I'd say Ronaldo could as well. I don't think either would be as affective as they are now though.
Tiers of Greatness
- Thread starter adexkola
- Start date
I'd say Ronaldo could as well. I don't think either would be as affective as they are now though.
Of course anyone who saw him week in week out would feel he's the best player they've ever seen and I've no doubt he was every bit as good as people say, but in these lists he'll always be in his own special category of "what could have been". Every one of those players in the top tier achieved an incredible amount and that's a big part of why they're there - Big Dunc just never got a chance.
fair enough mate.
also think for those of us who grew up with English football, players like Edwards, Finney and Matthews would always be like Gods. Its also tragic that Best for example playing for little N. Ireland never got to showcase his greatness in the World Cup.
In that sense Pele stands above all else for having achieved what he did.
He's probably a Sporting fan. It's silly to say Eusébio's record in Portugal is misleading yet fail to mention the fact he had a sensational record in the European Cup. He has one sentence about Ronaldo closing in on Eusébio's European Cup record yet somehow ignores Eusébio scored 47 in 64 while Ronaldo has scored 46 in 92. Eusébio's ratio is just 0.01 off Messi's while Ronaldo's is 0.25 off it...and the only other player to better Eusébio's ratio in the top 10 is Di Stéfano.
In Eusébio's first full season he scored two goals in a row in the final to win the game 5-3 from 3-3. The next season he scored Benfica's only goal in the final and the opening goal in the semis. Then in 63/64 and 64/65 he scored in every round before they participated in up until the final - no goal for Eusébio meant they lost the final again. 65/66 he scored in all rounds up until he they were knocked out by United in the QFs and 66/67 he did the same up until they came up against United in the final.
If you want to question the strength of the European Cup at that point then fair play but to suggest his goals record and reputation is down to Benfica winnings games 8-0 in the Portuguese league is just absurd.
Brwned outside of Eusebio how much do you know about Potuguese football in the 50/60's?
When doing comparisons we always look at how the best would compare which I always think is a mistake. They could play in any era. Rather we should be looking at the standard the majority were playing at. So what quality was Eusebio facing compared with today's top strikers. Then you can put scoring records into context.
I don't know anything about Portuguese football in any era - that's why I've never even said Eusébio was better than Ronaldo! That's why the World Cup is so widely cited throughout history - the quality hasn't fluctuated much since Pelé's era. Eusébio was top scorer in '66, Portugal's only international tournament of the 20th century. And then of course there's his European record. His Portuguese record means a lot less in the grand scheme of things just like Ronaldo scoring a goal a game in La Liga doesn't mean a whole lot, really. It's against the best teams in the big competitions that you get an idea of the quality of a "great".
It's good to get this expert perspective, but I don't agree that Ronaldo's done more on the international stage than Eusebio. Qualifying for a European Championships (a 4-team tournament) in Eusebio's era is the equivalent of reaching the semi-finals today. He scored 9 goals in the 1966 World Cup, including 2 against Brazil and 6 in the knockout stages. Ronaldo, by contrast, has 2 goals in 2 World Cups. In his defence his Euro 2004 was good and some decent moments in Euro 2012, but he's yet to stamp his personality on a major international tournament like Eusebio did in '66. Finallly, the point about racking up his goals against cannon fodder doesn't stack up for me. He's got 1 goal against Luxembourg and the rest of his tally is against decent or top international teams. Similarly there's no evidence to suggest Eusebio was involved in high-scoring free-for-alls: the goals-per-game ratio for international matches he was involved in was 2.86, Ronaldo (up to 2012) was 2.84.
Setting aside the stats, any footage from major European finals or international football during the 1960s will show that Eusebio possessed a level of pace, power and finishing that made him too hot to handle for pretty much any defence from that era.
You are though saying he is at least on a par with Ronaldo? You have also several times raised their comparative domestic scoring records in support of Eusebio (as above). If you know nothing about the standard of Portuguese football at that time I'm not sure it brings much to the argument.
As for European records, you obviously know how different the competition is today in terms of format etc. You also know that Ronaldo spent his first three or four years in European competition as a winger, as he did internationally, so again, scoring records are a flawed comparison.
Anyway, what had Eusebio achieved that Ronaldo hasn't?
I don't think Eusébio is in that top tier so I wanted to know what it is that Ronaldo did that Eusébio didn't that put Ronaldo up there. I think they're on the same tier, don't really care who is better between the two.
What has format got to do with anything? Surely it's just as easy to rack up the goals in dead-rubber group games as it is to rack them up v weak teams in the first knockout round?
As for that flawed comparison, I'm not trying to suggest that Eusébio was a much better goalscorer than him on a European stage I'm just saying that clearly Eusébio is at that elite level of European goalscorers. Ronaldo has 43 goals in 59 CL games since 07/08, Eusébio had 31 in his first 30 European Cup games. Whether Ronaldo's lesser record is in fact better because of the increased competition is neither here nor there, they're two of European Cup football's greatest goalscorers. They seem to match up to each other on pretty much every level. I don't think there's anything strange about suggesting they're in the same tier.
Gio answered that: he dominated an international tournament. If it wasn't for a superb man-marking job by Nobby Stiles he would've finished the tournament with the Golden Ball and the Golden Boot - Ronaldo's never quite managed that. Seemingly he was a lot better in the qualifiers than Eusébio though. Ronaldo was very impressive for a young player in Euro 2004 but he didn't dominate anything. He did well in 2006 but it was Figo who ran the attack and Carvalho who marshalled the defence - Ronaldo didn't make the team of the tournament. He was relatively average by his standards in the following two tournaments and Euro 2012 was his best performance since Euro 2004, but even then it was miles off his club level performances.
What has format got to do with anything? Surely it's just as easy to rack up the goals in dead-rubber group games as it is to rack them up v weak teams in the first knockout round?
As for that flawed comparison, I'm not trying to suggest that Eusébio was a much better goalscorer than him on a European stage I'm just saying that clearly Eusébio is at that elite level of European goalscorers. Ronaldo has 43 goals in 59 CL games since 07/08, Eusébio had 31 in his first 30 European Cup games. Whether Ronaldo's lesser record is in fact better because of the increased competition is neither here nor there, they're two of European Cup football's greatest goalscorers. They seem to match up to each other on pretty much every level. I don't think there's anything strange about suggesting they're in the same tier.
Gio answered that: he dominated an international tournament. If it wasn't for a superb man-marking job by Nobby Stiles he would've finished the tournament with the Golden Ball and the Golden Boot - Ronaldo's never quite managed that. Seemingly he was a lot better in the qualifiers than Eusébio though. Ronaldo was very impressive for a young player in Euro 2004 but he didn't dominate anything. He did well in 2006 but it was Figo who ran the attack and Carvalho who marshalled the defence - Ronaldo didn't make the team of the tournament. He was relatively average by his standards in the following two tournaments and Euro 2012 was his best performance since Euro 2004, but even then it was miles off his club level performances.
Ronaldo's been testing himself against the best week in week out since he was 18. Eusebio spent the vast majority of his career playing at a level beneath himself. Simples.
So it's simply a "modern football is better than old football" argument. Ok. That's a fun, worthwhile debate to have. Thanks for that.
Probably? i would say he is for certainty the way he disregarded everything Benfica and Eusebio achieved while overrating everything Sporting did hell you noticed that and you're not even portuguese that really says it all about what he wrotte., the only reason he talks about Figo and Ronaldo being more important than Eusebio is cause they are a product of Sporting's youth academy, typical sporting fan with their trademark inferiority complex regarding Benfica i'm surprised he didnt talk about other sports which is something they usually go to to try and justify that they are a bigger club than Benfica which they clearly arent.
How did you get that from my post. I'll try again, Eusebio spent the vast majority of his career playing in a league that wasn't considered inside the top two in Europe. Ronaldo has. You asked why does Eusebio not have a higher standing in the game and there's the answer. Whatever era you play in, if you don't test yourself in the best leagues you won't receive the recognition you might deserve.
When Best played in England it wasn't one of the top two in Europe and it had numerous cricket scores but people have no problem saying he was better than Ronaldo or that Charlton is our best ever midfielder...
Getting sidetracked now.
Portuguese football wasn't and isn't considered the highest level. If you spend your whole career playing at a level below that, then it's only right your achievements are placed below those who've continuously tested themselves against the best.
Winning one european cup and making three more appearances in the final(which could have been fourth but we lost one semi final to Celtic on a coin toss) and being top scorer of the 66 WC leading Portugal to third place if that isnt testing themselves i dont know what it is.
Incomplete thus far but thats my take on it for now
Brazilian Ronaldo higher than Best 
Brazilian Ronaldo higher than Best
Why not? both outstanding footballers but one won major trophies, would've been a potential star of back to back world cups if he hadn't suffered a fit before the 98 world cup and was a star across continents, playing for various top nations in terms of club football (Dutch, Italian and Spanish) and excelling in each one - heck he even came on our ground in his fat phase and tore us a new one. The other just had one major global trophy to his name and yes was very talented but hardly the phenomenon that is the original Ronaldo.
United fan's overrate Best.. not in terms of talent but achievement. When comparing great players achievement is imperative as they're all ridiculously talented anyway. What seperates them is were they winners? yes? if so how much and how important were they individually to that gaining of success. Its why i'm abit iffy about Laudrup and Baggio.. two of my favourite players but not sure if they were hardnosed winners.
And here was I thinking it was a players ability that counts not his trophy cabinet. Im sure when history looks back Pascal Cygan will outrank Steven Gerrard due to his solitary winners medal.
Moving Iniesta up one gets my vote, but Ronaldo is right where he should be in my view.
Not trying to be condesending, so don't get me wrong, but do you actually remember Ronaldo before his inter injury? If you do, then i don't know how you could not appreciate what he produced in different leagues, in successive seasons at such a young age. Simply unstoppable, and during a time when every top league in Europe was extremely strong.
I'm pretty much certain that the best in any generation would be the best in any generation - with very few exceptions. Players from the 60s put through the same training etc as modern players would be as fit. Players from now, knowing that they'd get no help from the ref, would fend for themselves if you sent them back in time - in fact most of them would do it now if they didn't think the cameras were looking.
People romanticise the good old days when men were men and therefore entitled to kick the shit out of an opponent, but I've seen Best play with his socks down and no shinpads on - or did they make bones tougher in those days as well?
The biggest shift between then and now comes in the mobility of players between clubs and even between leagues. No one expected Eusebio to leave Portugal, or Pele to prove himself in Europe, or Best to demand a transfer to a good team when United turned crap. Nowadays it's seen as a lack of ambition, or even a lack of guts, back then it was just normal.
People romanticise the good old days when men were men and therefore entitled to kick the shit out of an opponent, but I've seen Best play with his socks down and no shinpads on - or did they make bones tougher in those days as well?
The biggest shift between then and now comes in the mobility of players between clubs and even between leagues. No one expected Eusebio to leave Portugal, or Pele to prove himself in Europe, or Best to demand a transfer to a good team when United turned crap. Nowadays it's seen as a lack of ambition, or even a lack of guts, back then it was just normal.
I agree with the one you posted more.
Don't think Zidane or Eusebio have any business at all in the GOAT tier. Certainly not with Best in the next one.
Iniesta underrated. Facchetti at least Maldini tier. Effenberg>Keane is ridiculous, let alone Carlos>>Zanetti. You could spend all day pulling it apart.
Figueroa and Schiaffino not being there at all shows it's a "European football" based ranking although Schiaffino should be there on that basis as well.
Ronaldo was destined to be in that tier but things didn't play out as expected. That said, he is still the highest all-time WC goalscorer despite the injuries robbing us all of what could have been a phenomenal career.
I would drop him from the GOAT tier only after Zidane, Eusebio, and arguably Messi (who may yet nail that position down as undisputed).
Agreed, a lot of players wind up being underrated as a result of that while very good players like Seedorf get an extra boost from glittering medal-collecting careers at several teams.
And here was I thinking it was a players ability that counts not his trophy cabinet. Im sure when history looks back Pascal Cygan will outrank Steven Gerrard due to his solitary winners medal.
you have to consider more than just ability. While i don't agree with Raees overemphasis on rating achievement, it must have some relevance otherwise Berbatov, Bergkamp and Ronaldinho would be in the top tier based solely upon pure technical ability.
Ability, consistency of performance and producing the goods when needed, are the main considerations for me. Achievement is not always down to the individual, a good player can have a great CV simply because he was part of a great team, rather than being a standout talent. Liverpool in the 70's/80's were indicative of this, some greats, but far more very reliable decent players, who won a hell of a lot of trophies because of the team, rather than individual brilliance.
All very subjective at the end of the day, but that's how i try to view it!
And here was I thinking it was a players ability that counts not his trophy cabinet. Im sure when history looks back Pascal Cygan will outrank Steven Gerrard due to his solitary winners medal.
I said great players i.e. we're assuming they're technically amazing and reknowned for their brilliance in the position they play, then to seperate players who are very gifted... things like mental fortitude in high pressure games, defining moments, consistency of brilliance and yes quality and quantity of medals have to be taken into account to produce a better measure of how great they are amongst other greats.
The way you're talking is that George Best makes Ronaldo look like Emile Heskey which quite frankly is a fecking joke, the latter produced a greater array of tricks, probably a more complete stronger player and finishing which was second to none... only thing that held him back was injuries and even then he had a far greater career and left a global impression.
were they the star player etc.. I already alluded to this if you read my post.
I wasn't referring to your debate, haven't bothered read all 5 pages.
I saw that and thought it was a fair point so replied.
I saw that and thought it was a fair point so replied.
- It's a fact players from lesser nations are adversely affected by not featuring at WCs, etc.
- One-club players also have it harder than those willing to move to bigger and better teams, thus never getting trapped in transitional or poor periods.
- Pre-80s there was a lot less inter-continental movement. Someone like Figueroa may not have played in Europe, but he was the best defender in South America throughout his career starting from ~1967. He was the best in the Uruguayan and Brazilian league. Guess what? The South American and Brazilian forwards playing in those leagues were quite handy! At least five of them make it on that first post, yet the guy best at shutting them out week in week out isn't. Why? Because he was Chilean. Had he been Brazilian they would have even more World Cups.
Fair enough, although I still think it was a phenomenal career. It may not have been the longest, but when you consider how young he started producing that level, he still had a decent stint. You should also consider that many players didn't reach their top level until they were much older.
So for me Ronaldo had a phenomenal first few seasons, and then despite the devastating injuries, he continued to play at the highest club level, whilst cementing his legend as the all time WC finals goalscorer. For me the impact he made during his early years, combined with his coming back from those injuries and still staying a top player is more than enough for me to keep him where he is.
Same with me. That's why I wouldn't drop him a tier unless three others went with him.
It was phenomenal, he was "O Fenomeno" But imagine what it may have been had it NOT been for the injuries... Devastating stuff. And yes, it is to his credit that in spite of all that he still managed the career and records he did.
It was phenomenal, he was "O Fenomeno"
But imagine what it may have been had it NOT been for the injuries... Devastating stuff. And yes, it is to his credit that in spite of all that he still managed the career and records he did.I take your point Raees, and i agree Ronaldo is up there on goat, as is best.
But that last point on Ronaldo leaving a global impression made me piss. While he did of course, George Best was a fecking international superstar, he wasn't known as the fifth beatle for nothing!
no player has done more for bringing football to the mass media and to those parts of the public who had previously little or no interest in football.I have always said that no player has attained such a high profile as Best without first having had the benefit of a WC to showcase their talents. Di stefano is probably the only other who is talked of amongst the goat, without ever playing in a WC, but he still had a distinguished international career playing for big nations, and yet is still not generally as well known as Best.
Bottom line, both Best and Ronaldo definitely in the GOAT category for me!
Zidane shoud be a tier lower.
Iniesta 1 tier up.
Iniesta 1 tier up.
That is a good point to be fair.
Overall looks good for me. Maybe Muller could be moved a bit higher (no pun intended)? He's not a scorer of great goals, but his finishing was just insane. Bayern's domination in Europe in the 70's is akin to Barcelona in the last 5+ years. And it's largely because of his goals.
Messi in that top tier, based on what exactly? Let him dominate a World Cup (even if Argentina don't win it) and then put him in there. His record outside Barsa is always going to be a noose around his neck and he has to rectify it on the biggest stage in world football.
Until then, give me a 34 year old Zizu over Messi anyday.
Until then, give me a 34 year old Zizu over Messi anyday.
Haven't you heard? World Cups are irrelevant when it comes to Messi.
Johan Cruyff. “Good feet for a big man” should only be said about him. Not on fecking Crouch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIAVTd3jVe8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIAVTd3jVe8
World Cup's are fairly irrelevant when it comes to players in general. European football and the Champions League in particular is the toughest tournament in football and nobody can deny that Messi has shone like no other on that stage in recent times.
There's been so many greats who haven't won a World Cup. If you gave the WC such importance in today's game then you'd be left with about 3 players who are genuinely up there as the best of all time. And Luca Toni.