I didn't mean to say that he didn't improve at all, he definitely did. But many described him as a R9, Messi or Neymar level talent for which he always lacked the technical brillance. If he ever was the best player in the world, then it was for a very short amount of time. Neymar was better than Mbappe for pretty much the whole time they shared at PSG when fit. And even if you ignore Neymar because he's rarely fit anyway, Messi was definitely better up until he joined PSG and arguably in his second PSG season as well. Thing is, he was never held to the same standard as those two.
Lamine Yamal
- Thread starter Hoof the ball
- Start date
I didn't mean to say that he didn't improve at all, he definitely did. But many described him as a R9, Messi or Neymar level talent for which he always lacked the technical brillance. If he ever was the best player in the world, then it was for a very short amount of time. Neymar was better than Mbappe for pretty much the whole time they shared at PSG when fit. And even if you ignore Neymar because he's rarely fit anyway, Messi was definitely better up until he joined PSG and arguably in his second PSG season as well. Thing is, he was never held to the same standard as those two.
I think it’s a bit unfair to suggest Yamal is the first European GOAT-level talent. Brazil and Argentina produced more superstars than anyone else and it’s not even close, but you had the top-top tier talents nurtured in Europe from Best through Beckenbauer to Cruyff.
There must be a reason why Europe has two more World Cups than South America
Nope, still don't agree. It's all academic anyway, they were/are both very good as kids. Let's see how the young boy develops.
Maybe because they have twice the population and better infrastructure?I think it’s a bit unfair to suggest Yamal is the first European GOAT-level talent. Brazil and Argentina produced more superstars than anyone else and it’s not even close, but you had the top-top tier talents nurtured in Europe from Best through Beckenbauer to Cruyff.
There must be a reason why Europe has two more World Cups than South America
and that's why I disagree with what sounded like "only Brazil and Argentina produced GOAT-lvl talent until Yamal", it's historically incorrectMaybe because they have twice the population and better infrastructure?
In and amongst all of the amazing things Messi and Ronaldo achieved during their careers, one thing that doesn't get mentioned as much is that they both managed to remain relatively injury free, which no doubt helped them in terms of what they produced, not having off periods or significant down time and recovery time, and also allowed them to maintain their levels and keep going up.
I really want to see what Yamal can become if he has an injury free career like them as well because what he is doing right now is outrageous.
You’re misreading the categorisation, as what he’s saying is the literal definition not the diluted one - literal greatest player of all time level, which is utterly dominated by South America - they have all 4, and even the One elect whose career path towards those heights was destroyed by 21. Pele, Messi, Maradona. Di Stefano and Ronaldo. It’s a full house. Europe hasn’t had a literal challenger to this calibre let alone several. C.Ronaldo, Cryuff, Puskas is probably the selection and none of them were vying for the best of the best of the best position despite being exceptional in their own right.I think it’s a bit unfair to suggest Yamal is the first European GOAT-level talent. Brazil and Argentina produced more superstars than anyone else and it’s not even close, but you had the top-top tier talents nurtured in Europe from Best through Beckenbauer to Cruyff.
There must be a reason why Europe has two more World Cups than South America
With regard to Mbappe, I am referring to him letting his ego get the better of him at PSG and somewhat derailing himself. He’s lost that development now and his path isn’t what it could have been because of that, imo. Agreed about his technical ability; it was never in this tier to begin with and would have been a limiting factor in the end, imo.Fully agree on the work ethics part. The best technician weren't born that talented but probably spent hours and hours training with the ball to become as "gifted" as they are. The world just won't recognize it was work because they seem playful doing it and likely they don't perceive it as such either because they are having fun. Somehow, something is only considered work when you suffer for it, make of that what you will
Regarding Mbappe: I think it was always foreseeable that Mbappe's learning curve would flatten earlier than usual. Usually, footballers develop their technical abilities first because humans find it increasingly difficult to improve in terms of motoric the older they become. So usually, the earlierst hint at great potential is outstanding technique, then they develop their physique and at last their "mental skills" like composure, decision making, off the ball movement, etc. But Mbappe was always a bit different. His movement and composure was exceptional even as a 16 year old, the same goes for his athleticism but his technique was never as impressive. He's not an underachiever if you ask me, he simply was very mature at a very young age without being a generational talent in terms of technique. Yamal is different in that regard. The best 16/17 year old since Mbappe at the very least but in a completely different way. He's already similarly developed in terms of football IQ but also possesses outstanding technique without being such a phenomenal sprinter like Mbappe.
Fair enough, although I’m not sure if there’s a scientific consensus on this strict 4+1 GOAT club
They’re mostly universally agreed upon, outside of those who somehow insert C.Ron.Fair enough, although I’m not sure if there’s a scientific consensus on this strict 4+1 GOAT club
Hope he stays injury free as well. Ansu Fati was another force that made me put excrement in my pants when he played Atleti. But one too many injuries and suddenly the return was not even close to a return. Pedri's overuse by Koeman and later managers seemed to cause a similar early peak, but it seems like he's found his form again this season.
Yamal is an even bigger talent it seems, but seeing Ansu post injury, knowing how good and dominating he already was at such a young age... it hurts. If it's a mental thing I hope he gets past it, but his rising stardom does look like a thing of the past already.
I don't have anything against Yamal; on the contrary, I am quite excited that we finally have what looks like the real deal to fill the void after Messi left Europe.
Overall, i agree that Yamal's final pass is very impressive not just for a 17 year old but for any world class player. Having said that, as i wrote earlier, i revisted Messi's matches at 18 years (2005/6 season) and honestly, he was more impressive at everything else and as a package, often outshining Ronaldinho in the process.
Have some love for defenders will you
Maldini 68
means as much to me as those others
I would have Cristiano dos Santos Aveiro as all-time better than Luis Nazario de Lima, for about the same reasons I would have Alfredo di Stefano ahead of George Best.
It doesn't make sense to say no chance when Yamal's current level isn't up to par with the best Ronaldinho showed. If he reaches that level in within the next 2-3 years then your argument starts to make sense, but not at the moment.
Spot on.
People are assuming he is going to reach a level that Pele Messi Maradona actually fulfilled on, but thats an assumption, one backed by a good amount of reason given his talent, but we can't be for sure yet, as you say if you looked at an 18 year old Rooney you would predict him to better than he turned out.
I'm pretty sure Maradona was already an exceptional passer at 17-18. I agree with majority of your post though there is something very cerebral about Yamal, he just does everything perfectly, at the perfect time and so professionally as if he was built in a lab. Saying that does add less scope to how high his ceiling is? No one could imagine Messi scoring 70-80 goals in a season, the progression from what he was at 17 till what he became at 25-26 almost felt divine, with Yamal the question is, is he already as good as he will end up being?
Neymar was incredible... regarding the forumer, nor him, nor I are the only ones here that have seen him there.
I even bet that there are some proper old farts like me here who have seen quite a lot of greats.
Last edited:
Maradona had all the tools as a teenager, but the decision making on when to utilise such a vast array of skills at the same time wasn’t what it went on to become. Funnily enough, he was a superb goalscorer as a youngster and I feel as though most of these absurd talents are better with attenuated function, like reducing the white noise down to them and the distant target to get to by any means necessary over seeing that if they use B, C and D, things might be easier and I think that’s what we’re used to; A then E with the middle cut out until they mature (not referring to Diego here)
Anyway, you might as well say Maradona was a mini-me of himself. He just became more refined, but the ability was evident in every match and clip I’ve seen. This is him at 18:
Just ridiculous.
With regard to Yamal, his shooting and shot selection is going to take a leap over the next few years, imo. He is good for goal of the season type wonder hits at the moment, but his shooting in general isn’t as crisp and incisive as the rest of his game. He has it in him to have C.Ron’s range of takes, but he’s nowhere near that at the moment, and also easy goals, tap ins, near/far post steals etc. etc. I don’t know if he’ll go on to be an absurd 40+ a season guy, but I reckon we’ll find out as his shooting and goal threat matures. It’s not very often at all where you have the feeling that the sky is the limit with a player, but he really looks like he’s got it in him to be truly special. I don’t think he’ll max out as is or plateau, personally.
I think there is only a consensus regarding the very top tier: Maradona, Messi, Pele (that was in alphabetical order).
After that it gets mixed up and you get di Stefano, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Ronaldo etc.
Wait, how on earth is Ronaldo Nazario up there?!
Based on 15 games at the World Cup, 1 season at Barcelona and 1 season at Inter?
Because outside of those two mega seasons and those 2 world cups, he had nowhere near the throughput or consistency to be on the GOAT level.
Based on 15 games at the World Cup, 1 season at Barcelona and 1 season at Inter?
Because outside of those two mega seasons and those 2 world cups, he had nowhere near the throughput or consistency to be on the GOAT level.
Even if I preffer other players historically, with a pair of eyes and not even a brain he was THAT special.
Also, he was devastating in South America prior and after his time in Europe, he was incredible at PSV, he was great for Real even not being his best versión... I'm not in the boat of the "just injuries kept him as the best ever" (I do not even like the suppose "one and only best ever") , but damn he was special and even not agreeing easy to understand why for many he was the best or among the best ever. Such an appealing footballer on evry sense.
So? Ronaldinho at his very peak was the most entertaining and outrageously talented footballer I've ever seen. Those three outrageous seasons doesn't put him in the goat category.
the likes of Maradonna, Pele, Messi, Cryuff, C.Ronaldo, Charlton etc did it week in, week out, for 10+ seasons.
Talent is not a measure of greatness. The Eye test doesn't work because you can look like the greatest thing ever but if you don't consistently deliver over a very prolonged period of time it doesn't really matter.
It's like Zidane - at his peak the eye test was outrageous. But he spent too many seasons disappearing, too many games wandering about the pitch looking fancy without ever doing anything with it to really belong to the top echelon of GOAT.
The question isn't, "Who is football's greatest talent,", it's talking about their achievements.
For example, Gerd Muller isn't easy on the eye but he had by far the better career compared to Ronaldo Nazario.
I said a few weeks ago, I think he's the best player in the world this season.
Him being 17 is making more people resistant to the claim since it's absurd that a 17 year old can be the best in the world, but he's incredible.
Not sure how he compares to Messi in raw talent. I do think Yamal at 17 actually shows a bit more nuance with his passing compared to Messi at the same age. Messi's obviously a more explosive dribbler. I hope Yamal remains injury free though.
Him being 17 is making more people resistant to the claim since it's absurd that a 17 year old can be the best in the world, but he's incredible.
Not sure how he compares to Messi in raw talent. I do think Yamal at 17 actually shows a bit more nuance with his passing compared to Messi at the same age. Messi's obviously a more explosive dribbler. I hope Yamal remains injury free though.
To me, it doesn't really matter if a player had 10 or 11 years of world class performances. Ronaldo obviously had far less (probably 3-4) but where do you draw the line?
For me it's less about the duration but rather about whether or not you can be sure that it's not a one hit wonder and Ronaldo surely wasn't. Maybe the most unstoppable player ever and has both stats and the eye test to back it up. So yeah, for me it comes down to where you draw said line. For me, it was enough to consider him in the top tier, Ronaldinho still a tier below that alongside Zidane.
Top tier with Messi, Pele and Maradona?
I'd put him in the tier below that. His playmaking is a clear notch below the aforementioned 3.
But it's hard to ignore 10+ years of world class performances. That kind of longevity should be admired and recognized. If R9 had 10 years of superlative performances, that would shift some arguments a fair bit.
Did he though? Why would you say that? Ronaldo won club trophies in four countries and two different continents (Brazilian football was a lot better then), was top scorer in 3 different leagues and named the best player in the league in the fourth, was World Player of the year three times and a Ballon D'Or winner twice, he won the World Cup, reached another final, was awarded the World Cup Golden ball, the World Cup silver ball, the World Cup golden boot and the World Cup bronze boot (in 2006!), held the all time record for WC goals for a while, won two Copa Americas and a best player award, won the European golden shoe, and a whole host of other, more minor things.
I know a lot of it was weighted towards the beginning of his career because of the injuries, but he still achieved a hell of a lot, whilst putting in the kind of blistering performances that Muller could only dream of. No disrespect to Gerd, he was incredibly successful (and prolific) with Bayern and West Germany, but he was not even the best player in those teams. Tough to say that he had 'by far' a better career.
Last edited:
Let's start with that THE GOAT thing, it's a silly thing from the start, for various reasons.
So? Ronaldinho at his very peak was the most entertaining and outrageously talented footballer I've ever seen. Those three outrageous seasons doesn't put him in the goat category.
Just for the sake of accuracy, he didn't have just three seasons, his carreer was way better than people tend to simplify.
Also for my taste he wasn't the most outraegous footballer I've ever witness, yet, I can understand why he can become someones favorite player and even GOAT.
Talent is not a measure of greatness. The Eye test doesn't work because you can look like the greatest thing ever but if you don't consistently deliver over a very prolonged period of time it doesn't really matter.
There are no few people that actually choose their GOAT as the "Greatest talent ever", there are no rules here and even when dealing with those "official" Golden Balls and such, people voting many times ends with their mere prefference and in those cases, they even have more tools to try to be more accurate or objective, given it's based on a single season.
Even as slippery as measuring talent can be, it's actually ONE if not the best aspect to measure some player greatness. Or better said, it's ONE of the things to measure greatness, even if for someone it's not the most important one.
It's like Zidane - at his peak the eye test was outrageous. But he spent too many seasons disappearing, too many games wandering about the pitch looking fancy without ever doing anything with it to really belong to the top echelon of GOAT.
This is actually a personal opinion, that I (and others) can even share (totally or partially), yet like others you've mentioned before, it's noticeable the extremes we go many times with some of our opinions; the way many times we forge our own to put above someone we preffer can become a bit over the top.
It's never so black and white and since at the end of the day is game of prefference, I think we must respect other people views even if we don't share the parameters many people uses to deteminate their choice, those parameters AREN'T WRITTEN IN STONE, less in this case of the silly GOAT stuff.
The question isn't, "Who is football's greatest talent,", it's talking about their achievements.
It's a combination of many things, not just achivements, if not Maxwell, Dani Alves and so many (BTW great footballers) take the cake. Yet I can bet many people thinks that it's just that aspect the only one important.
More often than not, it's the combination of many, from achievments, stats plus the special talent of the player involve what creates that GOAT aura, yet it's a very personal, never clear as water stuff and not few times unfair too many greats of the past from this sport and even current ones.
All in all what I've meant it's that everything is silly from the start with the GOAT thing.
That also in order to sustain this kind of opinions, almost every person will choose his parameters and set of rules, that aren't even that clear nor black and white. No matter if we have the sensation that there is some consensus (for instance: talent+regularity+titles/stats), still is way less established than we think.
So in this affair that has more nuances, than absolute facts per se (life itself in a nutshell). If someone thinks of R9 as his favorite, the greatest talent ever, his GOAT, I don't think it's that bad of a choice, sharing or not.
Rufete would be a pretty bad choice, yet the whole thing is so so so silly, that I even give the Ultra Rufete fan a pass.
Last edited:
Ronaldo titles/trophies: 1 League Title (technically 2 if you count the Brazilian League in 2009 when he was done). 0 European Cups/Champions Leagues. 1 Domestic Cup. 1 UEFA Cup. 1 World Cup. 2 Copa America.
Ronaldo personal accolades: WPOTY x 3. Balon D'or x 2. 1x WC Golden Boot. 352 club goals in 518 appearances. 62 international goals in 98 appearances. 0.68G/g at club. 0.63G/g at Int'l.
Muller titles/trophies: 4 x Bundesliga, 3 x European Cup, 1 x ECWC, 4x domestic cup. 1 x World Cup, 1 x European Cup
Muller personal accolades: WPOTY didn't exist at the time. 1x Balon D'or, 2x runner up, 2x third place, 2x European Golden Shoe, 1 x WC Golden Boot, 1 x European Golden Boot. 68 Int'l goals in 62 appearances. 656 club goals in 718 club appearances. 0.93G/g at club. 1.1G/g at Intl.
Their personal awards are very similar, Ronaldo winning slightly more higher end ones (mainly because WPOTY didn't exist in Mullers time).
Their stats lean heavily towards Muller.
Their trophy cabinets lean heavily towards Muller.
The fact that Ronaldo played 15 seasons in Europe, with only 1 League Title with Madrid and 1 Copa Del Rey with Barcelona and 0 European titles (or 1 if you count the UEFA cup), says a lot to be honest.
In fact says a lot OF YOUR parameters to choose your GOAT ir Goats, not much of R9 real talent and even carreer. And at the end of the day, it's your choice, nothing that it's intrinsecally bad.
Ok, I value pace as my criteria as top echelon footballers. David Odonkour is up there with Kylian Mbappe as the two greatest of all time.
Some things are subjective. Some things are not. Great footballers need to win things.
Ok, I value pace as my criteria as top echelon footballers. David Odonkour is up there with Kylian Mbappe as the two greatest of all time.
Some things are subjective. Some things are not. Great footballers need to win things.
I wasn't dissing your choices at all. I was just trying to exemplify that we (ALL OF US) have our very own criterias and even if some of them are more widespread, with more consensus, there still a lot of differences (parameters) in how we approach a certain sellection. In fact like I've said many times, the whole Greatest ever, it's quite silly for me, my taste, my opnion.
Let's say that I'm dishonest and just point at some of the things you've said so far:
Talent is not a measure of greatness.
IT CERTAINLY IS, maybe not the most important for you, it is for others, but it certainly IS.
The question isn't, "Who is football's greatest talent,", it's talking about their achievements
Yes, yet NOT JUST THAT. While at the same time, it might be JUST THAT for certain people (maybe yourself) and I can't say much about it bar giving my opinion of why for me it's not JUST that. Also to the extremes people sometimes go to demerit certain achievements in this type of "debates", it makes me hate the GOAT thing even more.
Great footballers need to win things
Actually you don't need to win things to be a great footballer per se. Nor you are a great footballer if you win things.
It certainly helps to have a great carreer, a better one, more if you are a main contributor to those titles. Yet nope, some great footballers didn't win that much in comparison with others with less talent and greater perfomances in their bag.
So, I'm being dishonest because I can't imagine that you are being that black or white in your opnions and that those have a bigger pícture, a better context, than the one exposed here.
Yet it shows that is a subject that generates such level of passion sometimes, it's so subjective in terms of even prefferences, that it tends to get moody and unfair to the carreers, talent, of many footballers when thrown in such "debates".
One of the main reasons that I do not only find silly the GOATS debates, but also annoying as hell. It's how the majority of them end being so disrepectful to players, leagues, periods, more often than not...they tend to end with many over the top opinions bordering a festival plain dishonest and pun oriented "facts".
Last edited:
No love for the Spanish trio etc Xavi…
World Cup, Euros, La liga and champion league. Could one not argue they are the GOATS of football this period gone?
World Cup, Euros, La liga and champion league. Could one not argue they are the GOATS of football this period gone?
I mean if you were to compile a list of best attacking midfielders, Iniesta would be in the top 3 for sure.
If you were to compile a list of best DM's, Busquets would be there for sure.
If you were to compile a list of best overall midfielders, Xavi would be there for sure.
The problem is, all three of them, at their peaks, were significantly overshadowed by Messi that it's hard to put them in his league because they played side by side, therefore it's pretty conclusive who was the better player.
I mean, it's two completely different eras. But there are a lot of inaccuracies in what you've said here, I'll try and go through a few of them:
Ronaldo has 3 League titles, 2 state titles in Brazil and one in Europe. You missed out the one from his early career.
Ronaldo has 2 domestic cups, you missed out the one in Holland. You can say 'well it's Holland', but the fact that both he and Romario played for PSV tells you that it was a different era, and that this was a more notable achievement than winning a cup in Holland today.
Ronaldo won the Cup Winners Cup, which you've left out of his trophies. Both the UEFA Cup and the Cup Winners Cup were bigger deals then than the Europa league and Conference are now, and the European Cups that Muller won didn't hold the same weight as the Champions League does now, because it didn't contain all the world's best players like it does now (which is not to say that it wasn't a great achievement, it was. Just adding context).
You've not listed all of Ronaldo's individual international awards, but done it for Muller
The stats only lean heavily towards Muller because Ronaldo's scoring rate slowed considerably after his injuries. He scored something like 200 goals by age 21. I don't think people get how serious those injuries were. He was out of the game for 2+ years. In an earlier era, his career would have been over. It's a bit of a miracle that he was actually able to come back.
The team trophies, yeah you could argue Muller has more, but they were all in one country. There's definitely an argument to say that Ronaldo didn't win enough in Europe, but then he's not European. This is what everyone forgets. I doubt he'd trade what he won with Brazil for having a club career in Europe like Vini Jr, for example. And I'm sure if he'd stayed in his home country like Muller, and been injury free, he'd have won dozens of trophies there.
I still don't think you can say that Muller's career was way better, all in all.
This post contains nothing about Lamine Yamal, so let me just add that he is really really good
Don’t you guys ever get tired of comparing a player to past players and arguing over who’s better?
Can’t you just enjoy a player and comment on his performances?
Can’t you just enjoy a player and comment on his performances?
Those sort of comparisons never make sense since both players achieved whatever they achieved under completely different pre-conditions
Ronaldo's goal stats are hardly comparable to Müller's time or the modern era since goals were much rarer then. Top teams usually scored 50-80% of their current returns because player quality was more evenly distributed and the tactical landscape was different. And the 90s were probably the one era in which titles were distributed most evenly as well. There were no teams around which won 3 or 4 international cups in a row, few serial champions, etc. In the end, quantitative comparisons don't make much sense. For me, what I saw from R9 is among the highest levels of football I've seen. Every once in a while I go back and watch highlight clips from him and think "wow, how can you play better football than this?" and the only other players for whom I can say the same are Maradona, Messi and Pelé. I understand if you think he doesn't belong there because his peak was too short and he has an asterisk to his name in my list as well but still better than the rest I can think of. Clearly better than for example Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Laudrup, Best, Zidane, Ronaldinho, Zico, Garrincha, etc. for me.
Sigh
I mean, it's two completely different eras. But there are a lot of inaccuracies in what you've said here, I'll try and go through a few of them:
Ronaldo has 3 League titles, 2 state titles in Brazil and one in Europe. You missed out the one from his early career.
Ronaldo has 2 domestic cups, you missed out the one in Holland. You can say 'well it's Holland', but the fact that both he and Romario played for PSV tells you that it was a different era, and that this was a more notable achievement than winning a cup in Holland today.
Ronaldo won the Cup Winners Cup, which you've left out of his trophies. Both the UEFA Cup and the Cup Winners Cup were bigger deals then than the Europa league and Conference are now, and the European Cups that Muller won didn't hold the same weight as the Champions League does now, because it didn't contain all the world's best players like it does now (which is not to say that it wasn't a great achievement, it was. Just adding context).
You've not listed all of Ronaldo's individual international awards, but done it for Muller
The stats only lean heavily towards Muller because Ronaldo's scoring rate slowed considerably after his injuries. He scored something like 200 goals by age 21. I don't think people get how serious those injuries were. He was out of the game for 2+ years. In an earlier era, his career would have been over. It's a bit of a miracle that he was actually able to come back.
The team trophies, yeah you could argue Muller has more, but they were all in one country. There's definitely an argument to say that Ronaldo didn't win enough in Europe, but then he's not European. This is what everyone forgets. I doubt he'd trade what he won with Brazil for having a club career in Europe like Vini Jr, for example. And I'm sure if he'd stayed in his home country like Muller, and been injury free, he'd have won dozens of trophies there.
I still don't think you can say that Muller's career was way better, all in all.
Bloody Bible is shorter