Tiers of Greatness

Would have swapped Best and Eusebio. For me the "GOAT tier" should really only consist of Messi, Maradona & Pele. The other guys in there like Cruyff and the Kaiser were unbelievable too but nobody's going to argue they were better than the 3 I've mentioned. Surely Cristiano's surpassed Eusebio as well?

No idea why Shearer finds himself on this list at all. Many better than him are below him like Law, Villa, Rooney, Larsson, Cantona etc. Strange one.

From a Celtic POV it's nice to see Johnstone, Larsson and Dalglish on this but McGrain should feature.

Nice to see Scholes above Giggs. Nothing against Giggs who's been unreal for years but Scholes is one of my all time favourite players and I've never felt he gets the credit he deserves so this is a nice touch.
 
Most people on here are rating players they haven't seen enough of to actually rate them.

From what I remember reading here, Brwned has watched a lot of classic matches, and reads a lot of statistics.. so while he's probably slightly more qualified than most of us here to give an actual rating, it's still a load of bollocks, because we judge current players on a weekly basis here, and put the players under more scrutiny than we can do for former players because there's less available footage, it really is that simple.

A bit off topic: It's the same argument that Duncan Edwards was one of the greatest players to play the game, we have taken the words of other people to decide that. And yet when players are doing great at 18-22 nowadays, you find people here talking about "if they can keep this up consistently for 4-5 more years only then we call them great players". Sadly we couldn't see this for Duncan..

Also words like GOAT and GOD and whatever are a fecking joke, why not leave the word "Tier" out and write Greatest of All Time, Greates of Decade. Internet people are strange as feck. I can understand the use of acronyms, but GOAT and GOD are words in the dictionary.. Bizarre.
 
I think this is a common misconception myself. If C. Ronaldo was playing in the same era as Cruyff and Beckenbauer he'd be outshone, likewise if he was playing at the same time as a lot of those players in the top two.

I'd say the same for Messi.
 
Also words like GOAT and GOD and whatever are a fecking joke, why not leave the word "Tier" out and write Greatest of All Time, Greates of Decade. Internet people are strange as feck. I can understand the use of acronyms, but GOAT and GOD are words in the dictionary.. Bizarre.

I didn't realise that GOD means Greatest of decade until now :lol:. Was wondering why they called it GOD the whole time. *sigh*
 
I'd say the same for Messi.

Ronaldo obviously lacks the vision/passing of the likes of Cruyff, Pelé and Platini, what does Messi lack?

I agree about the acronyms as well, they're horrible. I've always assumed they were created as some sort of joke/windup and they caught on by accident.
 
They do at the moment, but are long way behind Gerd Muller, Pele and Romario who played post-1950s era. I mean, Muller, 655 goals in 709 club apps and 68 goals in 65 international games. That will take some beating.

Numerically yes that's true, but the competition is much more developed these days which will weigh in favor of Messi and Ronaldo.
 
Henry's had a better career than Kaka. There's realy not a lot of love out there for the Frenchmen is there?
 
Someone could make a good website out of this.

http://footballpantheon.com/2011/09/the-100-greatest-players-of-all-time/

Those guys tried it with the following top 10 as a result:

10 Giuseppe Meazza 89 90 70 83 Italian 1927-47
9 Zinedine Zidane 92 80 77 83 French 1988-2006
8 Leo Messi 97 63 91 83.6 Argentine 2005-
7 Ferenc Puskas 88 82 83 84.3 Hungarian 1943-66
6 Garrincha 92 90 72 84.6 Brazilian 1953-72
5 Franz Beckenbauer 90 82 82 84.6 German 1964-82
4 Alfredo Di Stefano 95 63 98 85.6 Argentine 1945-66
3 Johan Cruyff 97 80 86 87.6 Dutch 1964-84
2 Pele 99 84 81 88 Brazilian 1956-77
1 Diego Maradona 100 90 79 89.6 Argentine 1976-97
 
I'm sure some people said the same about Pelé and Eusébio at the time because they were putting up similar numbers, but the gulf in class between the two is obvious. Same with Maradona and Platini. There was a point where Ronaldo was ahead of Messi much like Platini was ahead of Maradona but since the Argentine took his place at the top there's been no-one getting near him.

Why should Ronaldo be at the very top but Eusébio not? What has he contributed to club football that Eusébio hasn't?

Insane scoring record at club level - 473 in 440 games
Numerous titles - 11 league titles, 5 Cups and 1 European Cup in 15 years
Ballon d'Or - 1965 + came 2nd twice
Iconic performances - two goals in a European Cup final v Di Stéfano's Madrid in his first full season, hat-trick v Pelé's Santos off the bench, four goals without reply in the World Cup quarter-final

You could say that Eusébio played in the Portuguese league which was easier to score in but then he's still one goal ahead of Ronaldo in the European Cup top scorers list, and he achieved that total in 64 games compared to the 92 games it's taken Ronaldo.

Ronaldo is amazing, there's no question of that, but in overstating just how good he is you're disregarding so many other sensational footballers.

I think its commonly accepted that the competition in today's game is much more difficult for a given player to become dominant. Athletes are stronger, faster, and the player pool much more heterogeneous than in 50s, 60s, and 70s. Not to knock the old timers, but its unlikely they would have been as dominant if they were plucked out of their respective eras and into any good squad in one of the big leagues around Europe today. Therefore for me, running up big goal numbers back in the day, whilst impressive, isn't the same as Messi and Ronaldo doing it over multiple seasons in the present.
 
I think its commonly accepted that the competition in today's game is much more difficult for a given player to become dominant. Athletes are stronger, faster, and the player pool much more heterogeneous than in 50s, 60s, and 70s. Not to knock the old timers, but its unlikely they would have been as dominant if they were plucked out of their respective eras and into any good squad in one of the big leagues around Europe today. Therefore for me, running up big goal numbers back in the day, whilst impressive, isn't the same as Messi and Ronaldo doing it over multiple seasons in the present.
Let them play on modern pitches with the modern ball? Pretty sure they would enjoy it. I'd love to see Maradona freekicks with the 2010 world cup ball. I'd feel sorry for the goalkeepers. You have to look at the handicaps back then as well. Drop Messi in the 54 final instead of Puskas without being used to play in these circumstances and I highly doubt he'll put in a man of the match performance with ease.
 
I think its commonly accepted that the competition in today's game is much more difficult for a given player to become dominant. Athletes are stronger, faster, and the player pool much more heterogeneous than in 50s, 60s, and 70s. Not to knock the old timers, but its unlikely they would have been as dominant if they were plucked out of their respective eras and into any good squad in one of the big leagues around Europe today. Therefore for me, running up big goal numbers back in the day, whilst impressive, isn't the same as Messi and Ronaldo doing it over multiple seasons in the present.

This is why comparing players of different generations is silly. Sure, George Best couldn't have lived with the professionalism in today's game, but do you think Cristiano Ronaldo could effectively deal with Chopper Harris? Kicking someone was perfectly acceptable then, watch Messi's runs; nobody touches him.

That's why I'd like this list, because you can say that Messi is as good at this game as Maradona was at his. People talk about football like it's always been the same and that it's never changed. Football has changed enormously .
 
I think its commonly accepted that the competition in today's game is much more difficult for a given player to become dominant. Athletes are stronger, faster, and the player pool much more heterogeneous than in 50s, 60s, and 70s. Not to knock the old timers, but its unlikely they would have been as dominant if they were plucked out of their respective eras and into any good squad in one of the big leagues around Europe today. Therefore for me, running up big goal numbers back in the day, whilst impressive, isn't the same as Messi and Ronaldo doing it over multiple seasons in the present.

"I think there was always this idea that players of that era couldn't play in modern day football which is a load of nonsense. Bobby Charlton in his day would excel in any era, he was a fantastic player"

Sir Alex Ferguson

Are these old-timers just being nostalgic - is that all there is to it? 1000s of people say the same thing, pretty much anyone who saw Pelé live whether that be players, managers or fans all believe that George Best, Beckenbauer or Eusébio would look just as exceptional now as they did back then. They know more about the game than us so the only reason we have to believe they're wrong is the idea they they're letting nostalgia get in the way of the truth. Do we really believe they're all just being nostalgic?

Players have gotten faster, stronger and more tactical but at the same time pitches have improved tenfold, balls are much easier to play with, boots are much easier to play in, the referee gives attacking players far more protection ("This is the era of the forward" - Franco Baresi") ...there's things that go both ways. Each era had difficulties to overcome. In my experience it's commonly accepted that these difficulties cancel each other out and so the players who stood far above their peers in any era still match up to those of today.

Would Ronaldo score as many goals if he had tackles like this on him every game going unpunished?



Would Barcelona be playing tiki-taka football on pitches like this? (Worth baring in mind this is in a World Cup semi-final)

 
Let them play on modern pitches with the modern ball? Pretty sure they would enjoy it. I'd love to see Maradona freekicks with the 2010 world cup ball. I'd feel sorry for the goalkeepers. You have to look at the handicaps back then as well. Drop Messi in the 54 final instead of Puskas without being used to play in these circumstances and I highly doubt he'll put in a man of the match performance with ease.

Drop any of todays modern footballers i.e. Messi, Iniesta, Rooney, Cristiano or anyone else for that matter and they would go missing. However, there is no point in comparing generations, pitches, fitness etc. In fact, you would be surprised as to the level of fitness needed to run on pitches that resembled farmers fields after a torrential downpour.
 
Point taken Brwned, but the fact remains that athletes today are far more advanced than they were in previous generations. Genetics aside, most athletes today have the benefits of advanced sports medicine, trainers, and science to make them faster, stronger, and in many cases more skillful than in the past. That applies across the board to all sports, not just football. In Tennis, would you undercut Roger Federer's accomplishments just because Bjorn Borg had the disadvantage of using a wooden racket? Another factor that needs to be weighted is that club football in generations past was quite homogenous. With the exception of a few well known players here and there, most club leagues had local or national players which limited the gene pool of competition and allowed certain skilled players to dominate much easier. In today's game, Brazilians play in Ukraine, Argies in England, Africans in France and Spain and so on. The game is much more heterogeneous and therefore the talent pool far more competitive than the olden days. You have to weigh this factor in when evaluating players that are as dominant as Ronaldo and Messi are today.
 
I'm sure some people said the same about Pelé and Eusébio at the time because they were putting up similar numbers, but the gulf in class between the two is obvious. Same with Maradona and Platini. There was a point where Ronaldo was ahead of Messi much like Platini was ahead of Maradona but since the Argentine took his place at the top there's been no-one getting near him.

Why should Ronaldo be at the very top but Eusébio not? What has he contributed to club football that Eusébio hasn't?

Insane scoring record at club level - 473 in 440 games
Numerous titles - 11 league titles, 5 Cups and 1 European Cup in 15 years
Ballon d'Or - 1965 + came 2nd twice
Iconic performances - two goals in a European Cup final v Di Stéfano's Madrid in his first full season, hat-trick v Pelé's Santos off the bench, four goals without reply in the World Cup quarter-final

You could say that Eusébio played in the Portuguese league which was easier to score in but then he's still one goal ahead of Ronaldo in the European Cup top scorers list, and he achieved that total in 64 games compared to the 92 games it's taken Ronaldo.

Ronaldo is amazing, there's no question of that, but in overstating just how good he is you're disregarding so many other sensational footballers.

This. What Eusebio did those days was beyond exceptional. I believe there really are some posters who are doing a disservice to him. An exceptional footballer in his time and I would put him above Cristiano Ronaldo. As for his off-field persona, he seems like a very decent person indeed, much nicer than Pele it seems which doesn't take much.
 
Point taken Brwned, but the fact remains that athletes today are far more advanced than they were in previous generations. Genetics aside, most athletes today have the benefits of advanced sports medicine, trainers, and science to make them faster, stronger, and in many cases more skillful than in the past. That applies across the board to all sports, not just football. In Tennis, would you undercut Roger Federer's accomplishments just because Bjorn Borg had the disadvantage of using a wooden racket? Another factor that needs to be weighted is that club football in generations past was quite homogenous. With the exception of a few well known players here and there, most club leagues had local or national players which limited the gene pool of competition and allowed certain skilled players to dominate much easier. In today's game, Brazilians play in Ukraine, Argies in England, Africans in France and Spain and so on. The game is much more heterogeneous and therefore the talent pool far more competitive than the olden days. You have to weigh this factor in when evaluating players that are as dominant as Ronaldo and Messi are today.

Comparing individual sports with a team sport is always difficult. In football an individual can make others look better, he can make tactics work, he can be the best player on the pitch without actually scoring or running the fastest. If we just look at who's the greatest goal scorer of all time, C. Ronaldo is of course higher up the list. But football is so much more than just scoring goals. The best example for it probably is the Beckenbauer/Müller comparison in the seventies.
 
If that OP is to be believed, Zidane is very overrated.

2006 World Cup saved his legacy after a rotten final couple of years with Madrid.
 
If that OP is to be believed, Zidane is very overrated.

2006 World Cup saved his legacy after a rotten final couple of years with Madrid.

It was his World Cup Final double that clearly turned it for him. Apart from that, his appearances in 1998 weren't that great. In fact, the best player for the French team in 1998 was not Zidane in spite of his double, but it was Thuram.
 
Point taken Brwned, but the fact remains that athletes today are far more advanced than they were in previous generations. Genetics aside, most athletes today have the benefits of advanced sports medicine, trainers, and science to make them faster, stronger, and in many cases more skillful than in the past. That applies across the board to all sports, not just football. In Tennis, would you undercut Roger Federer's accomplishments just because Bjorn Borg had the disadvantage of using a wooden racket? Another factor that needs to be weighted is that club football in generations past was quite homogenous. With the exception of a few well known players here and there, most club leagues had local or national players which limited the gene pool of competition and allowed certain skilled players to dominate much easier. In today's game, Brazilians play in Ukraine, Argies in England, Africans in France and Spain and so on. The game is much more heterogeneous and therefore the talent pool far more competitive than the olden days. You have to weigh this factor in when evaluating players that are as dominant as Ronaldo and Messi are today.

Everyone knows there's been huge leaps forward in sports science and as such athletes are physically much more impressive now, but I don't agree with the idea that they're more skilful than the past and that's the key here. Football is a skills-based sport unlike the 100m. Pat Mustard elaborated on that point much more eloquently than I could in a previous thread...

Funny enough I was going to use the example of boxing to make the exact opposite point! Ali would easily dominate this extremely poor era of heavyweights, as would Foreman, Holmes, Tyson and just about any other of the 210lb+ great heavyweights of previous eras. The Klit brothers, especially Vitali, are the only ones that would realistically be competitive with them. This argument that the standard of athlete has continually risen in every sport is erroneous, and boxing is a perfect example. In the strength sports as well standards have generally stagnated for about two decades in olympic weightlifting and unequipped powerlifting.

In a sport where sport-specific skill trumps pure athleticism its even more the case that standards don't perpetually increase from generation to generation. While Xavi, Iniesta, Messi etc are extremely fit and nimble, they certainly aren't at the top of the game because they're the finest pure athletes, its because of their technical and tactical attributes. Similar to MMA, where people thought that the emergence of Lesnar, Carwin, Overeem etc meant that more normally sized heavyweights would be overmatched, yet the likes of Velasquez and Dos Santos are still at the summit of the heavyweight division.

And unquestionably the competition is tougher now for a number of reasons - the heterogeneity of the game certainly being one of the biggest ones. In that sense that's why international football was held in much higher esteem than it was previously, it brought a level of heterogeneity that didn't exist in club football.

Like I said I absolutely agree that the players of today have to come up against stronger opposition than those of the 60s for all sorts of reasons, but you can't acknowledge that while disregarding the quality of equipment they had and the conditions they had to play in - that's why I think it's best just to ignore it all and look at the skill of these players because it's one of the areas that there hasn't been much development in. Otherwise you're inevitably going to get into all sorts of hypothetical situations like how would Ronaldo cope in Best's era of poor equipment and player protection or how would Eusébio look with the benefit of sports science supporting him.

But in straight answer. Yes. Brazil 2010 will beat Brazil 1970. Use your logical sense.
Given equal fitness and conditioning not a chance.

Yeah but the comparison has to be on the grounds that they DO have equal conditioning - it's not just a fitness test, it's about relative skill. I think we're now at the limit of fit ( see number of injuries/player exhaustion) - so in 20 years you'll be able to make the comparison without the conditioning proviso.

The 60s can claim Pele, Sobers, Laver and Ali, who beat most of their rivals from subsequent decades.
 
Giggs is better than some of those in the tier above him. Nedved? not a chance he's been in the same calibre has Giggs over the years.
 
I rate guys doing it season after season more than others tbh. Longevity matters more for me than Ronaldinho having 2 very good seasons and then turning into just a good player.
 
I rate guys doing it season after season more than others tbh. Longevity matters more for me than Ronaldinho having 2 very good seasons and then turning into just a good player.

Aye that's always been my problem with 'fat' Ronaldo. No doubt top class and when fit easily one of the best strikers in the world but all time great? nah he missed to much football to be considered for that and the last few season of his career were a complete joke. No chance he'd be in the top tier for me but it's a game of opinions.
 
Giggs is better than some of those in the tier above him. Nedved? not a chance he's been in the same calibre has Giggs over the years.

Giggs never had a very high peak, but he burns people in terms of longevity at a very good level.

Depends really on what value as having just 1 good world cup sometimes puts people 2 tiers above what they deserve in these things.
 
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.

Was reading over a couple of threads and I came across these two comments:
Great players are exciting - even defenders/mf like Beckenbauer. For me, he played the game like he had supernatural powers and made it look so simple, like: "what's the fuss about, here, I'll sort it out". Hated watching W Germany winnig everything but he was unreal. :D

My Grandad was adamant Beckenbauer was the best player he ever saw and that he was better than Pele.

I think Beckenbauer's surprisingly underrated these days. He's talked about as the greatest defender to play the game but I wouldn't call him a defender and even then that detracts from the fact he was an unbelievable footballer. The first post summed him up perfectly - it was like he had supernatural powers. There's no player like him today. Messi, Zidane, Ronaldo - none of them exuded that kind of authority on the pitch. I reckon he deserves to be in the top tier to be honest.

Just for giggles here's a terrible, terrible post about Maradona:

Live and on TV and beyond dribbling and shooting with his left foot the rest was average. Tt was only due to his un-godly like dribbling and fat frame that he's remembered. It was so hard to boss him off the ball because of his low center of gravity and weight. He didn't have exceptional speed, his vision wasn't anything beyond good, heading was no where to brag, crossing eh, tracking back no, stamina nothing special, etc.

Not saying he's good but to be the world's best you have to be the best in more than just dribbling and a decent one footed shot.
 
The only sensible way to approach one of these things is to leave out anyone still playing and anyone from before the war.
 
there probably will be general consensus about players like Pele and Maradona..then it will depend on what rules you apply. I can see why Duncan Edwards was left off...many outside of England these days would not even have heard of him.

But everyone would have heard of Pele and Maradona.... Even Best would be a fading icon...

For those of us who have seen the likes of Denis Law play....just as an example would know...no striker since him has surpassed him playing for United. Law still sits on his throne as the King.

A lot of it is publicity.

The point is made when Duncan Edwards is not even on the list.
 
Edwards is not on the list because he never had the chance to have the career to backup his undoubted talent. Achievements and talent is always part of the criteria.
 
there probably will be general consensus about players like Pele and Maradona..then it will depend on what rules you apply. I can see why Duncan Edwards was left off...many outside of England these days would not even have heard of him.

But everyone would have heard of Pele and Maradona.... Even Best would be a fading icon...

For those of us who have seen the likes of Denis Law play....just as an example would know...no striker since him has surpassed him playing for United. Law still sits on his throne as the King.

A lot of it is publicity.

The point is made when Duncan Edwards is not even on the list.

My 81 year old Dad says that Duncan Edwards was the greatest footballer Ever.
Who knows how much better he could have become.

(My dad isn't a United supporter BTW)
 
Would Ronaldo score as many goals if he had tackles like this on him every game going unpunished?

Again the same with Messi and pretty much every modern great. Comparing players form the past with the present is a fruitless exercise. Forget Barca playing Tikki Takka on the pitch they'd just be booted off it.
 
Again the same with Messi and pretty much every modern great. Comparing players form the past with the present is a fruitless exercise. Forget Barca playing Tikki Takka on the pitch they'd just be booted off it.

I think Messi could've played just like Georgie Best in those days, he doesn't need tiki taka when he can beat players for fun. Messi's one of the few modern players that takes a kick and gets on with it. I wasn't saying Ronaldo would be outshone because the pitches were worse and the refereeing was more lax, I was saying it because I think no matter what era they're playing in Beckenbauer and Cruyff would look better than him.
 
Edwards is not on the list because he never had the chance to have the career to backup his undoubted talent. Achievements and talent is always part of the criteria.

he achieved enough that those who saw him consider him the greatest of All time.

Its not his fault he was taken away from us so young.

As I said...think these lists are good fun.

In general it really is impossible to compare players from different generations.
 
I think Messi could've played just like Georgie Best in those days, he doesn't need tiki taka when he can beat players for fun. Messi's one of the few modern players that takes a kick and gets on with it. I wasn't saying Ronaldo would be outshone because the pitches were worse and the refereeing was more lax, I was saying it because I think no matter what era they're playing in Beckenbauer and Cruyff would look better than him.

Indeed, when you have the speed, the dribbling ability to beat players and also the ability to take a foul and still carry on is a rare thing these days and for me, only Messi fits the bill. He is probably the only one who has those particular attributes to fit in amongst those earlier greats.
 
I think Messi could've played just like Georgie Best in those days, he doesn't need tiki taka when he can beat players for fun. Messi's one of the few modern players that takes a kick and gets on with it. I wasn't saying Ronaldo would be outshone because the pitches were worse and the refereeing was more lax, I was saying it because I think no matter what era they're playing in Beckenbauer and Cruyff would look better than him.

See I do agree that Messi is one of the all time greats but he plays in a team with a system and in a era of the game that is perfect for him. The difference in the boots alone would make the world of difference. Yet I feel you could take those players from the past, bring them into modern times, still allow them their individuality and they would still shine. Modern football professionalism though where at times it seems to be more about fitting into a style of play, I feel knocks some of that unique id that those players in the past had. It's a hard one to call.

Also some Newbie pm'd me about Eusebio

Could you please post this in the tiers thread in the football forum? I just want to do the contradictory to what Brwned is saying in what concerns portuguese football. The conception there is in portuguese football (except for Benfica fans which is understandable) is that Ronaldo is a better player than Eusébio. Brwned is talking about Eusébio´s scoring record but you have to keep in mind that his record is eclipsed by the fact he only played in the portuguese league (to his favour he had an agreement to join AC Milan but that deal was blocked by portuguese dictator Salazar because Eusébio was a symbol in his quest to show Portugal and the colonies as a whole). In those days it was normal to have 8-0, 10-3 and other types uneven results against teams like União de Tomar, Elvas, CUF and other minnows that current european football and portuguese football doesn´t have. There were only 3 big games which were the games between Benfica, Sporting and Fc Porto (which in those days was kinda a regional club without the power it has today). You keep talking about Eusébio´s record scoring but Peyroteo from Sporting had a much more impressive record and he isn´t more known worldwide because in his days there were no european competitions. Brwned likes to read so much he can research the Sporting team which was known by the "5 violins team" and see how great they were. Ronaldo scoring records are far more impressive than Eusébio, i mean he has been a top scorer in the two biggest leagues in the world and has been scoring and playing consistently in a far more competitive football age. Ronaldo has already surpassed Eusébio´s European Champions Cup/Champions League scoring tally and is closing quite quickly on Eusébio´s overall European record. The fact Ronaldo achieved this in far more difficult age without the competitive gap there was in those old days makes it much more impressive.

Talking about the National team record and his influence, first i would have to say that Eusébio isn´t even in direct competition with Ronaldo. The two greatest players in the national team history in terms of results and influence are Figo and Ronaldo. Ronaldo and Figo have been pivotal figures in what is without any doubt the best era of the portuguese national team. We have enjoyed the longest run in always qualifying to the main events (World cup and European championships) and have had far better results with Ronaldo than we ever had with Eusébio (don´t you call Eusébio´s team weak because the Magriços team with Coluna, Torres, José Augusto, Hilário, Simões, José Carlos was one of the best ever too). Ronaldo along with his scoring records in the qualifying rounds, has scored in every main event he has played from young age till these days. Ronaldo has matched Eusébio´s best result in a World Cup with a Semi final and has completely obliterated Eusébio´s European Championship´s record of never qualifying to one against Ronaldo´s two semi finals and one final. Most of Eusébio´s numbers in the national team came from trashing weak teams in qualifying rounds and the majority of the portuguese pundits agree with that, comparing Eusébio´s record with Pauleta´s ability to score against weaker teams.
Now as a portuguese and being son and grandson to persons that always loved football and went to the stadiums alot of times, they have always said to me that Ronaldo is a better player than Eusébio. They saw both play, live at the stadium plenty of times and they are unanimous in that. The neutral, the Sporting and Porto fans that saw them play consider Ronaldo the better player. Players from the magriço team except Coluna, Simões and José Augusto who were from Benfica, consider him a better player. There is alot of propaganda in relation to Eusébio because of he was in those fascist days a symbol of colonialist Portugal. He was a puppet in the governaments hands and star player of a Benfica team which was favoured by the political regime. Ronaldo will never end his days playing in a lowly Beira Mar like Eusébio did. Eusébio was a pretty good player and benefits from the testimonials of some of the greatest players in the world football history and i´m not downplaying him but Ronaldo´s record and run in world football elite is much more impressive and the joys he has given to the portuguese people surpass Eusébio´s legacy.

Normally I don't post these but the lad did write a litle essay.