FourFourTwo ranked their 100 best football players of all time( 2022 version)

[Andrade]

OK so intercontinental cups, one fixture to decide who wins. Not a league or a tournament, one game. So in the 60's who won the most cups?

Here's a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#Performance_by_club

Between 1960-1970, five European clubs won the IC. Five SA teams. So an even split of winners. I get your point but it's not like Santos et al dominated a competition designed to host a game between two continents.

Yes but you can see that it was at least competitive, right? In contrast to today when Europe rules the roost in the club and international game.

Back then, whether you were European or South American, you played club football in the country of your birth for the most part. There's a few exceptions of course but that was the prevailing pattern. The West German team of 1974 was the first world cup winning side to feature a player that played his football outside his own country at the time of the tournament. 1974!!!!

 

[Andrade]

I'm not sure this makes much sense. The implication is that he is overrated because he would have had problems with the top European players of that era was proven wrong when he did come up against the European elites. If he can rinse Beckenbauer when he faces him, what difference does it make that he's not playing in Europe, facing inferior players than Beckenbauer every week.

Pele played over 200 games against European teams including all the Giants of the time and all the best defenders, Moore, Beckenbauer etc. They all talk about him as if he was an alien FFS

 

[Nou_Camp99]

People who say Zidane was over rated just don't get it and never will. All they look at are his stats but he was such a special special player.

Same reason why people who think Gerrard and Lampard were better than Scholes despite most top PL pros like Henry and Shearer saying the exact opposite. And on that point....both Gerrard and Lampard had better goals and assists stats than Zidane and Iniesta too. Just shows you that stats aren't everything doesn't it?

Zidane was like poetry in motion. Best midfielder I have ever seen in my lifetime.

 

[Redfrog]

Pele played over 200 games against European teams including all the Giants of the time and all the best defenders, Moore, Beckenbauer etc. They all talk about him as if he was an alien FFS

Yeah, not sure we should pay intention. After all there is a thread Pele was overrated right here and some dudes comparing him with Jack fecking Grealish.
The guy was the first football superstar, a football prodigy for his peers and won 3 world cups.
But somehow he has to prove himself.

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

People who say Zidane was over rated just don't get it and never will. All they look at are his stats but he was such a special special player.

Same reason why people who think Gerrard and Lampard were better than Scholes despite most top PL pros like Henry and Shearer saying the exact opposite. And on that point....both Gerrard and Lampard had better goals and assists stats than Zidane and Iniesta too. Just shows you that stats aren't everything doesn't it?

Zidane was like poetry in motion. Best midfielder I have ever seen in my lifetime.

It's not just stats, I am usually against just judging players by stats and think Scholes was better than those two. But best to watch doesn't equal best players, when you put Zidane 5th all-time you're putting him in company that badly exposes certain parts of his game or career vs other greats. What did Zidane do better than Platini, for example? Apart from not be a cnut. That's not even counting Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Di Stefano etc.

Iniesta was great consistently in big games and deserves to be high in lists as well. Possibly to the equal of Zidane. But you wouldn't dare but Iniesta anywhere near 5th best player of all-time.

Zidane was special but somewhere between 11 and 20 is a more accurate ranking for him - alongside some equally special players too.

 

[Nou_Camp99]

It's not just stats, I am usually against just judging players by stats and think Scholes was better than those two. But best to watch doesn't equal best players, when you put Zidane 5th all-time you're putting him in company that badly exposes certain parts of his game or career vs other greats. What did Zidane do better than Platini, for example? Apart from not be a cnut. That's not even counting Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Di Stefano etc.

Iniesta was great consistently in big games and deserves to be high in lists as well. Possibly to the equal of Zidane. But you wouldn't dare but Iniesta anywhere near 5th best player of all-time.

Zidane was special but somewhere between 11 and 20 is a more accurate ranking for him - alongside some equally special players too.

That's fair enough. You're not exactly who I was referring to though as 11th to 20th is still amazing.

I have seen some people say he scored like 5-8 goals a season. How good can he really have been? They have no idea.

Forwards are who usually do better in the these lists too as its goals we all remember the most.

 

[Andrade]

Yeah, not sure we should pay intention. After all there is a thread Pele was overrated right here and some dudes comparing him with Jack fecking Grealish.
The guy was the first football superstar, a football prodigy for his peers and won 3 world cups.
But somehow he has to prove himself.

Absolutely.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

After all there is a thread Pele was overrated right here and some dudes comparing him with Jack fecking Grealish.

I was contemplating having a look at that thread.

But nah, probably best to leave it alone.

 

[Gehrman]

It's one game? Martial has turned VVD inside out once so this must mean etc etc.

Come on, it's like the people in here are related to Pele or something, I am, AND I WILL REPEAT, not saying he is crap! I am saying at 1,2,3 positions in GOAT lists, I would say he is a tiny bit overrated. If I rank him as #4 - is this so crazy?!

I just think saying that Pelé didn't do it in Europe is the equivalent of all the people saying Messi can't be the best because he never played in the PL, but he still destroyed the best teams in the PL several times and of course other teams in europe like Bayern. Pelé did the same whether it was for Brazil or when Santos faced off with European giants. I'ts another one of those hypotheticals, but all the greatest players of their time who played against him and watched were in awe and described him as the god of the game. I get what you're saying, but truth be told I don't know if there were any rankings back then of the toughest leagues in the world and I don't know where the brazilan league would have ranked in the 60's. But back then there were no super league like Seria A in the 80's or a league like the PL atm that is in general far richer than all the others.

 

[Scientist]

This list is biased against offensive players. Forwards, attacking mids are rightfully remembered more but still not enough. They are more important and that's just how football is. It's not egalitarian.

For example, it's ludicrous to think Iniesta was a better player than plenty of forwards who are not on the list such as Cavani or Zlatan.
If you went to the park and had to pick players for your side, you would *never* pick Iniesta over those. It's ridiculous.

Even forwards nobody considers, like Di Maria and Robben, were far more important and desired by clubs than elite fullbacks like Dani Alves.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I get what you're saying, but truth be told I don't know if there were any rankings back then of the toughest leagues in the world and I don't know where the brazilan league would have ranked in the 60's.

That's extremely hard to quantify.

Brazilian "league" football is notoriously hard to assess before 1970 or thereabouts.

It's obvious, however, that the best SA club teams were easily on par with the best European ones in the 1960s. It's also a fact that several of those teams (the SA ones - in Brazil, in Argentina, in Uruguay) were not competing with no-marks domestically: they didn't win domestic competitions by default any more than their European counterparts did.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

I just think saying that Pelé didn't do it in Europe is the equivalent of all the people saying Messi can't be the best because he never played in the PL, but he still destroyed the best teams in the PL several times and of course other teams in europe like Bayern. Pelé did the same whether it was for Brazil or when Santos faced off with European giants. I'ts another one of those hypotheticals, but all the greatest players of their time who played against him and watched were in awe and described him as the god of the game. I get what you're saying, but truth be told I don't know if there were any rankings back then of the toughest leagues in the world and I don't know where the brazilan league would have ranked in the 60's. But back then there were no super league like Seria A in the 80's or a league like the PL atm that is in general far richer than all the others.

Fair point, appreciate it.