Maybe it's the Mexican in me but Hugo sanchez should be a top 30 player for sure...
FourFourTwo ranked their 100 best football players of all time( 2022 version)
- Thread starter General_Elegancia
- Start date
They got the top two right.
I don't think so. Sanchez is in tier below the likes of Ronaldo, Van Basten, Muller, Romario, Kocsis, Seeler, and Greaves.
Too be fair that at means feck all it was judged by a bunch of journalists not one of them shared a pitch with any of them. No difference to us arguing down in pub over a beer
The Messi-Maradona debate might never end. I don't think either has a definitive case above the other. It's more of a 1-A and 1-B situation when it comes to the greatest player ever, rather than 1st and 2nd, in my opinion.
I - like @Passitlikescholes - rate players on their peak ability, but then it becomes a case of defining 'peak'. Messi's 2012 season and calendar year (91 goals, 113 goal contributions for the calendar year) are heads and shoulders above any player in history, statistically. For a single tournament, I agree that nobody will ever better Maradona's 1986 world cup campaign.
Even though I'm a fan of Chelsea, is the best European midfield scorer in history not included in this list?
Last edited:
Pelé performed against everyone though. Including the European teams. He made Beckenbauer look like a amateur there is no respectable player or manager who witnessed him who did not have him as the god of football. He's probably the most complete player ever.
It's a good question. A lot of players didn't make the list but it's always puzzle to compare say Iniesta with goalscoring midfielder like Lampard.
I think the biggest travesty in the list is frank Rijkaard at 77.
This list is not that bad actually
- I believe if you go with Messi as first, you almost got to go with Cristiano as second since there was so little between them
- I would have Zidane and Best a bit lower
- Eusebio a bit higher
- Rijkaard and Modric way higher
- Neuer is the greatest goalkeeper of all time according to this. I'd have Buffon, Yashin and Schmeichel above him tbh
- get rid of Busquets
- Rivaldo, Shevchenko and Keane should be there somewhere
- I believe if you go with Messi as first, you almost got to go with Cristiano as second since there was so little between them
- I would have Zidane and Best a bit lower
- Eusebio a bit higher
- Rijkaard and Modric way higher
- Neuer is the greatest goalkeeper of all time according to this. I'd have Buffon, Yashin and Schmeichel above him tbh
- get rid of Busquets
- Rivaldo, Shevchenko and Keane should be there somewhere
Eric Cantona and Wayne Rooney above Lewandowski, Benzema or Raul (who are not even in the list).
I have no further questions, Your Honor.
I have no further questions, Your Honor.
Romario, Xavi, Iniesta - all above Ronaldinho is an abomination
Di Stefano not in the top 10 is the biggest cockup here in my view.
Terrible list. Pele fourth? Zidane 5th? DIStefano 12th? Hilarious...
My opinion is that football is a sensory experience.
First comes the vision (Videos), then hearing (through Radio) then the reports (pre-filming); and all this follows a hierarchical order.
Examples of those most affected: Zizinho, Bozsik, Liedholm, Obdulio Varela, Pedernera, Yashin, Di Stéfano, Cruyff, Meazza, Puskás, Matthews, etc. Biggest beneficiaries: Zidane, Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Buffon, Casillas (not in this case, hehe) etc.
Another criterion that establishes more of a hierarchical order is Eurocentrism: first, if you played your entire career in Europe; later, it was played most of the time in Europe; then the smallest part was played; lastly, if not played.
Examples of victims: Elías Figueroa, Zico, Elías Figueroa, Rivellino, Romário, Elías Figueroa, Arsenio Erico, Garrincha, Passarella and Elías Figueroa.
Beneficiaries: Messi, Bobby Charlton, Eusébio, Baresi, Bobby Moore, Maldini and basically all Europeans, in addition to the South Americans of this century.
Another is temporality, that is, we vote for the heroes of our time (current or childhood). As I don't think that, among the voters, there are people between 80 and 110 years old (if any, it's not a majority); so it's only natural that these guys' heroes are underrated.
Damaged: Garrincha, Rivera, Di Stéfano, Pelé, Banks, Yashin and you already understand.
Beneficiaries: Neuer, CR7, Messi, R9, R10, Zizou, and, in the case of the list, Busquets, among others.
There is also the regionalism (chauvinism) of those who make your list. In this case, it is plausible to believe that if the journalists were mostly Brazilian, Rooney, Cantona, Shearer, among others, would give way to Neymar, Ademir da Guia, Rivaldo, Zizinho, Leônidas, Gérson, Tostão, Reinaldo, Danilo Alvim...
If Argentines: Pedernera, Bochini, Riquelme, Ardiles, Verón, Néstor Rossi, Orsi, Redondo...
Finally, although there are many other criteria; there is a clearly subjective one, which is the "coolest" effect. If we compare Sócrates with Paulo Roberto Falcão, we will conclude that Falcão has many more individual and collective awards than Sócrates, and they were contemporaries. Socrates is 29th, Falcão is not on the list...
Conclusion: it is not humanly possible to gauge who the "greatest players of all time" were. Our criteria are uneven and insufficient and we have no means of measuring these "all times".
First comes the vision (Videos), then hearing (through Radio) then the reports (pre-filming); and all this follows a hierarchical order.
Examples of those most affected: Zizinho, Bozsik, Liedholm, Obdulio Varela, Pedernera, Yashin, Di Stéfano, Cruyff, Meazza, Puskás, Matthews, etc. Biggest beneficiaries: Zidane, Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Buffon, Casillas (not in this case, hehe) etc.
Another criterion that establishes more of a hierarchical order is Eurocentrism: first, if you played your entire career in Europe; later, it was played most of the time in Europe; then the smallest part was played; lastly, if not played.
Examples of victims: Elías Figueroa, Zico, Elías Figueroa, Rivellino, Romário, Elías Figueroa, Arsenio Erico, Garrincha, Passarella and Elías Figueroa.
Beneficiaries: Messi, Bobby Charlton, Eusébio, Baresi, Bobby Moore, Maldini and basically all Europeans, in addition to the South Americans of this century.
Another is temporality, that is, we vote for the heroes of our time (current or childhood). As I don't think that, among the voters, there are people between 80 and 110 years old (if any, it's not a majority); so it's only natural that these guys' heroes are underrated.
Damaged: Garrincha, Rivera, Di Stéfano, Pelé, Banks, Yashin and you already understand.
Beneficiaries: Neuer, CR7, Messi, R9, R10, Zizou, and, in the case of the list, Busquets, among others.
There is also the regionalism (chauvinism) of those who make your list. In this case, it is plausible to believe that if the journalists were mostly Brazilian, Rooney, Cantona, Shearer, among others, would give way to Neymar, Ademir da Guia, Rivaldo, Zizinho, Leônidas, Gérson, Tostão, Reinaldo, Danilo Alvim...
If Argentines: Pedernera, Bochini, Riquelme, Ardiles, Verón, Néstor Rossi, Orsi, Redondo...
Finally, although there are many other criteria; there is a clearly subjective one, which is the "coolest" effect. If we compare Sócrates with Paulo Roberto Falcão, we will conclude that Falcão has many more individual and collective awards than Sócrates, and they were contemporaries. Socrates is 29th, Falcão is not on the list...
Conclusion: it is not humanly possible to gauge who the "greatest players of all time" were. Our criteria are uneven and insufficient and we have no means of measuring these "all times".
As I've always enjoyed altering my football games to have all the best of all time, I didn't stop making my own list. I don't meet the criteria mentioned above.
Of my list, the most controversial is the fact that Cristiano Ronaldo is in 14th, because I think that Cristiano is like an improved and anabolic Kevin Keegan or Gerd Müller: both have individual and collective awards and statistics that make them "better" than other players more skillfull, gifted, and with more resources (the genies).
Now is the time to massacre me.
Of my list, the most controversial is the fact that Cristiano Ronaldo is in 14th, because I think that Cristiano is like an improved and anabolic Kevin Keegan or Gerd Müller: both have individual and collective awards and statistics that make them "better" than other players more skillfull, gifted, and with more resources (the genies).
Now is the time to massacre me.
I mean not really. Iniesta is clearly a level above Lampard, and would have had great goalscoring stats as well if he took as many penalties
Based on what? Trophies? Individual Stats (goals, assist)? Longevity (years in high level)? Peak performance in a specific tournament? Or a mix of each (with some kind of points for each attribute)?
It's just the editor's guesses in a lazy afternoon.
It's just the editor's guesses in a lazy afternoon.
I don't know. It's grace and skill vs goals. Since both are midfielders it's hard to compare. Yeah Iniestia had technical abilities that Lampard never had, but Lampard was great at putting the ball in the net. And I don't think it's all down to penalities. Iniesta was a brilliant big game player, but so was Lampard to be fair, at least at club level. Even if it was in a different way. I don't think they are equal, it's just that one is high on the list and one is not on the list at all. It's a bit like Zidane on this list, a total boss no doubt, but on this list I think he's overrated. Definitely top 20, but not ahead of Di Stefano and Cryuff.
Hows it Anton Flamingo isnt in the top 20.
This just reads like a list of players who've won things rather than necessarily the best players. Some players should be there that aren't.
John Barnes was easily the best player in England from 87-90 by levels and continued to be very good until his achilles went down I think in '91.
Paul Gascoigne's peak he was 1 of the best in the world.
Totti
Pirlo
Nedved
John Barnes was easily the best player in England from 87-90 by levels and continued to be very good until his achilles went down I think in '91.
Paul Gascoigne's peak he was 1 of the best in the world.
Totti
Pirlo
Nedved
Lists are always just there to spark a debate, so even of Zidane is to high and Benzema and Lewa to low, the thing i found most strange (unless i missed him) is no Zlatan on the list. I feel he really should be in the top 100 of all time.
All three are favorites of mine but they played around the time when serie a was on a downward trajectory so maybe that's why.
Gascoigne didn't have the glittering club career he should have had so I guess you could hold that against him.
I think the journalists themselves talked about ranking the players on the impact(publicity) they had in their era. Not really how they managed to get Pelé down to 4th though. Even more mental that Pelé Is only 1 spot above Zidane.
It’s actually a pretty decent list, subject to reasonable questioning about who’s too high and too low. But for me the most interesting question is the top 5.
No metrics, just eyeball test. And I’m old enough to have watched these players in their pomp.
Pele
Messi
Ronaldo
Maradona
Beckenbauer
Beckenbauer was astonishing, not as flashy with the ball as the other four but was in total command on the pitch on and off the ball.
No metrics, just eyeball test. And I’m old enough to have watched these players in their pomp.
Pele
Messi
Ronaldo
Maradona
Beckenbauer
Beckenbauer was astonishing, not as flashy with the ball as the other four but was in total command on the pitch on and off the ball.
I would perhaps also add the factor of nostalgia. You broadly covered it in terms of 'childhood heroes', but it's not necessarily always working for currently active players. If those making the list group watching '70s or '80s players for instance - or have fond memories of those decades - that could indeed sway their opinion substantially. The bias isn't always in favour of modernity, in my view.
Was Dalglish really that good? Better than Henry?
you can do that sort of thing with loads of the players on the list, especially once you get out of the top 10-20. Football's such a deep sport there's always going to be someone left entirely out of a top 50-100 that you can pick and make good points that they weren't hugely behind the other player that is there, it'll even very often be possible with just players from the same era/league.
Many, many people saying Zidane is much too high. I rate him very highly. The top four they have in this list is right even if the order is debatable and having Zidane as the best of all the rest might seem questionable but I don’t see anyone else in the list who I would agree was definite better.
Zidane is underrated by many, I’ve noticed this over the years. He was absolutely incredible but didn’t score many goals. People who played with or against him knew how good he was. Beckham said the best thing about his going to Madrid was playing with Zidane.
Good to see Iniesta in the top 20. My favourite player of all time. Should be a bit higher but didn’t score many goals…
Zidane is underrated by many, I’ve noticed this over the years. He was absolutely incredible but didn’t score many goals. People who played with or against him knew how good he was. Beckham said the best thing about his going to Madrid was playing with Zidane.
Good to see Iniesta in the top 20. My favourite player of all time. Should be a bit higher but didn’t score many goals…
Yes easily.
Baggio was brilliant. I would have him ahead of Henry but there’s not a huge distance between them, surely?
I’ve not much to add as they’re so subjective, but my (late) pops absolutely swore by Pele, who I had little to no pleasure in watching live.
Zidane's media aggregate weekly positional ratings for Serie A on dbscalcio are quite poor by the standards of someone considered in the top 10-20 of all-time.
For 96/97 he's 8th best in the left midfield position out of 20 (players with less than about 15 league appearances generally don't seem to get rated).
Djorkaeff (Inter)
Giunti (Perugia)
Scapolo (Bologna)
Pecchia (Napoli)
Veron (Sampdoria)
Maini (Vicenza)
Nedved (Lazio)
are 1-7.
97/98 he's 9th of 20 at LM.
Baggio (Bologna)
Nedved (Lazio)
Cauet (Inter)
Ingesson (bari)
Veron (Sampdoria)
Di Francesco (Roma)
Morfeo (Fiorentina)
Simeone (Inter)
are 1-8
98/99 he's 13th of 17 at LM.
Notable players above him include Boban, Leonardo, Veron, , Nakata and Ortega. Nedved actually placed one below in his worst, most injury hit season.
99/00 he's 4th of 20 at LM.
Nedved, Totti and Fabian O'Neill (Cagliari) are 1-3.
00/01 he's 4th of 19 at LM.
Nedved, Rui Costa and Totti are 1-3.
The only season he gets into the top 20 all-positions is 00/01 at 10.
I don't put great stock in ratings like these, there are a lot of other dbscalcio ones that end up very odd or harsh looking, but it's still a surprisingly bad showing, though only the 98/99 is a genuinely mediocre rating, the others just have even better ones in front. If you quickly look at some other greats you can see Nedved has four seasons as 1. left midfielder and one as 2. Rui Costa has one season as 1. at the more attacking of the two Central Midfield ratings, and three seasons at 2. for left midfield. His Milan ratings decline, but while at Fiorentina he only has one season outside a top five ranking.
Earlier greats like Maradona have three seasons at 1. and two in second place, with one 3. as his lowest until final season decline. Matthaus managed three straight number one seasons. Platini not quite as good, but still in his first two seasons finished third (interestingly beaten by Liam Brady, who Juventus sold him for) and first, before dropping (though still with higher individual rating than all but the last of zidane seasons) to seven and four.
For 96/97 he's 8th best in the left midfield position out of 20 (players with less than about 15 league appearances generally don't seem to get rated).
Djorkaeff (Inter)
Giunti (Perugia)
Scapolo (Bologna)
Pecchia (Napoli)
Veron (Sampdoria)
Maini (Vicenza)
Nedved (Lazio)
are 1-7.
97/98 he's 9th of 20 at LM.
Baggio (Bologna)
Nedved (Lazio)
Cauet (Inter)
Ingesson (bari)
Veron (Sampdoria)
Di Francesco (Roma)
Morfeo (Fiorentina)
Simeone (Inter)
are 1-8
98/99 he's 13th of 17 at LM.
Notable players above him include Boban, Leonardo, Veron, , Nakata and Ortega. Nedved actually placed one below in his worst, most injury hit season.
99/00 he's 4th of 20 at LM.
Nedved, Totti and Fabian O'Neill (Cagliari) are 1-3.
00/01 he's 4th of 19 at LM.
Nedved, Rui Costa and Totti are 1-3.
The only season he gets into the top 20 all-positions is 00/01 at 10.
I don't put great stock in ratings like these, there are a lot of other dbscalcio ones that end up very odd or harsh looking, but it's still a surprisingly bad showing, though only the 98/99 is a genuinely mediocre rating, the others just have even better ones in front. If you quickly look at some other greats you can see Nedved has four seasons as 1. left midfielder and one as 2. Rui Costa has one season as 1. at the more attacking of the two Central Midfield ratings, and three seasons at 2. for left midfield. His Milan ratings decline, but while at Fiorentina he only has one season outside a top five ranking.
Earlier greats like Maradona have three seasons at 1. and two in second place, with one 3. as his lowest until final season decline. Matthaus managed three straight number one seasons. Platini not quite as good, but still in his first two seasons finished third (interestingly beaten by Liam Brady, who Juventus sold him for) and first, before dropping (though still with higher individual rating than all but the last of zidane seasons) to seven and four.
I agree with all but the first point. I think there is a significant enough gap between Messi and Ronaldo when it comes to peak performances and I'm not talking about stats but allround performance. Ronaldo simply lacks the genius of players like Messi, R10, R9, Maradona, Pele, Cruijff etc. The reason why he is on these lists is his goals and his success both individual and collective And his longevity.
A significant majority of neutrals would probably disagree. Even having him ahead of Pele is something most would disagree.
He was definitely below Ronaldinho and for me just below Xavi and Iniesta.
I think it is difficult to compare players across eras since each era comes with its unique set of challenges. For instance most of us did not watch Pele live and rely on what seniors say about him. Most of the time myths are created about past players and may very well be true when it comes to Pele. In addition, Pele may have been the best of his era but football was in its infancy, Europe was recovering from the devastation of WW2 and football wasn't the highly paid proffesion it is these days with many part time players. At the same time you can argue that in today's game the pitches are much much better and players are more protected meaning it is easy for attackers to thrive.
For me Cristiano finishes is 4th and the reason is quite simply that while he gas the positives of incredible goalscoring stats (not just numbers but also importance), individual and collective success, and longevity, he has the negatives of lacking the on-the-ball genius and peak performances of those above him (Messi, Maradona and Pele) and many who are below him eg Ronaldo 9, Ronaldinho etc
Zidane is overrated and not just on this list but generally. All due to a couple of WC performances. He was great at EURO 2000 though and only for that would I have him in top 30 buy not top 10 or 20.
No Robbo in the list......cannot be taken seriously.
If the rankings were serious, top 100 would be composed exclusively of attacking midfielders and forwards as those are the most important positions. Imagine you were building a team, would anyone seriously consider Dani Alves over Zlatan or Tevez? There are loads of players better than Busquets.
It should be tiered and by position.
It should be tiered and by position.
In 1999, France Football asked all the Ballon D'Or winners who were still alive to vote on the best player of the century. So we're talking about a collection of 30 or so of the greatest footballers who have ever walked the earth, including the likes of Cruyff and DiStefano. Each guy was asked to pick a top 5. Pele received 17 first place votes, so more than half voted for him as number one. The next highest in terms of first place votes was Maradona, with three. Third was Cruyff, with one.
I say this with the greatest of respect but saying things like 'he was overrated' or 'he shouldn't be top five' just indicates that you do not understand how great he was.
It's an understandable backlash at him being fifa's icon boy so that's probably why.
Also with regards to that didn't the voting take place as a response to Maradona winning their internet poll or was it away planned and that's just an after the fact rumor/conspicuous theory.
The Internet poll was a separate thing entirely. This was voted on by the previous Ballon D'Or winners.
Obviously but the rumor i read going far was that it was an attempt by fifa to compensate for pele by creating a new poll which they knew he'll win because he lost the internet poll, don't know if it's right or not.
Also to be fair the 30 ballon d'or winners might have been a bit biased in favor of pele as they mostly played around his time but that's irrelevant.