradona vs Messi: you choose Maradona

Very weird for a Barcelona fan. Trying hard to be unbiased me thinks, like a certain Gary Neville.

Maradona has Mexico 86. That is the difference otherwise he too wouldn't be in this discussion.

Yep, Puskas is the forgotten one. The drag back is legendary though. Remember Messi producing one vs Celtic in 2007.

Maradona also played for Barcelona in case ÿou were not aware. And I wouldn't choose Maradona over Messi anyway. It's very close between the two.

I probably would choose Zidane over Iniesta, but Andres is clearly one of the greatest midfielders in history. I just think that Zidane had that bit extra as the creative leader of a team. We never saw Iniesta In that role.

Just because you support a club, it shouldn't make you ignorant or rabidly partisan. Look at the scores of people on this forum who think Messi is better than Ronaldo.

 

[Zehner]

Maradona has Mexico 86. That is the difference otherwise he too wouldn't be in this discussion.

I see Maradona ahead as well, I just don't think there are 10 players who hit a higher peak than R9 between 96 and 99. That player is only behind Maradona, Messi and Pelé in my opinion. I get people who think that peak was too short to consider him but I disagree.

After him, I don't really have a particular order. Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Zico, Best, Ronaldinho, Cristiano, Zidane, Puskas, Garrincha, Eusebio, di Stefano, ...

 

[Kwabs]

Judging by all your other comments Zidane is your hero and that’s fine.
But this is your defence when I say Iniesta eclipses Zidane… goals???
You are trippin if you don’t think Iniesta had a better career than Zidane…

Domestic league titles, Champions leagues and Major International trophy count:
Zidane - 6
Iniesta - 14

You said 'Iniesta surpasses Zidane by every metric', without providing any evidence. I simply disproved that, by citing the most straightforward metric, goals. No one here thinks goals are what makes Zidane or Iniesta good, I was merely disproving a baseless claim.

Zidane is not my hero, I'm not even French. I just call it like I see it.

Now you've gone back to your previous argument, which I already debunked, by trying to add up team trophies. That's not how it works.

"Domestic league titles, Champions leagues and Major International trophy count":

Gérard Pique: 17
Diego Maradona: 4

Ergo, Pique is better than Maradona, by your logic.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

For those suggesting messi stands out because of longevity, think about this.

Pele was the best player for brazil between 1958 and 1970, playing in 4 world cups and winning 3 of them.

Also, there is a distinct lack of George Best here. He's probably the most naturally gifted footballer there has ever been. If he had the focus and professionalism of Sir Bobby or Pele himself, I doubt he'd be ignored. Because of that, he is not going to be the best player ever, but his peaks were higher than nearly everyone on these lists, and he should be in the top 10 of all time.

 

[G97]

You said 'Iniesta surpasses Zidane by every metric', without providing any evidence. I simply disproved that, by citing the most straightforward metric, goals. No one here thinks goals are what makes Zidane or Iniesta good, I was merely disproving a baseless claim.

Zidane is not my hero, I'm not even French. I just call it like I see it.

Now you've gone back to your previous argument, which I already debunked, by trying to add up team trophies. That's not how it works.

"Domestic league titles, Champions leagues and Major International trophy count":

Gérard Pique: 17
Diego Maradona: 4

Ergo, Pique is better than Maradona, by your logic.

Steady, because you used the Ballon d’or win as a measuring stick in your first point. So by your logic Keegan is better than Zidane? He got 2 after all?
- No and I know you don’t think he is. Which is why I didn’t desperately jump on it like you just did.


To be clear then you think Zidane had a greater career than Iniesta?

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

A few patterns on what drives preferences get across quite clearly:

Recency vs legacy: Messi vs Cristiano is the modern, and easier to compare, Maradona vs Pelé. Those inclined to be dismissive of other eras can't fathom Cristiano out of a top tier. Those more inclined to allow for the pros and cons of different eras can easily imagine Pelé under current sports science and training regimes being a comfortably superior cross-breed of those two that leaves Cristiano no grounds to cling on to that tier.

Longevity vs top peak: all four of the above actually had longevity, Maradona was easily world class for a decade. The main difference is, as someone quoted "can't tell if he was the best but his best was the best". Conversely, you could argue the other three spent much longer consistently hitting their top level, which Maradona on average did not.

Wow factor vs numbness: This is directly linked to the above. Messi and Cristiano were so dominant for so long and piled up so many achievements that some instantly put them in the first spots... while some of us just became somewhat numb to it all. We remember the times when they were still developing but can't quite put our finger on that one definitive moment when they blew up and graduated into the GOAT conversation like Diego.

In Pelé's case it's worse because none of us ever watched him expecting anything but GOAT performances from him. It's not just an ex-post thing, same holds for his contemporaries: at age 16 he already scored six goals in three knockout games to win a World Cup. Let that sink in. No loans, no phasing him in with sub appearances on the wing, no waiting for the development of end product, no protecting from the pressure and demands of first team football, just "BOOM! Good luck mate, keep your head screwed on tight, will ya?". And yet, we give all that for granted because we already know he didn't stray.

A lower tier version of this finds us arguing over Zidane's consistency over almost a decade while nobody questions Ronaldinho's because, well, we all know it was a shorter peak, Brazilians party a lot, etc. I love Ronaldinho and am inclined to rank him higher, but have a hard time establishing how his body of work compares favourably to Zidane's. Heart over head really.

Projecting what might have been: a further step of the above. We extrapolate Ronaldo without injuries, Ronaldinho not being a party animal, Best not having a penchant for ladies and booze, etc. But then, you should also extrapolate Puskas with no Hungarian uprising, Duncan Edwards missing a plane, Pelé not getting hacked out of two World Cups, Zico if that Brazil side could defend, Platini if Battiston didn't get pole-axed, Maradona not being into cocaine, a fit Marco van Basten playing well into the 90s, the list goes on...

Quality of competition vs underdog factor: many argue the quality of competition is better these days. You can only beat what's in front of you, so somewhat unfair, but it certainly is. We can be equally unfair and question whether Messi or Cristiano would have dragged RCD Mallorca to their first La Liga title. You can go around in circles with this and superteam advantages all day.

Relevance of international football: this was always a killer for the legacy of the likes of Best or Giggs. I'd agree it's no longer what it used to be as a litmus test. It used to be the case that you saw many players for the first time and got exposed to different styles and tactics, which made true genius shine brighter. Today it's all quite bland, uniform and predictable. In fact, I'm pretty sure most of the top NTs in Qatar would lose to their 1998 incarnation 9/10 times.

Simply irrational stuff Overall, it's quite easy for perceptions of all the above to swing you one way or the other, heart>head. In fact, I'll add a personal one re: Cristiano. Younger fans are all about being player fans, but with pre-Millennials I very much doubt I'm the only one that remembers him more fondly as CR7 v1.0. Everything he did at Madrid was hugely impressive, but I don't particularly care for it or CR9 to be honest. So you work your way through the ranking and while your head says he should be there your heart just cares for CR7 and, frankly, you may as well give that scarce slot to Best, whom we lost to babes and booze, not feckin' Real Madrid.

So no, it's a football ranking made by football fans, there's never going to be a right answer.

Good post but on the relevancy of international football I think it’s actually the most relevant indicator between generations because in 1930 they had a World Cup, in 1970 they had a World Cup and today they have a World Cup, where it’s slightly different but not fundamentally different. Top players have to face the same broad challenges and tasks. Meanwhile club football is unrecognisable from large parts of history. Even club football today is very different from 1989 in what is prioritised, the make-up of teams etc. Pele’s era it’s so different, with players staying in their own country, touring aspect, different priorities for competitions.

It makes it so difficult to compare eras at club level. The World Cup is a more reliable constant.

 

[Wand of a right foot]

Maradona also played for Barcelona in case ÿou were not aware. And I wouldn't choose Maradona over Messi anyway. It's very close between the two.

I probably would choose Zidane over Iniesta, but Andres is clearly one of the greatest midfielders in history. I just think that Zidane had that bit extra as the creative leader of a team. We never saw Iniesta In that role.

Just because you support a club, it shouldn't make you ignorant or rabidly partisan. Look at the scores of people on this forum who think Messi is better than Ronaldo.

The Messi vs Ronaldo comparison is very obvious. Only a blatantly biased individual would say Cristiano is better with the typical reason being "conquered different leagues"

As for Maradona being a Barcelona player, he did not reach Messi's levek for whatever reason.

Re Zidane, being creative leader was because he did not have a teammate like Messi who would overshadow him (Messi can overshadow anyone); by the time he played with R9, the later was really past his best. Iniesta produced as many brilliant moments if not more AND was more consistent. But in the big games it is close. The only thing i'd argue in favour of Zidane is his physical presence and his elegance which was even more than Iniesta's although the later himself was elegant. Therefore, i feel Zidane is somewhat overrated and Iniesta underrated.

I still feel you are downplaying your own former players' greatness almost to sound unbiased.

I see Maradona ahead as well, I just don't think there are 10 players who hit a higher peak than R9 between 96 and 99. That player is only behind Maradona, Messi and Pelé in my opinion. I get people who think that peak was too short to consider him but I disagree.

After him, I don't really have a particular order. Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Zico, Best, Ronaldinho, Cristiano, Zidane, Puskas, Garrincha, Eusebio, di Stefano, ...

In terms of peak performances, those two seasons were great no doubt. But interms of greatness, i feel they are not enough to propel him to the highest tier. And the two seasons should be taken as just that without assuming what could have been purely because Ronaldo's lifestyle means that it is likely that he would not hit the heights some assumed he would.

 

[Teritus]

A few patterns on what drives preferences get across quite clearly:

Recency vs legacy: Messi vs Cristiano is the modern, and easier to compare, Maradona vs Pelé. Those inclined to be dismissive of other eras can't fathom Cristiano out of a top tier. Those more inclined to allow for the pros and cons of different eras can easily imagine Pelé under current sports science and training regimes being a comfortably superior cross-breed of those two that leaves Cristiano no grounds to cling on to that tier.

Longevity vs top peak: all four of the above actually had longevity, Maradona was easily world class for a decade. The main difference is, as someone quoted "can't tell if he was the best but his best was the best". Conversely, you could argue the other three spent much longer consistently hitting their top level, which Maradona on average did not.

Wow factor vs numbness: This is directly linked to the above. Messi and Cristiano were so dominant for so long and piled up so many achievements that some instantly put them in the first spots... while some of us just became somewhat numb to it all. We remember the times when they were still developing but can't quite put our finger on that one definitive moment when they blew up and graduated into the GOAT conversation like Diego.

In Pelé's case it's worse because none of us ever watched him expecting anything but GOAT performances from him. It's not just an ex-post thing, same holds for his contemporaries: at age 16 he already scored six goals in three knockout games to win a World Cup. Let that sink in. No loans, no phasing him in with sub appearances on the wing, no waiting for the development of end product, no protecting from the pressure and demands of first team football, just "BOOM! Good luck mate, keep your head screwed on tight, will ya?". And yet, we give all that for granted because we already know he didn't stray.

A lower tier version of this finds us arguing over Zidane's consistency over almost a decade while nobody questions Ronaldinho's because, well, we all know it was a shorter peak, Brazilians party a lot, etc. I love Ronaldinho and am inclined to rank him higher, but have a hard time establishing how his body of work compares favourably to Zidane's. Heart over head really.

Projecting what might have been: a further step of the above. We extrapolate Ronaldo without injuries, Ronaldinho not being a party animal, Best not having a penchant for ladies and booze, etc. But then, you should also extrapolate Puskas with no Hungarian uprising, Duncan Edwards missing a plane, Pelé not getting hacked out of two World Cups, Zico if that Brazil side could defend, Platini if Battiston didn't get pole-axed, Maradona not being into cocaine, a fit Marco van Basten playing well into the 90s, the list goes on...

Quality of competition vs underdog factor: many argue the quality of competition is better these days. You can only beat what's in front of you, so somewhat unfair, but it certainly is. We can be equally unfair and question whether Messi or Cristiano would have dragged RCD Mallorca to their first La Liga title. You can go around in circles with this and superteam advantages all day.

Relevance of international football: this was always a killer for the legacy of the likes of Best or Giggs. I'd agree it's no longer what it used to be as a litmus test. It used to be the case that you saw many players for the first time and got exposed to different styles and tactics, which made true genius shine brighter. Today it's all quite bland, uniform and predictable. In fact, I'm pretty sure most of the top NTs in Qatar would lose to their 1998 incarnation 9/10 times.

Simply irrational stuff Overall, it's quite easy for perceptions of all the above to swing you one way or the other, heart>head. In fact, I'll add a personal one re: Cristiano. Younger fans are all about being player fans, but with pre-Millennials I very much doubt I'm the only one that remembers him more fondly as CR7 v1.0. Everything he did at Madrid was hugely impressive, but I don't particularly care for it or CR9 to be honest. So you work your way through the ranking and while your head says he should be there your heart just cares for CR7 and, frankly, you may as well give that scarce slot to Best, whom we lost to babes and booze, not feckin' Real Madrid.

So no, it's a football ranking made by football fans, there's never going to be a right answer.

With respect, you miss out the clear factor of nostalgia - usually for the era in which one grew up - overshadowing one's inclination to appreciate modern greats. I would agree that nostalgia is no less pertinent than 'recency vs. legacy' and certainly needs to be mentioned if you address the latter.

 

[Kwabs]

Steady, because you used the Ballon d’or win as a measuring stick in your first point. So by your logic Keegan is better than Zidane? He got 2 after all?
- No and I know you don’t think he is. Which is why I didn’t desperately jump on it like you just did.


To be clear then you think Zidane had a greater career than Iniesta?

I think he was a better player (slightly). Greater career? Well what does that mean? Does Pique have a greater career than Maradona?

The point of using the Ballon D'Or and the domestic POTYs was not to prove that Zidane is better because he has them, it was to counter you just adding up trophies and saying that iniesta was better because he had more trophies.

Meanwhile another player (Messi) was winning all the individual prizes whilst those trophies were being won, suggesting that he was the most important person in the team, not Iniesta.

With Spain, Iniesta was more to the forefront, but I'd still say Xavi was just as important (if not more so) in terms of the creative leadership of the team.

 

[antohan]

@antohan remember the Tiers of Greatness graphic you created/modified a few years back?

Unfortunately I uploaded the rejigged version on tinypic so it's gone, but we do have the original you had come across.

Had some random exclusions borne in PL/Eurocentric views (e.g. no Elías Figueroa) and it's over a decade old so no Suárez, Neymar, Modric, Kroos, Müller, Lewandowski, Salah, De Bruyne, etc. Probably better that way for United supporters.

 

[antohan]

Good post but on the relevancy of international football I think it’s actually the most relevant indicator between generations because in 1930 they had a World Cup, in 1970 they had a World Cup and today they have a World Cup, where it’s slightly different but not fundamentally different. Top players have to face the same broad challenges and tasks. Meanwhile club football is unrecognisable from large parts of history. Even club football today is very different from 1989 in what is prioritised, the make-up of teams etc. Pele’s era it’s so different, with players staying in their own country, touring aspect, different priorities for competitions.

It makes it so difficult to compare eras at club level. The World Cup is a more reliable constant.

I agree. Maybe I should edit to make it clearer but the gist of it was that international football was no longer as useful and reliable to assess players in tgeir respective eras.

What you say here is absolutely spot on, but I can see a 20yo who watched the last couple of world cups and euros going "errmm, meh!" and rightly so.

 

[Kwabs]

The Messi vs Ronaldo comparison is very obvious. Only a blatantly biased individual would say Cristiano is better with the typical reason being "conquered different leagues"

There's literally millions of people who think Ronaldo is better, so I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Maybe your own biases are showing?

As for Maradona being a Barcelona player, he did not reach Messi's levek for whatever reason.

In terms of performances, Diego was great. He didn't have anywhere near the same success winning trophies of course. But it was a totally different era, much more violent, and he had some bad luck in having his ankle broken and contracting Hepatitis.

Re Zidane, being creative leader was because he did not have a teammate like Messi who would overshadow him (Messi can overshadow anyone); by the time he played with R9, the later was really past his best.

Well, Ok, but we can't deal with ifs and buts, we have to look at what happened.

Iniesta produced as many brilliant moments if not more AND was more consistent.

Consistency is often dependent on environment and circumstances though. Of course Iniesta did produce many brilliant moments.

But in the big games it is close. The only thing i'd argue in favour of Zidane is his physical presence and his elegance which was even more than Iniesta's although the later himself was elegant. Therefore, i feel Zidane is somewhat overrated and Iniesta underrated.

I think they were both very elegant players. Zidane was obviously bigger, which helped him in an era that was more physical.

I still feel you are downplaying your own former players' greatness almost to sound unbiased

I'm not, why would I? That makes no sense. Saying I think Zidane was a bit better is not downplaying his greatness anyway.

In terms of peak performances, those two seasons were great no doubt. But interms of greatness, i feel they are not enough to propel him to the highest tier. And the two seasons should be taken as just that without assuming what could have been purely because Ronaldo's lifestyle means that it is likely that he would not hit the heights some assumed he would.

This is a different debate with someone else, but I think you are wrong here too. If someone performs to a level that others can't, that puts them in the highest echelon. And that's what R9 did in those early years.

 

[SilentWitness]

Messi
Ronaldo
Kaka
Ronaldinho
Hibbert
Neymar
Rooney
Iniesta
Henry
Modric

 

[Kwabs]

Good post but on the relevancy of international football I think it’s actually the most relevant indicator between generations because in 1930 they had a World Cup, in 1970 they had a World Cup and today they have a World Cup, where it’s slightly different but not fundamentally different. Top players have to face the same broad challenges and tasks. Meanwhile club football is unrecognisable from large parts of history. Even club football today is very different from 1989 in what is prioritised, the make-up of teams etc. Pele’s era it’s so different, with players staying in their own country, touring aspect, different priorities for competitions.

It makes it so difficult to compare eras at club level. The World Cup is a more reliable constant.

This is so true. There are differences with international football as well of course, many more games, more countries are competitive etc. etc.

But broadly, it is similar to what went before, especially in tournament play. I still think it's the greatest test (especially the World Cup), because it is the biggest stage (2 billion viewers for the last World Cup final) and has the most at stake.

Just listen to any fan of a nation that has won the World Cup talk about the celebrations that took place in the aftermath of that victory across the whole country, and you know that nothing in the club game can truly compare.

 

[Marvin look out]

I'm not sure Zidane is top 10 but he's much higher than Iniesta and Xavi.

A player like Henry belongs in the same tier as Iniesta and Xavi. Legendary players. I use him as an example because he played alongside Zidane for many years in the French national team, and the level differential between them was very apparent. Even past his prime Zidane remained the best player and the undisputed leader of the team. I would expect Iniesta, and to a greater extent Xavi, to be outshined in a team with Zidane in it.

I often see debates about Platini and Zidane as well. Platini is ranked higher by most French journalists and fans who have actually seen both play live. The only midfielder of this century that comes close to Zidane on all time great lists would be Modric.

 

[mertens]

There's literally millions of people who think Ronaldo is better, so I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Maybe your own biases are showing?

Other than his diehard fanboys, no one says that anymore. Even many of his former teammates like Modric, Rooney, Sergio Ramos, Giggs, Scholes etc. rate Messi the greatest player ever. This thread is evidence of that, he's not rated even top-5 for most at a United forum.

The argument that "he conquered multiple leagues" does not make sense too, he has 7 league titles in 23 years. 3 under SAF, 2 at Real in 9 years, and 2 at Juve that already won 7 in a row before him.

 

[Wand of a right foot]

There's literally millions of people who think Ronaldo is better, so I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Maybe your own biases are showing?

In terms of performances, Diego was great. He didn't have anywhere near the same success winning trophies of course. But it was a totally different era, much more violent, and he had some bad luck in having his ankle broken and contracting Hepatitis.

Well, Ok, but we can't deal with ifs and buts, we have to look at what happened.

Consistency is often dependent on environment and circumstances though. Of course Iniesta did produce many brilliant moments.

I think they were both very elegant players. Zidane was obviously bigger, which helped him in an era that was more physical.

I'm not, why would I? That makes no sense. Saying I think Zidane was a bit better is not downplaying his greatness anyway.

This is a different debate with someone else, but I think you are wrong here too. If someone performs to a level that others can't, that puts them in the highest echelon. And that's what R9 did in those early years.

Firstly, when I say Messi is better, I mean it. I dont support Barcelona, i am Man Utd through and through. If you look at my top 10 list, I have Cristiano at 5th but it baffles me whenever anyone says Cristiano is equal to or better than Messi because I have watched them both. Infact, during his early years when Cristiano was on the recieving end of alot of stick, i used to defend him on forums, amogsr fans and in banter with fans of rival teams insisting that he'd come good which he did. Majority who support Cristiano are those who support Man Utd, Real Madrid, Juventus, and the Portuguese national team. Also, like Beckham, Cristisno is a celebrity/brand beyond football far more than Messi. That would explain the cult like following and millions claiming he is greater. My own family are Cristiano fans only because they are all United fans and the arguments are generic.

Secondly, R9 is also on my top 10 list rationale being the success with Brazil and 2 great seasons all of which occured within 5 years. My argument against putting him near the top is his lack of longevity; some put him as high as fourth which I believe is based on "what could have been", a very difficult prediction to make given his very bad lifestyle.

 

[adexkola]

I'm not sure Zidane is top 10 but he's much higher than Iniesta and Xavi.

I can't understand this logic at all.

Teams literally conceded the idea of going to war in midfield against Xavi and Iniesta at their peak

 

[Reij]

I can't understand this logic at all.

Teams literally conceded the idea of going to war in midfield against Xavi and Iniesta at their peak

It was a whole system bro.
Zidane was the system.

 

[Zehner]

In terms of peak performances, those two seasons were great no doubt. But interms of greatness, i feel they are not enough to propel him to the highest tier. And the two seasons should be taken as just that without assuming what could have been purely because Ronaldo's lifestyle means that it is likely that he would not hit the heights some assumed he would.

I'm taking those seasons as just that. He scored 60 goals and assists in 49 games for Barcelona and the quality of those goals was extraordinary. Some of the best solo goals you'll ever see. And those numbers are even more impressive when you consider how goal inflation has kicked in since then. Messi clearly had better seasons that this but not that many.

 

[Acrobat7]

Unfortunately I uploaded the rejigged version on tinypic so it's gone, but we do have the original you had come across.

Had some random exclusions borne in PL/Eurocentric views (e.g. no Elías Figueroa) and it's over a decade old so no Suárez, Neymar, Modric, Kroos, Müller, Lewandowski, Salah, De Bruyne, etc. Probably better that way for United supporters.

I kinda like this tier system.
The only thing that irritates me is that, apart from Messi and C. Ronaldo, they left out all active players. I don't think that's consistent.

Edit: Should have read the whole text. The graphic is a decade old.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

I can't understand this logic at all.

Teams literally conceded the idea of going to war in midfield against Xavi and Iniesta at their peak

Think it's generally the lack of iconic moments for Xaviesta that gets them borderline underrated, along with generally a less flashy style of play than Zidane did.

In the broader regime, midfielders are by far the toughest position group to rank against each other because they are often very much system based and are built around how a team wants to play. People see Xavi and co knocking it about endlessly in circles and struggle to envision those types of players doing anything else, thus pigeonhole them into that.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

I kinda like this tier system.
The only thing that irritates me is that, apart from Messi and C. Ronaldo, they left out all active players. I don't think that's consistent.

The graphic is a decade old

 

[Acrobat7]

The graphic is a decade old

Yeah, should have read the whole paragraph above the pic.

 

[Marvin look out]

I can't understand this logic at all.

Teams literally conceded the idea of going to war in midfield against Xavi and Iniesta at their peak.

I believe people are well aware of that, but I don't see how it changes anything that I've said.

I feel like Xavi-Iniesta are too often brought up like a single player when discussing individual greatness. Then, possession football is a philosophy where everyone has to be involved to make it work. Look what PSG did to Liverpool. The credit goes to Luis Enrique and the rest of the team, not just Vitinha and Ruiz.

Iniesta and Xavi did so with Busquets, Messi, Guardiola, and just whole teams geared towards possession football. Teams nowadays still park the bus against Spain and Barca.

When discussing greatness, I think the Zidane-Henry comparison is more relevant than Xavi and Iniesta averaging 75% of possession in most seasons.

 

[adexkola]

It was a whole system bro.
Zidane was the system.

For who? Juventus? Madrid?

 

[G97]

I'm not sure Zidane is top 10 but he's much higher than Iniesta and Xavi.

A player like Henry belongs in the same tier as Iniesta and Xavi. Legendary players. I use him as an example because he played alongside Zidane for many years in the French national team, and the level differential between them was very apparent. Even past his prime Zidane remained the best player and the undisputed leader of the team. I would expect Iniesta, and to a greater extent Xavi, to be outshined in a team with Zidane in it.

I often see debates about Platini and Zidane as well. Platini is ranked higher by most French journalists and fans who have actually seen both play live. The only midfielder of this century that comes close to Zidane on all time great lists would be Modric.

No chance. Look at his away record in the premier league against the traditional big 6… 6 goals in 8 seasons. He scored 67% of his arsenal goals at Highbury and went missing in finals for arsenal.
Also he didn’t play a minute in the 98 WC final and was basically a passenger in the Barca 09 CL team.
Henry was a great player but the best of the best, stand up in the biggest games, Henry had a tendency to shrink in them.

Xavi and Iniesta are a tier above Thierry because they were as consistent throughout a season as Thierry but also dictated finals almost by themselves at times as vital players in unbelievable teams.

 

[adexkola]

I believe people are well aware of that, but I don't see how it changes anything that I've said.

I feel like Xavi-Iniesta are too often brought up like a single player when discussing individual greatness. Then, possession football is a philosophy where everyone has to be involved to make it work. Look what PSG did to Liverpool. The credit goes to Luis Enrique and the rest of the team, not just Vitinha and Ruiz.

Iniesta and Xavi did so with Busquets, Messi, Guardiola, and just whole teams geared towards possession football. Teams nowadays still park the bus against Spain and Barca.

When discussing greatness, I think the Zidane-Henry comparison is more relevant than Xavi and Iniesta averaging 75% of possession in most seasons.

I get what you're saying, and it is a matter of perception.

 

[V.O.]

Unfortunately I uploaded the rejigged version on tinypic so it's gone, but we do have the original you had come across.

Had some random exclusions borne in PL/Eurocentric views (e.g. no Elías Figueroa) and it's over a decade old so no Suárez, Neymar, Modric, Kroos, Müller, Lewandowski, Salah, De Bruyne, etc. Probably better that way for United supporters.

Rooney, Keane, Cantona, Law, Beckham, Vieira, Zanetti, Makelele, Gerrard, Brehme, Seedorf, Bergomi all a tier below... Stefan Effenberg?

Get out.

 

[Aleryan]

C. Ronaldo is Goat tier. His desires and ability to stay fit put him on top of others who are just talented for a short period of time.

 

[Reij]

@adexkola

For all teams he played.

The only player who was above the tiki taka system was Messi, thanks to his unmatched individual brilliance, aside from Maradona.

The rest were elevated by the system. Not to say they weren't world class. But one thing is being world class and being the top in history. fss

 

[Kwabs]

Other than his diehard fanboys, no one says that anymore.

i mean, if by 'diehard fanboys', you mean the half billion people that follow his every move, then OK. But it's not quite the tiny band of delusional stragglers that you suggest here

Even many of his former teammates like Modric, Rooney, Sergio Ramos, Giggs, Scholes etc. rate Messi the greatest player ever. This thread is evidence of that, he's not rated even top-5 for most at a United forum.

Did all these guys definitely say this about Messi? I know Rooney did, but I don't recall it with the others

The argument that "he conquered multiple leagues" does not make sense too, he has 7 league titles in 23 years. 3 under SAF, 2 at Real in 9 years, and 2 at Juve that already won 7 in a row before him.

He was the top scorer also in each of the three leagues and has over 100 goals for each club, which is very rare I mean Messi is clearly a better player IMO, but I can understand why people say the things they do about Ronaldo.

 

[lex talionis]

Beckenbauer breaks the conceptualisation of football like maybe only Di Stefano can; he’d do so again in this day and age, but I doubt he’d be kept in defense, instead probably moved forward not only into midfield, but utilised as a primarily attacking force who had carte blanche to drop deeper when he felt like it. His numbers would go through the roof and he’d likely revolutionise the attacking midfield position and have it redefined. Think of Rodri’s impact and accolades, multiply it by 10, factor it to a more attacking position, and there you go.

Beckenbauer might even be more idolised in this time than his own. He’d break the game that is currently known.

I can give you my personal assurance that Beckenbauer was idolized more back in the 70s than today -- at least in the US but I'm sure this was the case in Latin America as well. There's no way I can think of to prove this assertion but witnessed Beckenbauer's fame as a kid in the US and no other international soccer player has since come close to the kind of idolization -- neither Beckham nor Messi -- that Beckenbauer enjoyed here when he played for the New York Cosmos.

As for how Franz was regarded then compared to now in Germany I have no idea, but the trophies he won with Bayern and then with West Germany were as widely praised by the German public as was likely possible at the time. Not to derail the thread too much, but Beckenbauer has suffered a fall from grace to some degree late in life, although for reasons completely independent of his genius as a footballer.