Cristiano Ronaldo

[Stack]

For those of you who dont think the skill level has improved I will try and explain.
Firstly its the average players who have improved the most. Great players from previous era's would still be great players today.
The coaching systems for junior and youth players have improved massively all around the world. 40 years ago learning via "street football" had a huge impact and the loss of street football culture where a bunch of kids would put a couple of shirts down as goals and just play has massively reduced because a wide range of reasons. I wish that hadnt happened.
What its been replaced with are coaching systems where the kids now are learning the various skills needed for football in a far more structured, friendly and positive environment. Coaches are now learning how to coach as well as what to coach. There is a greater understanding of learning styles, the fact that kids have differing growth spurts and those affect intellectual, physical and emotional aspects of their learning. Training is now even more finely tailored to the appropriate needs of the different age groups. Skills are now taught in a structured method, the skill moves are broken down into easily learned bites and then put together as a single move. The difference here is that skill aquisition is faster than when the kids learned through free play. However free play at training is more and more encouraged at coaching sessions. Coaching sessions are made up of components that teach and then have components where kids are free to play, experiment and learn.
Sessions are now designed to allow the kids to find the answers rather than being told the answers so learning is now faster. There has been a huge growth all over the world of private coaching systems such as Coerver for example.
Kids are far more than 40 years ago playing on appropriate sized pitches with small numbers in teams. Many countries are now using 3v3 games for the smallest kids and then increasing team numbers as the kids get older. The beauty of having 7&8 year olds playing 4v4 or 7v7 is that during a game they touch the ball more often which in turn allows them to improve faster. 45 years ago when I was a kid we were playing 11 v 11 on full sized pitches and physicality was an important ingredient for getting notice and join a big clubs junior academies.
The way we were coached as kids 40 years ago for the majority of kids is just laughable when compared with today.
The improvement in skills is part of the driving factor for the increased speed of the game today. You can be a super fast and super strong football player today but if you cant control the ball at pace and under pressure then all those physical attributes wont mean a thing.
Back when I was a kid there was very little chance of being coached by a professional coach but today even at the 5&6 year age group there are coaches around now earning a living coaching the little ones.
There has been a massive improvement in coaching standards among the junior and youth age groups. The kids get to touch the ball far more often at training and also in games than they did 40 years ago. The pitches the kids are learning on for the most part are far better quality than 40 years ago. The boots are better. The kids now are learning to play with appropriate sized balls and play games with footballs that suit their size and age. All these things mean an improved skill level.

I am baffled that people dont understand the skill levels have improved. It indicates to me that many fans are people who watch football but dont see whats happening all over the world at grass roots level, dont attend kids games, havent watched kids trainings and have no reference to how bad coaching for the average player was back then.

 

[RooneyLegend]

Do you not think it has improved in the past 100 years?

it did in the first half of the century due to more participation around the world then it got halted once everyone took part. Human beings have limitations that have stopped the development of the skill factor in football that simply cant be changed. You still have two legs and 10 toes and the concept of a football still remains the same. People are making it seem as though on a technical level it could be argued that someone like Ribery is on the same level as a best simply because he came later and learnt things about skill that best couldn't which is absolute nonsense. The majority of the skill level in football is learnt at an early age which is why its almost impossible for a player to change the type of player they are through the years as a pro. All the legends say the same thing about their upbringing, all they did everyday was kick a football around. Today's players couldn't have done any more than that hence Bobby Charlton probably still has the finest ball striking technique ever seen on a football pitch.

 

[Stack]

it did in the first half of the century due to more participation around the world then it got halted once everyone took part. Human beings have limitations that have stopped the development of the skill factor in football that simply cant be changed. You still have two legs and 10 toes and the concept of a football still remains the same. People are making it seem as though on a technical level it could be argued that someone like Ribery is on the same level as a best simply because he came later and learnt things about skill that best couldn't which is absolute nonsense. The majority of the skill level in football is learnt at an early age which is why its almost impossible for a player to change the type of player they are through the years as a pro. All the legends say the same thing about their upbringing, all they did everyday was kick a football around. Today's players couldn't have done any more than that hence Bobby Charlton probably still has the finest ball striking technique ever seen on a football pitch.

The level of ability of the average players has massively improved. That is one of the many things which mean the pace of the game today is able to be so high

 

[RooneyLegend]

The level of ability of the average players has massively improved. That is one of the many things which mean the pace of the game today is able to be so high

Nope, the game is faster due to tactics and equipment not skill. Brazil 1970 had far better players on a technical level than today's brazil, don't even think that can be argued.

 

[Pat_Mustard]

The impact of technology on cycling is obviously considerably higher but I think it illustrates an interesting point all the same.

As for running being only one aspect of football, that's of course true but then again the fact that football is as much about technique as it is about athletics is one of the main reasons why I don't think it's that outrageous to suggest the improvements between now and, say, 30 years ago aren't as dramatic as people like to suggest. I'm going to bring in another poster much more well versed on the wider sporting world to make the point better than I could....

The point definitely still stands as regards weightlifting. The all-time records have yet to be broken. Powerlifting was probably a shite example on my part is its a mess of a 'sport' as regards to equipment and drug testing. I shouldn't even get into boxing, but I defy anyone to argue that any of the current heavyweights are faster than Tyson or Ali. Gio's posted some great stuff on this lately:

That's not the case though.

The Mens 400m, Womens 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, 1500m, both long jumps, high jumps, javelin, shot putt, etc - the records for these were all set 20-30 years ago. The records for the men's 800m, 1500m, Mile, 3000m, 5000m, 10000m have all seen tiny if any improvement in the last 20 years. For example, Seb Coe ran 1.41.7 in the 800m 33 years ago. That record has been broken twice since then, but still all that time later less than a second has come off it. In fact when you factor in better spikes and tracks, performance in most of these events has levelled off or declined.

I think that there's a big argument that the 'lowest level' in top class professional football has improved, and continues to improve. As regards the absolute top-level, I really don't buy into the argument that today's players dwarf yesterday's as regards athleticism. Cristiano Ronaldo would still be one of the best athletes to ever play the game, maybe the greatest, but someone like Eusebio or Facchetti could still come close to him athletically, and they'd still be absolutely exceptional today in terms of athleticism.

 

[Stack]

Nope, the game is faster due to tactics and equipment not skill. Brazil 1970 had far better players on a technical level than today's brazil, don't even think that can be argued.

Sorry but you are completely wrong there. You have taken one of the best teams ever to illustrate your point but are completely ignoring the impact that the improvements to the average player have had. Your example is flawed.

 

[TheShedEnd]

Ronaldo trying to look taller on photos.

LOL! He may not be the best but he's certainly the most self-absorbed footballer of all time.

 

[fishfingers15]

Ronaldo trying to look taller on photos.

Ronaldo is like those girls I've seen in the US. They would be screaming at their top of the lungs, but the moment you focus a camera on them, they break into the most loveliest of smiles.

 

[RedPnutz]

Why do people keep perpetuating this myth that the skill level has improved?

Why is it a myth and on what grounds would you justify that skill levels haven't improved?

 

[RooneyLegend]

Sorry but you are completely wrong there. You have taken one of the best teams ever to illustrate your point but are completely ignoring the impact that the improvements to the average player have had. Your example is flawed.

tell me why skill would make it faster? barca's tempo for example is slower than most prem teams yet they are technically significantly on a higher level. Technical skill doesn't make football faster its really that simple. The Europeans for example like a more patient game while the brits like the high tempo all action stuff, does that mean that the Brits are more skillful? Lighter balls, better grass, lighter boots and tactics focused on team movement along with improved physicality is what makes the game so much faster, not technical skill.

Technically each country goes through their generations. Its not constantly improving as you might think. 50 years ago this high level coaching that you speak of at youth level wasn't needed that much because all people really cared about was football and spent all their time in their young days kicking a ball around and that in itself develops that side of your game. Rinus Michels wrote about this in his book(in the late 90's). This great youth coaching is especially needed now because of how little football is being played in the streets every day and that number has been getting less and less. Another thing is physicality has become even more important as the years have gone by which means that extremely technical lads who sometimes aren't
getting the chance to make it to the pro's because they are seen to not have have physical capabilities to cope with the Valencia's of this world.

 

[sullydnl]

it did in the first half of the century due to more participation around the world then it got halted once everyone took part. Human beings have limitations that have stopped the development of the skill factor in football that simply cant be changed. You still have two legs and 10 toes and the concept of a football still remains the same. People are making it seem as though on a technical level it could be argued that someone like Ribery is on the same level as a best simply because he came later and learnt things about skill that best couldn't which is absolute nonsense. The majority of the skill level in football is learnt at an early age which is why its almost impossible for a player to change the type of player they are through the years as a pro. All the legends say the same thing about their upbringing, all they did everyday was kick a football around. Today's players couldn't have done any more than that hence Bobby Charlton probably still has the finest ball striking technique ever seen on a football pitch.

A) Are you saying we've reached the peak of what is humanly possible in terms of skill? People were saying the same thing about the four minute mile, athletes have an amazing ability to keep improving with every generation...

B) Maybe it wasn't possible for today's players to practice more but it is definitely possible for them to practice better. It isn't simply a case of more hours spent playing football directly equating to how good you are at football.....

 

[RooneyLegend]

Why is it a myth and on what grounds would you justify that skill levels haven't improved?

It's a myth because people always lead themselves to believe that just because something is modern its better, which is rubbish. On the grounds of watching loads and loads of footage. This notion is particularly perplexing because football in the past few years has gone through a generation in which there's been less and less quality from a technical standpoint, which there clearly there's clearly been an improvement in, in the past 2 or 3 years and the next looks like it'll be much better.

 

[RooneyLegend]

A) Are you saying we've reached the peak of what is humanly possible in terms of skill? People were saying the same thing about the four minute mile, athletes have an amazing ability to keep improving with every generation...

B) Maybe it wasn't possible for today's players to practice more but it is definitely possible for them to practice better. It isn't simply a case of more hours spent playing football directly equating to how good you are at football.....

Athletic capabilities and technical ones are things that are in a completely different field. There's nothing someone can do on a football pitch in terms of control of the ball that hadn't been done in the past. We've reached that peak a long time ago when Football became such a widespread sport.

But then they'll always be the natural talent restriction. Even with these hours on training pitches with the best coaching humanly possibly isn't turning Fletcher's control of the ball into Di Stefano's. It just ain't happening. Players have the ability to improve technically but they'll always have a ceiling. Players like Cristiano have reached that ceiling a long time ago hence nothing he does now with the ball, despite his obscene work-rate with modern facilities looks any different. This ceiling has been reached a long time ago imo which is why i believe that arguing that todays footballers are more technical just isn't true.

 

[Stack]

tell me why skill would make it faster? barca's tempo for example is slower than most prem teams yet they are technically significantly on a higher level. Technical skill doesn't make football faster its really that simple. The Europeans for example like a more patient game while the brits like the high tempo all action stuff, does that mean that the Brits are more skillful? Lighter balls, better grass, lighter boots and tactics focused on team movement along with improved physicality is what makes the game so much faster, not technical skill.

Technically each country goes through their generations. Its not constantly improving as you might think. 50 years ago this high level coaching that you speak of at youth level wasn't needed that much because all people really cared about was football and spent all their time in their young days kicking a ball around and that in itself develops that side of your game. Rinus Michels wrote about this in his book(in the late 90's). This great youth coaching is especially needed now because of how little football is being played in the streets every day and that number has been getting less and less. Another thing is physicality has become even more important as the years have gone by which means that extremely technical lads who sometimes aren't
getting the chance to make it to the pro's because they are seen to not have have physical capabilities to cope with the Valencia's of this world.

Technical skill absolutely has a part in making football faster. The ability to receive a ball while under pressure and at pace enabling a player to choose the right pass helps speed up play. How a ball is received is vital in this. Does a players first touch set up the next pass, is the first touch to protect the ball. Is their next touch to create space to make a pass. Those things were all important 40 years ago but in the modern game players in games can be shut down faster and defenders run lines to try and kill off passing options. This is all happening at more pace than 40 years ago. Being able to get a ball under control under pressure and release an accurate pass quickly means the ball speed of the game is up. Slow ball speed ( assuming you understand what the term ball speed means) is useless today. There are tons of videos on youtube of entire games the Brazil 1970 side played in and you can just see how slow the game was. You can also see the difference in receiving techniques we see today especially those under pressure.
With respect to how little street football is played that has been replaced by more training and play in organised coaching. The good kids are playing just as much football as 40 years ago. Also summer football has kicked in all over the world so the season for kids lasts 11 months and not 6 months.
For example, a group of 9 year old boys I am coaching at the moment, 30 of them (2 coaches involved). Its now summer here. Those boys come to us twice a week for 90 minutes. They are also all playing futsal once a week. Many of them are involved in a regional rep program and train twice a week. This is the off season.
Physicality is not what junior and youth coaches are working on. This is because studies and modern coaching systems understand that junior and youth players are developing physically, mentally and emotionally at different rates and in their own individual bursts. So coaches are now concentrating on building up technical prowess. Physicality is of no use to a senior player if they can't control the ball. Its sort of like putting a Skoda engine in a Ferrari F1 body.

What you are describing with respect to physicality was the approach to coaching 20 years ago, things have moved on since then.

You are horribly out of touch.

 

[RedPnutz]

It's a myth because people always lead themselves to believe that just because something is modern its better, which is rubbish. On the grounds of watching loads and loads of footage. This notion is particularly perplexing because football in the past few years has gone through a generation in which there's been less and less quality from a technical standpoint, which there clearly there's clearly been an improvement in, in the past 2 or 3 years and the next looks like it'll be much better.

While it may be true, to our current knowledge, that humans may have limitations such that our ability to perform some acts reach a certain saturation threshold or increase at a slower pace. But, technology and science can help to push those boundaries.

Not all modern things are necessarily better but similarly antiquated things may also not be better. My issue with your post, is that you claim with certainty especially regarding football that modern science has not aided to improve technical abilities and skills of players since the time of Pele. What about Ronaldinho? Is he less skillful or only just as skilled as Pele?

Picking out a singular example is rather pointless of me but your absolute and deterministic statement only begs a few counterexamples to refute. In a similar vein, using Ronaldo or Messi as cherry-picked datapoints to support the argument that skills have not improved since Pele or Maradona is also logically fallacious. If we speak of general population average, then I have serious doubts that you have watched sufficient footage of football across the world, across all age groups, across several decades then devised some form of objective, composite measureable metric of skill levels and then arrive at your conclusion that the improvement of skill levels over the years is a myth.

Also, the frame of reference could be important. If most players around are performing at 3/10 levels then performing at 6/10 makes you look like a genius. Performing at 8/10 when others are mostly 6/10 doesn't seem as great.

The performance of skills and techniques relies on coordination, balance, acuity etc which in turn is rooted on physical prowess and muscular strength. If modern technology can raise the overall physical prowess and effectiveness of an athlete, it would logically follow that skill levels have more likely than not, improved over the decades.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Agree with a lot of this. What I found interesting was a study on Brazilian international players from 1970 compared with the late 1990s. While the modern players covered a lot more distance and at greater intensity, their VO2 max figures were relatively unchanged. And then you also have the example of the players who have adapted within the course of their careers to more demanding environments, even in spite of the debilitating factor of age. See the Premiership players who do more high intensity running now than they did 10 years ago yet can adapt easily enough with the right training

Just to come back to this point, surely this is hard evidence that modern footballers are fitter and more athletic than those from Pele's era?

I guess it's possible that someone like Pele was a genetic freak who didn't need the benefit of sports science to run as fast and for as long as Ronaldo (although I'm still dubious that he could have been as highly tuned an athlete, 40 years go) but the fact that this would give him such a big advantage over almost every opposition player would explain why he was so much more likely to influence Brazil's results in tournaments than Ronaldo is able to influence Portugal's results today.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I guess it depends on how you want to compare really. If you're simply comparing them as these players were at their time then I feel the comparison you're making is more about the times they lived in. Saying Ronaldo is better now than Pele was then (which I'm doubtful is true in any case), is not saying much about Ronaldo. It seems to say more about the world around him in comparison to Pele's.

I prefer to compare with context if it's to be done. You look at that players and the football they played considering how they stood out among their peers back then and how a current player does with regards to the same. That, for me, is a proper comparison of individuals, if a comparison is to be made.That's why Pele and Maradona are considered the greatest and Ronaldo is only even considered on Redcafe (and maybe in Portugal).

 

[Balu]

and maybe in Portugal

Has he already surpassed Eusebio in Portugal? Is it an easy decision by now to rate him as the greatest Portuguese footballer ever?

Maybe @Sly can give us a bit of insight here? If I'm not mistaken you rate Ronaldo higher, but what's the overall consensus or is there one? I guess there's the usual Benfica fans rate Eusebio higher and Sporting fans rate Ronaldo higher thing going on, but besides that, what does the rest of the country think?

/edit: should probably have tagged @Arruda as well.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Has he already surpassed Eusebio in Portugal? Is it an easy decision by now to rate him as the greatest Portuguese footballer ever?

Maybe @Sly can give us a bit of insight here? If I'm not mistaken you rate Ronaldo higher, but what's the overall consensus or is there one? I guess there's the usual Benfica fans rate Eusebio higher and Sporting fans rate Ronaldo higher thing going on, but besides that, what does the rest of the country think?

Sorry I meant overall greatness not among players from Portugal.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Has he already surpassed Eusebio in Portugal? Is it an easy decision by now to rate him as the greatest Portuguese footballer ever?

Maybe @Sly can give us a bit of insight here? If I'm not mistaken you rate Ronaldo higher, but what's the overall consensus or is there one? I guess there's the usual Benfica fans rate Eusebio higher and Sporting fans rate Ronaldo higher thing going on, but besides that, what does the rest of the country think?

Is it an easy decision? Eusebio's scoring record over his entire career is staggering.

 

[VP]

Don't the numbers of players imply better quality these days? There are significantly more players playing football now but the number of clubs/top teams is unchanged. Average quality has definitely increased and to do it statistically we'd have to look at far ahead Ronaldo is of the average player and compare it to the equivalent figure for Pele. My hunch is that Ronaldo's standard deviation is larger than Pele's - averaging a goal/game in this era is absurdly good. It's simplistic but you could also cut across different fields. Given the number of people playing football, I'd say Messi and Ronaldo are the most talented humans alive.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Don't the numbers of players imply better quality these days? There are significantly more players playing football now but the number of clubs/top teams is unchanged. Average quality has definitely increased and to do it statistically we'd have to look at far ahead Ronaldo is of the average player and compare it to the equivalent figure for Pele. My hunch is that Ronaldo's standard deviation is larger than Pele's - averaging a goal/game in this era is absurdly good. It's simplistic but you could also cut across different fields. Given the number of people playing football, I'd say Messi and Ronaldo are the most talented humans alive.

I'm sorry but

Also, why are you making random hunches about things like standard deviation? Either check some records and do some math or don't make such bold conclusions to suit your favorites.

 

[Balu]

Is it an easy decision? Eusebio's scoring record over his entire career is staggering.

Not for me, no. Which is why I'd like to know more about how it's seen in Portugal.

 

[VP]

I'm sorry but

Also, why are you making random hunches about things like standard deviation? Either check some records and do some math or don't make such bold conclusions to suit your favorites.

Fifa estimated around 265 million people play football and this was 8 years ago. Show me another field with such a large talent pool and where there are two guys so definitively the best.

Why am I making hunches? Err..because I'm a saddo on an internet forum sharing my opinion. I don't have the time to do the math or check the records. I'd be happy if you'd do it and I can change my mind.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Fifa estimated around 265 million people play football and this was 8 years ago. Show me another field with such a large talent pool and where there are two guys so definitively the best.

Why am I making hunches? Err..because I'm a saddo on an internet forum sharing my opinion. I don't have the time to do the math or check the records. I'd be happy if you'd do it and I can change my mind.

No excuse for talking out of your arse, is it?

"Yeah, I reckon Ronaldo's STANDARD DEVIATION of performance is greater than Pele's."

Come on, don't you see how absurd that reads?

 

[VP]

No excuse for talking out of your arse, is it?

"Yeah, I reckon Ronaldo's STANDARD DEVIATION of performance is greater than Pele's."

Come on, don't you see how absurd that reads?

Not particularly. I said that's my hunch which is - and I'm copying from the dictionary to help you understand - a feeling or guess based on intuition rather than fact. I have no idea how you'd actually measure how far ahead Ronaldo is ahead of his peers vis-a-vis Pele.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Not particularly. I said that's my hunch which is - and I'm copying from the dictionary to help you understand - a feeling or guess based on intuition rather than fact. I have no idea how you'd measure how far ahead of Ronaldo is ahead of his peers.

So it is nonsense, basically. As I thought. It would have some meaning if you had watched tons of games Pele played in and were obsessed with watching games from earlier eras like Brwnd is. You're just making random statements with little knowledge, if any. Moving on.

 

[VP]

So it is nonsense, basically. As I thought. It would have some meaning if you had watched tons of games Pele played in and were obsessed with watching games from earlier eras like Brwnd is. You're just making random statements with little knowledge, if any. Moving on.

Ok, will ensure I have complete knowledge before I offer an opinion on an internet forum next time.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I guess it depends on how you want to compare really. If you're simply comparing them as these players were at their time then I feel the comparison you're making is more about the times they lived in. Saying Ronaldo is better now than Pele was then (which I'm doubtful is true in any case), is not saying much about Ronaldo. It seems to say more about the world around him in comparison to Pele's.

I prefer to compare with context if it's to be done. You look at that players and the football they played considering how they stood out among their peers back then and how a current player does with regards to the same. That, for me, is a proper comparison of individuals, if a comparison is to be made.That's why Pele and Maradona are considered the greatest and Ronaldo is only even considered on Redcafe (and maybe in Portugal).

Of course it does. In the absence of a time machine to transport one or other of them to a different era, everything they do has to be in the context of the era in which they play their football. If we accept that the average standard of football is much higher now than it was 70 years ago, it stands to reason that someone who excels in this era is very likely to be a better player than someone who excelled in an era where football in general was at a lower standard.

Regarding your second paragraph, I'm increasingly convinced that the refusal to acknowledge contemporary players as greater than their historic counterparts is fuelled by a combination of nostalgia, the fact a much smaller proportion of their performances were televised (and an even smaller proportion actually watched by the people talking them up) and a vague sort of football hipsterism. The equivalent of music bores (like myself!) insisting that no modern music is a patch on what was produced "back in the day".

 

[Gio]

I am baffled that people dont understand the skill levels have improved. It indicates to me that many fans are people who watch football but dont see whats happening all over the world at grass roots level, dont attend kids games, havent watched kids trainings and have no reference to how bad coaching for the average player was back then.

I agree that the average skill level has improved, primarily in short possession football - other technical areas are less clear, and that coaching is a lot better than it used to be. But it was street football that essentially developed players 30-50 years ago, at least here in the UK. That offered huge contact time with the ball, the volume of which in most cases will surpass what's on offer through coaching today. In some cases it was arguably too much, but those who survived and thrived benefited hugely from all that focused technical work. In Scotland we haven't really replaced street football, kids generally don't play enough football and the standard of the average player has dropped - a couple of hours a week on an astroturf, however well coached it is, just doesn't cut it. The brightest talents are getting a bit more than that, but they are not supported by the falling standards underneath them. In fact you can chart our decline on the international stage in line with the demise of street football and the corresponding lack of a properly resourced coaching and development infrastructure to replace it.

 

[Sly]

Has he already surpassed Eusebio in Portugal? Is it an easy decision by now to rate him as the greatest Portuguese footballer ever?

Maybe @Sly can give us a bit of insight here? If I'm not mistaken you rate Ronaldo higher, but what's the overall consensus or is there one? I guess there's the usual Benfica fans rate Eusebio higher and Sporting fans rate Ronaldo higher thing going on, but besides that, what does the rest of the country think?

/edit: should probably have tagged @Arruda as well.

You answered it yourself in your second phrase. I'd put Porto fans in the Ronaldo camp also. Of course there are some Porto fans that prefer Eusébio but from my experience the vast majority of Porto fans rate Ronaldo higher. It's a very tricky question because portuguese people like their football clubs above everything. Above the national team, above any individual player dispute. It's difficult to find an objective answer (besides imparcial football journalists that are very hard to find) because in the end it all boils down to Benfica vs Sporting vs Porto. Since Porto fans hate far more Benfica than Sporting they usually pick Ronaldo.

But there are also fans that follow the more rational and current path. How can they rate Eusébio far higher if they never seen him play? How can they rate a player that spent the most important part of his career just at Benfica? Who just played one major tournament for our national team? Most of us can't compare playing style with accurate precision because Eusébio footage is rare and we are fed every week with Ronaldo achievements since his United times, till his Madrid days and in the multiple major tournaments he played for our national team. Older players like Simões, José Augusto and Coluna rated Eusébio higher. New players like Figo, Vítor Baía, Paulo Sousa rate Ronaldo higher.

As a Sporting fan of course i prefer Ronaldo. He came from my clubs academy, played for two of the biggest clubs in the world in United and Real and has been an integral part of the most successful era of our national team (qualifying to all major tournaments, reaching a final and semi final of an Euro and the 4th place in the WC). He has won the Ballon D´Or twice (most any portuguese player ever won) and the European Golden Boot (or whatever you call it) three times surpassing Eusébio's two times. Won the Champions League twice (against Eusébio's single win). He's the only global icon our country has and people nowadays can't dissociate themselves from that with all the Ronaldo media hysteria.
On the other hand Eusébio also won a Ballon D´Or, lead the country to the best WC result with a 3rd place and has an amazing scoring record for a Benfica side that won several leagues in Portugal and an European Cup. He figures in the top 10 players of all time list for most respected journalists. He was praised by figures like Di Stefano, Pélé, Beckenbauer, Puskas etc... You just can't discard that. He doesn't get more simpathy from people outside the Benfica universe because he was a staunch Benfica fan who affronted Porto and Sporting multiple times. I don't blame him for that. He was genuine. But in portuguese partizan football mentality people don´t forget that.

For me he's an integral part of portuguese football history. He's up there on the top (for me in second place, for others in first). That's not an important discussion for me. What matters is that they are two big embassadors that put this small country on the map and made portuguese people proud of their achievements.

 

[Balu]

For me he's an integral part of portuguese football history. He's up there on the top (for me in second place, for others in first). That's not an important discussion for me. What matters is that they are two big embassadors that put this small country on the map and made portuguese people proud of their achievements.

Yeah, that's a very good final statement. Thanks for the post. It really is highly impressive that this small country (with a little bit of help from Mozambique ) gave the football world two incredible attacking players.

 

[Hamadovich86]

...

Pelé played 3 official games against European clubs (Intercontinental Cup, so all were v the reigning European champions fyi) and scored 7 goals.
Yeah, he was absolutely vital in only 2 World Cup wins, one of them as a teenager for god's sake. Injury prevented him from doing it in 1962 as well.

re: 2nd bold... eh? Maradona scored shitloads as a teenager in Argentina, then after a short detour to Spain went to ultra-defensive Serie A where he became defined as a playmaker and was still near the top of the goalscoring charts in most seasons anyway. It's with him that Napoli won the only league titles and only European title in their entire history.

Regarding Pele theres no comparing between three games in the Intercontental Cup and the hundreds of games in modern day European Leagues there just isnt. I didnt mean to diminish his role in the 58 and 70 world cup wins because he was vital but like I said he was surrounded by excellent attacking players like Jairzinho (1970) and Garrincha (1958,1962) so he didnt do it alone. Personally I cant rate him as the greatest of all time his time period is too far removed and not having seen him play at all also makes it difficult for me to put him as the very best.

As for Maradona I believe hes the best ever and yes he did carry Argentina and Napoli to glory however in terms of a goal scoring record he has 312 in 588 games (clubs only) versus Messi's 365 in 439 games and Ronaldo's 397 in 585. Clearly the numbers are in Messi/Ronaldo's favor considering they both started out playing wide to me it means it is on par with Maradona being a 10.

The question that I was trying to address is what is it that Messi/Ronaldo need to do to be considering the greatest and the answer to me is win the World Cup. In Ronaldo's case it seems very improbable but Messi might have one last chance in 2018 and if he does win it then I would put him above Maradona but for now Diego is number one.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Can anyone give a run-down of how Brazilian football worked in Pele's day? If its anything like the modern system it's not at all disingenuous to call his goal scoring record into question a little.

At the moment (to my knowledge) the bread and butter of a Brazilian league players career are regional leagues in which professional teams with huge stadiums regularly come up against semi-pro teams with a few dozen fans. It's clearly demonstrable that the best Brazilian teams are packed with talent (to a far greater extent than in Pele's day, to the extent that they were perfectly capable of beating the best in Europe) but the gap between the best teams and the worst at the moment is like La Liga taken to the nth degree. I don't think it's too much of a slight on Pele as by all accounts he delivered in the big games against top opposition as well, but it helps put the ridiculous goal tallies into perspective.

 

[Skorenzy]

Regarding Pele theres no comparing between three games in the Intercontental Cup and the hundreds of games in modern day European Leagues there just isnt. I didnt mean to diminish his role in the 58 and 70 world cup wins because he was vital but like I said he was surrounded by excellent attacking players like Jairzinho (1970) and Garrincha (1958,1962) so he didnt do it alone. Personally I cant rate him as the greatest of all time his time period is too far removed and not having seen him play at all also makes it difficult for me to put him as the very best.

As for Maradona I believe hes the best ever and yes he did carry Argentina and Napoli to glory however in terms of a goal scoring record he has 312 in 588 games (clubs only) versus Messi's 365 in 439 games and Ronaldo's 397 in 585. Clearly the numbers are in Messi/Ronaldo's favor considering they both started out playing wide to me it means it is on par with Maradona being a 10.

The question that I was trying to address is what is it that Messi/Ronaldo need to do to be considering the greatest and the answer to me is win the World Cup. In Ronaldo's case it seems very improbable but Messi might have one last chance in 2018 and if he does win it then I would put him above Maradona but for now Diego is number one.

Sure, that is perfectly reasonable, so why then come out with the Euro-centric argument when you yourself admit that "time period is too far removed [from you]"? It's only a relatively recent development that European club football has become so dominant compared to South American football (since the late 1980s/early 1990s I'd say), before it was a lot more even with neither continent's clubs outright dominating -- just look at the results of the Intercontinental Cup which is still to this day (incl. FIFA CWC) extremely tight.

Re: ICC, yes 3 games is a ridiculously low sample size, but come on... the guy scored twice at home against Benfica in the 1st leg, then scored a hat-trick (and made an awesome assist) in Lisbon in the 2nd leg and the next year played only the 1st leg against AC Milan at the San Siro and scored both his side's only goals as they lost 4-2. If any modern day player so comprehensively destroys the reigning European champions I can't even imagine the hype that would result from that.

Can anyone give a run-down of how Brazilian football worked in Pele's day? If its anything like the modern system it's not at all disingenuous to call his goal scoring record into question a little.

At the moment (to my knowledge) the bread and butter of a Brazilian league players career are regional leagues in which professional teams with huge stadiums regularly come up against semi-pro teams with a few dozen fans. It's clearly demonstrable that the best Brazilian teams are packed with talent (to a far greater extent than in Pele's day, to the extent that they were perfectly capable of beating the best in Europe) but the gap between the best teams and the worst at the moment is like La Liga taken to the nth degree. I don't think it's too much of a slight on Pele as by all accounts he delivered in the big games against top opposition as well, but it helps put the ridiculous goal tallies into perspective.

There was a professional league system (the CBF was founded in 1914, became affiliated with FIFA in 1923 and become professionalized in 1933), same in structure as modern day ones the difference being they were only regional as opposed to having both national, ie. state championships (as they still exist today in Brazil). Pelé's club, Santos, was located in São Paulo state so belonged to that state championship (commonly known as the Paulista); together with Rio de Janeiro state (referred to as Carioca) they were the two biggest leagues, in fact so big that they each had their own tiers (Carioca had two and Paulista as much as four I think), so relegation and promotion existed in these regional structures. The Paulista fluctuated in size, from 20 clubs in the top flight in 1957 to 18 in 1960, to 16 in 1961, to 14 in 1967 and eventually to only 10 in 1970, back up to 12 the next year and back to 14 in 1974 when Pelé left Santos.

Comparing the Paulista to the current La Liga is actually fairly apt IMO although it was probably more competitive at the top and far less so at the bottom (especially when it had 18-20 teams). Here is where it becomes interesting, in Pelé's day is when the first efforts were made to try and create a nation-wide competition... there was the Taça Brasil (comparable to the FA Cup) from 1959 to 1968 which was designed to allow teams to qualify for the newly created Copa Libertadores (South American equivalent of the European Cup). So the various state championship winners would face each other in this knock-out cup format and the eventual winner went on to represent Brazil in the CL. And to once again demonstrate that football has always looked out for the best interests of the biggest clubs (and to again highlight the high standard of Paulista and Carioca) the league champs of these two states got a bye all the way to the semi-finals. Anyway, there was also an inter-state championship, the Torneio Rio-São Paulo, which ran uninterrupted from 1950 until 1966, in which the five best teams of each state faced each other (imagine merging the top5 of La Liga and the PL), after that there was the Taça de Prata (1967-70) which included teams from five states, and then finally in 1971 we have the birth of the (current) Brasileiro Série A.

So while there are many legitimate caveats that need to be taken into account with the regional leagues (which were still of a fairly good level), the Rio-São Paulo tourney was probably more competitive and of a higher standard than any other competition of its time, in my opinion (and perhaps even comparable to the latter stages of the modern Champions League)... just look at the concentration of world-class players who played for teams in these two state championships between 1958 and 1974 (Pelé, Garrincha, Didí, Djalma Santos, Nílton Santos, Gilmar, Zito, Altafini, Zagallo, Amarildo, Vavá, Mauro Ramos, Julinho, Jair Rosa Pinto, Jair da Costa, Coutinho, Pepe, Bellini, Quarentinha, Waldo Machado, Rivellino, Carlos Alberto, Jairzinho, Gérson, Clodoaldo, etc.)

His scoring record,

Paulista: 470 goals in 412 apps
Rio-São Paulo: 49 goals in 53 apps
Taça de Prata/Série A: 70 goals in 140 apps
Taça Brasil: 30 goals in 33 apps
Copa Libertadores: 17 goals in 15 games
Intercontinental Cup: 7 goals in 3 games

Santos official total, 643 goals in 656 apps

So, yes his Paulista numbers skew the total a bit, but apart from the latter days TdP/Série A (when he'd shifted to a playmaker, see 1970 WC) he's pretty much 1 in 1 all around.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

There was a professional league system (the CBF was founded in 1914, became affiliated with FIFA in 1923 and become professionalized in 1933), same in structure as modern day ones the only difference being they were regional as opposed to national, ie. state championships. Pelé's club, Santos, was located in São Paulo state so belonged to that state championship (commonly known as the Paulista); together with Rio de Janeiro state (referred to as Carioca) they were the two biggest leagues, in fact so big that they each had their own tiers (Carioca had two and Paulista as much as four I think), so relegation and promotion existed in these regional structures. The Paulista fluctuated in size, from 20 clubs in the top flight in 1957 to 18 in 1960, to 16 in 1961, to 14 in 1967 and eventually to only 10 in 1970, back up to 12 the next year and back to 14 in 1974 when Pelé left Santos.

Comparing the Paulista to the current La Liga is actually fairly apt IMO although it was probably more competitive at the top and far less so at the bottom (especially when it had 18-20 teams). Here is where it becomes interesting, in Pelé's day is when the first efforts were made to try and create a nation-wide competition... there was the Taça Brasil (comparable to the FA Cup) from 1959 to 1968 which was designed to allow teams to qualify for the newly created Copa Libertadores (South American equivalent of the European Cup). So the various state championship winners would face each other in this knock-out cup format and the eventual winner went on to represent Brazil in the CL. And to once again demonstrate that football has always looked out for the best interests of the biggest clubs (and to again highlight the high standard of Paulista and Carioca) the league champs of these two states got a bye all the way to the semi-finals. Anyway, there was also an inter-state championship, the Torneio Rio-São Paulo, which ran uninterrupted from 1950 until 1966, in which the five best teams of each state faced each other (imagine merging the top5 of La Liga and the PL), after that there was the Taça de Prata (1967-70) which included teams from five states, and then finally in 1971 we have the birth of the (current) Brasileiro Série A.

So while there are many legitimate caveats that need to be taken into account with the regional leagues (which were still of a fairly good level), the Rio-São Paulo tourney was probably more competitive and of a higher standard than any other competition of its time, in my opinion (and perhaps even comparable to the latter stages of the modern Champions League)... just look at the concentration of world-class players who played for teams in these two state championships between 1958 and 1974 (Pelé, Garrincha, Didí, Djalma Santos, Nílton Santos, Gilmar, Zito, Altafini, Zagallo, Amarildo, Vavá, Mauro Ramos, Julinho, Jair Rosa Pinto, Jair da Costa, Coutinho, Pepe, Bellini, Quarentinha, Waldo Machado, Rivellino, Carlos Alberto, Jairzinho, Gérson, Clodoaldo, etc.)

Thanks, that's a great read, really interesting! Do you think it's fair to conclude then that Pele played plenty of games against strong opposition at domestic, continental, inter-continental and international level and undoubtedly proved his quality on untold occasions but that there were also a lot of games against extremely weak opposition (beyond the level of La Liga cannon fodder) which has boosted his stats a bit?

 

[Skorenzy]

Thanks, that's a great read, really interesting! Do you think it's fair to conclude then that Pele played plenty of games against strong opposition at domestic, continental, inter-continental and international level and undoubtedly proved his quality on untold occasions but that there were also a lot of games against extremely weak opposition (beyond the level of La Liga cannon fodder) which has boosted his stats a bit?

Yes, same as it is with Messi and Cristiano nowadays -- they are all players capable of scoring on any opponent IMO, but inevitably they will boost their stats easily by crushing the weakest opponents they face... I once started researching Pelé's club goalscoring record a while ago but never finished (managed to do 1957-1963 but then got a bit bored with it and left it at that ), but I could look up the amount of goals scored by these three players against top, middle and bottom teams in any given league season and I'd bet their records would all look very similar. I'll see what I can come up with if it doesn't take too long.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Regarding your second paragraph, I'm increasingly convinced that the refusal to acknowledge contemporary players as greater than their historic counterparts is fuelled by a combination of nostalgia, the fact a much smaller proportion of their performances were televised (and an even smaller proportion actually watched by the people talking them up) and a vague sort of football hipsterism. The equivalent of music bores (like myself!) insisting that no modern music is a patch on what was produced "back in the day".

I personally don't see it that way myself. I think music today is better than it's ever been for me. I also find it hard to believe that any footballer could have been as good as what I've seen from messi.

Ronaldo is a different fish. He scores lots of goals but in his case I find it hard to think of a player who is so indvidiualistic, so goal oriented, and often so uninvolved in the rest of his team's efforts, as among the absolute greatest.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

What's also interesting in this discussion is how goal record oriented it is. Pele by all accounts was much more than just a goal scorer. Di Stefano is hailed as the most complete footballer the game has seen. I think these things are important. To be right up there, you should be well rounded surely.

 

[The Man Himself]

I personally don't see it that way myself. I think music today is better than it's ever been for me. I also find it hard to believe that any footballer could have been as good as what I've seen from messi.

Ronaldo is a different fish. He scores lots of goals but in his case I find it hard to think of a player who is so indvidiualistic, so goal oriented, and often so uninvolved in the rest of his team's efforts, as among the absolute greatest.

Seriously? Indian music right now is better than ever?

Regarding rest of that para, you need to start watching Ronaldo play