Nah, I'd say Scholes was a slightly better player than Giggs. The really amazing things about Giggs are his longevity and the way he reinvented himself but in terms of pure abillity Scholes was a better player
Tiers of Greatness
- Thread starter adexkola
- Start date
Nah, I'd say Scholes was a slightly better player than Giggs. The really amazing things about Giggs are his longevity and the way he reinvented himself but in terms of pure abillity Scholes was a better player
Rooney in the same list as the likes of Law, Seedorf, Keane, Cantona and Greaves. The last list is laughable at best to be honest.
Where's Park, mate?
Joking aside, and you're the go-to man on the issue, but who in the 1950s/60s era impressed you most? Di Stefano regularly appears on these "Greatest of All-Time" lists and I've never even seen a clip of him to say, but he must have been a hell of a player to be mentioned in the same breath as Pele, Maradona and Messi.
I agree but theres not a tiers difference between them IMO.
Futre deserved to be there somewhere.
In his prime he was brilliant.
In his prime he was brilliant.
I think it's good method, but surely Zidane doesn't deserve to be in the GOAT tier, especially when the likes of Iniesta and Scholes are placed two tiers below him?
I don't see Heskey.
What website was this on?
What do people think about Seedorf in there? Won a lot, but like Effenberg there's a number of midfielders who I'd rank higher - Souness for example.
Of course you won't, he is exceeding himself over in Oz...
There is only a hairs width between him and Anichebe.There's more questionable midfielders than him IMO, Gerrard, Makelele, Beckham, Deco.
Depends on how you look at it. In terms of skills, there are at least 100 players active today that are better than Pele, Maradona and Garrincha ever were....
That was the first thing that stood out to me actually. Either United fans had been rating him too highly, or that list too low.
Also, isn't the top tier about six players too big?
The three players commonly known as the GOAT are Pele, Maradona and Messi. The likes of Beckenbauer seem to be spoken of in the same esteem as the likes of Platini. Sort of that "Not the best player ever, but right up there" type of category.
I like how it's done though. Players from different eras can't be compared, which is why I don't think there exists such a label as the greatest player of all time'. But certain players can be labelled as the greatest player of their generation. Pele, Maradona and Messi all seem to be in that category for me.
Then you've got the rest; top players, who will at some point been (one of) the best in the world; perhaps not the best players in the world, but highly regarded etc. I like that.
It's the best and easiest way of doing it for me.
Where's Park, mate?
Joking aside, and you're the go-to man on the issue, but who in the 1950s/60s era impressed you most? Di Stefano regularly appears on these "Greatest of All-Time" lists and I've never even seen a clip of him to say, but he must have been a hell of a player to be mentioned in the same breath as Pele, Maradona and Messi.
I'm definitely not the go-to man on that but yeah, it's Di Stéfano 100%. One newbie who saw him live in OT summed it up really:
Might as well quote some of his peers too:
I genuinely think it's not hyperbole to say he was like Keane and Zidane mixed into one, with an absurd goalscoring record to go along with it. Really incredible player from the comparatively little I've seen, I've talked too much about him already so I'll just quote myself...
Here's some more quotes about him...
Got it off facebook, but it's all over the net.
I didn't watch Platini, but what did Cryuff have that he didn't?
Football forum of specific team disagreeing over placement of their own players on subjective list shocker.
Yeah, you're probably right about that. It's harsh to say Beckenbauer shouldn't in the top tier of anything though, I think. Di Stéfano's right up there in that top tier as far as I'm concerned, and come on, you have to throw Best in there...Ronaldo's really a case of what could have been, without those injuries there's every chance he would've been right up there but you can't really put him in on the basis of just 3 incredible seasons when the others dominated year after year.
Pace. Plus he played a vital role in a revolutionary team that won 3 European Cups in a row.
Drugs are bad, mmkay.
Why did you blank out Pele?
It's well known Pele fires blanks.
Garrincha is just as mental
I would not argue much about the GOAT's maybe just add Best.
The rest I would swap around a bit but not much.
The rest I would swap around a bit but not much.
Yeah, subjective lists and all that but surely Jari Litmanen is way, way too high there?
I'm probably doing Best a disservice, but when Ronaldo was at OT, I had to ask my dad, who had seen him play live, and I'm pretty sure he had Ronaldo above him. For all the magic he could produce, he could have days of sheer anonymity.
My perception of United's glory days were the mid to late 60s, not the early 70s, and Best's record between 69-72 were 70 goals in 150 appearances.
Obviously, in 68 he won WPOTY, but what was he doing before all that? We won the league in 67, so you can assume he was near the top then, but when we weren't winning the league? When Charlton and Law were the best players? Can you say he was still at the highest level?
Basically, if Best was so good, why did he, Law and Charlton all win the Ballon D'Or once each?
I always got the impression that 'on their day' Best was the best of the three, but his day wasn't often enough to be considered Maradona/Pele good.
Anyway, I'm sure all the Northern Irish posters (yourself?) will correct me
The incredible thing is that to many older Argies he wasn't even clear cut as the best (even before Maradona), they reckon the likes of Moreno and Pedernera were even more impressive because during Di Stéfano's time at River alongside them (for only a few seasons though) he didn't stand out like these two did.
From some research I'm currently doing on Di Stéfano and RM of the 1950s I can tell you that he was very obviously viewed as the best player in the league (and world, even) in his debut season, but by most accounts Kubala (Barcelona), Wilkes (Valencia) and even his team-mate Molowny were not that far behind him in 1953/54.
Kahn is ahead of him on the list, not sure I've seen any of the others play.
In my opinion Van Der Sar is the best keeper I've ever seen, better than what my memory is of Schmeichel. It might be because he left at the top of his game (at least in my opinion) and I imagine I'm making myself unpopular on this forum, but he was almost the perfect keeper. Not the best shot stopper and many of his saves lacked the "how did he do that" but ridiculously competetant in every way. Schemical was more animalistic, probably a better shot stopper, certainly more of a crowds favourite.
But my god Van Der Sar was good! 2 Champions Leagues 13 years apart.
In sports, people usually evolve. In some sports, it can be easily measured via faster runs, higher jumps, breaking records etc. The record for men's 100m 50 years ago was 40ms slower than the current record for example. Football at its core can be broken down to segments, speed, agility, timing, understanding, pace etc. We produce better results at each segment everyday via new ways of training, better understanding of our body and mind, more dedicated training and a bigger and more global selection of competitors and trainers.
This is my short answer.
I don't do drugs...
But I can see how delicate this topic is. It's almost like telling a kid that Santa doesn't really exist.
i agree with you, but on that basis you could argue kaka shouldnt be there at all. as far as im concerned he had one great year and was just a very good player apart from that.
i think for any of these lists you have to set a standard first. like a list of criteria or scoring system about what constitutes greatness. for example:
10 pts, ability at peak
10 pts, longevity
10 pts,success: x 3 categories: domestic,international,individual
5 pts, iconic status (Eg cantona)
up to 5 minus points: eg i think ronaldinho should lose points for throwing ability away,kaka for winding down so soon, gascoigne the same.
5 bonus points: given for big game performance, memorable goals or skills (eg cruyff turn, van basten volley, zidane was always a big game player
a system would go some way towards taking out the differential opinon of it. i for one think calling bergkamp,shevchenko or litmanen demi gods and just calling ryan giggs great is complete madness. others disagree. if i ever get time i might do something like that,even with just the players mentioned above
John Charles should be higher up.
The list is a decent attempt, though I think Giggs, Rivaldo and Iniesta are all a tier too low.
Also, Rio Ferdinand should at least be in the list.
Also, Rio Ferdinand should at least be in the list.
I'm starting to think Charlton is the most underrated player of all time, he should easily be in the top tier, maybe it's an image thing, the comb-over made him a bit of a joke.
Physical evolution's one thing, but huge improvements in technical ability within the course of a generation? Giggs started playing when Maradona was still on the go, yet during the course of Giggs's career 100+ players have emerged with superior technical ability than Maradona?
I'm probably doing Best a disservice, but when Ronaldo was at OT, I had to ask my dad, who had seen him play live, and I'm pretty sure he had Ronaldo above him. For all the magic he could produce, he could have days of sheer anonymity.
My perception of United's glory days were the mid to late 60s, not the early 70s, and Best's record between 69-72 were 70 goals in 150 appearances.
Obviously, in 68 he won WPOTY, but what was he doing before all that? We won the league in 67, so you can assume he was near the top then, but when we weren't winning the league? When Charlton and Law were the best players? Can you say he was still at the highest level?
Basically, if Best was so good, why did he, Law and Charlton all win the Ballon D'Or once each?
I always got the impression that 'on their day' Best was the best of the three, but his day wasn't often enough to be considered Maradona/Pele good.
Anyway, I'm sure all the Northern Irish posters (yourself?) will correct me
I couldn't really answer that, bizarrely I've seen less of Best than of Di Stéfano because I've not been able to find the footage of United games during that time so even just from my own subjective view of their ability I have no answer. I just love the legend that surrounds Best. Charlton of course won the Ballon d'Or because he was given the opportunity to showcase his talent on the biggest stage with England, while Law was 6 years older than Best so happened to peak when Best was still a teenager - there was never a question of who was the better player of the two at their best.
There's no point in me even trying to answer any of those questions when there's people who watched him week in, week out on here so let's see what they say.
Because I haven't seen him play nor did I see much footage of him. I know he's good but only because of common knowledge and being told so. Don't know much about Garrincha either.
Henry is too high was my first impression.
Law in the last tier? What?
Keane is way too low. Gascoigne? Snivveling, wife-beater.
Kaka!