I saw this post in the C.Ronaldo thread:
And it got me thinking. The generally accepted top 5-10 footballers of all-time is almost completely populated with with those who controlled and influenced the game at practically all times through their career:
- Pele
- Maradona
- Di Stefano
- Beckenbauer
- Cruyff
Are the generally accepted top 5, with:
- Garrincha*
- Puskas
- Platini
Taking up another three spots for most people and then you have an argument for the other 2spots amongst:
- Eusebio
- Ronaldo (Brazil)
- Best*
- Zidane
- Zico
- Messi
- Charlton
and a host of others usually jostling for the remainder. Depending on who you ask, the order of the names will change, but for the most part, these are the players who contest the very, very highest echelon football has known since its inception.
Now, if you take a look at those players, apart from: Eusebio, Best* & Ronaldo, every one of them is or became the central hub of their side at some point or other, or cemented their legacy by proving they can become that for a period of time that would confirm their brilliance and win their team a trophy. In particular, I am talking about Garrincha's showing at the world cup of 1962 where he took over the play-making, central mantle in the absence of Pele and carried his team to the summit whilst being the catalyst for practically all positive and instrumental play. Without that tournament, Garrincha would still be seen in a tremendous light and still arguably the best wing-forward of all time, but I doubt he'd still be a shoo-in for top ten of all time discussions as he is.
George Best is another winger whose legacy was cemented by him proving to be more than just that with his performances in the European Cup against the best sides of the era where he was pretty much playing in a free role and letting his instinct and genius guide him. If he was 'just' a winger, I don't think he'd get a mention in these discussions, either, but by proving he could link play and take control of a game more through the middle than out wide, he elevated himself to a level you rarely associate with wingers, no matter how brilliant they are (you will never hear the names Gento or Matthews brought up in [the very] greatest of all time discussions, for example.)
The most glaring omission from the lists above, the one player who won his club and NT the greatest prizes, is Gerd Muller, who can easily be placed alongside any striker in history and argued to be the peer or superior of. Gerd Muller was a goalscoring machine, who, as far as striking and match-winning goals are concerned, is probably the gold standard above even Pele and Di Stefano, but he will never top an all-time list for anything but strikers. Why is that? In his field and in the trade of scoring goals, he is actually peerless (if Pele can't match him, I haven't checked but I'm sure he even outdoes him) - the likes of Kocsis, Puskas, Messi, C.Ronaldo and any other player with a phenomenal goals to game ratio may have the numbers, but Muller did it in World Cup finals, European Cup finals and any other zenith game he was involved in as well as against fodder - but it seems to count for little when the game is discussed in terms of those who are perceived to have reached its pinnacle, and yet, as a striker whose job it is to score goals, he could do no more.
There are only two out-and-out strikers on that list: Eusebio and Ronaldo, and they are generally in lists like these above the likes of Muller, Kocsis, Van Basten and Romario because they had the ability to run from the half way line, bamboozle a backline and finish in breath-taking fashion. Essentially the aesthetics of what they did props them up to higher standing than others in the trade of scoring goals – they were seen as more than ‘just’ goal-scorers because of their threat from deep and dribbling ability at pace. The amount of goals they scored seems to be incidental; a bonus rather than being the most important quality, well that’s how it seems to me with the preferential treatment they get in all-time debates. As high as I rate them, and as silky as their skills as footballers over goal-scorers were, the bare bones of it is that someone like Muller matches them and will still not be given his due relative to the kudos they receive.
So if the players in the initial list were removed and any others omitted who were central play-making hubs, who would be in your top 5 players of all-time, and why? Is it then just a matter of working out who all the top goal-scorers are, or do you then look at the contribution and ability of defenders, central midfielders and wingers with a broader, fairer scope?
And it got me thinking. The generally accepted top 5-10 footballers of all-time is almost completely populated with with those who controlled and influenced the game at practically all times through their career:
- Pele
- Maradona
- Di Stefano
- Beckenbauer
- Cruyff
Are the generally accepted top 5, with:
- Garrincha*
- Puskas
- Platini
Taking up another three spots for most people and then you have an argument for the other 2spots amongst:
- Eusebio
- Ronaldo (Brazil)
- Best*
- Zidane
- Zico
- Messi
- Charlton
and a host of others usually jostling for the remainder. Depending on who you ask, the order of the names will change, but for the most part, these are the players who contest the very, very highest echelon football has known since its inception.
Now, if you take a look at those players, apart from: Eusebio, Best* & Ronaldo, every one of them is or became the central hub of their side at some point or other, or cemented their legacy by proving they can become that for a period of time that would confirm their brilliance and win their team a trophy. In particular, I am talking about Garrincha's showing at the world cup of 1962 where he took over the play-making, central mantle in the absence of Pele and carried his team to the summit whilst being the catalyst for practically all positive and instrumental play. Without that tournament, Garrincha would still be seen in a tremendous light and still arguably the best wing-forward of all time, but I doubt he'd still be a shoo-in for top ten of all time discussions as he is.
George Best is another winger whose legacy was cemented by him proving to be more than just that with his performances in the European Cup against the best sides of the era where he was pretty much playing in a free role and letting his instinct and genius guide him. If he was 'just' a winger, I don't think he'd get a mention in these discussions, either, but by proving he could link play and take control of a game more through the middle than out wide, he elevated himself to a level you rarely associate with wingers, no matter how brilliant they are (you will never hear the names Gento or Matthews brought up in [the very] greatest of all time discussions, for example.)
The most glaring omission from the lists above, the one player who won his club and NT the greatest prizes, is Gerd Muller, who can easily be placed alongside any striker in history and argued to be the peer or superior of. Gerd Muller was a goalscoring machine, who, as far as striking and match-winning goals are concerned, is probably the gold standard above even Pele and Di Stefano, but he will never top an all-time list for anything but strikers. Why is that? In his field and in the trade of scoring goals, he is actually peerless (if Pele can't match him, I haven't checked but I'm sure he even outdoes him) - the likes of Kocsis, Puskas, Messi, C.Ronaldo and any other player with a phenomenal goals to game ratio may have the numbers, but Muller did it in World Cup finals, European Cup finals and any other zenith game he was involved in as well as against fodder - but it seems to count for little when the game is discussed in terms of those who are perceived to have reached its pinnacle, and yet, as a striker whose job it is to score goals, he could do no more.
There are only two out-and-out strikers on that list: Eusebio and Ronaldo, and they are generally in lists like these above the likes of Muller, Kocsis, Van Basten and Romario because they had the ability to run from the half way line, bamboozle a backline and finish in breath-taking fashion. Essentially the aesthetics of what they did props them up to higher standing than others in the trade of scoring goals – they were seen as more than ‘just’ goal-scorers because of their threat from deep and dribbling ability at pace. The amount of goals they scored seems to be incidental; a bonus rather than being the most important quality, well that’s how it seems to me with the preferential treatment they get in all-time debates. As high as I rate them, and as silky as their skills as footballers over goal-scorers were, the bare bones of it is that someone like Muller matches them and will still not be given his due relative to the kudos they receive.
So if the players in the initial list were removed and any others omitted who were central play-making hubs, who would be in your top 5 players of all-time, and why? Is it then just a matter of working out who all the top goal-scorers are, or do you then look at the contribution and ability of defenders, central midfielders and wingers with a broader, fairer scope?
Sky.. Nice to watch and looking artistic...
) and they can pretty much win the important games and tournaments on a whim. That's why I also tend to rank Platini higher than people usually do.