As side note, Rivaldo for me. The same case for me with Villa for Spain in 2010 and Pirlo for Italy in 2006, others took the spotlight, but I rate these fellas above those others.
Top 10 greatest players of all time
- Thread starter tentan
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) talk about the proposed new stadium, season ticket prices, Sir Jim Ratcliffe and all things INEOS after the first year of their co-ownership.
They also discuss back-to-back victories vs. Real Sociedad and Leicester City - was this the best week for Amorim so far?
As side note, Rivaldo for me. The same case for me with Villa for Spain in 2010 and Pirlo for Italy in 2006, others took the spotlight, but I rate these fellas above those others.
Especially considering this is a United forum there is a massive ignoring of Bobby Charlton.
Could easily have won 3 straight European footballer of the year (won 66 then runner up in 67 & 68). World cup winner, European Cup winner. Listen to any of his peers speak about him.
Mystified how Beckenbaeur (don't get me wrong, a truly incredible player) is consistently in people's top 10 but Bobby nowhere to be seen. They were considered equals in their careers.
Could easily have won 3 straight European footballer of the year (won 66 then runner up in 67 & 68). World cup winner, European Cup winner. Listen to any of his peers speak about him.
Mystified how Beckenbaeur (don't get me wrong, a truly incredible player) is consistently in people's top 10 but Bobby nowhere to be seen. They were considered equals in their careers.
Laudrup is an interesting one. Great player, beautiful style, and has that underdog appeal of getting overlooked at times because of being from a relatively smaller football nation....he should be my kind of player but the more I watch him and many of the other 10's of the 80s/90s the more I find him overrated in his actual effectiveness, at least considering he's usually put right at the top of that group. In his 1980s 18-25 second striker'ish incarnation he's just too often not as involved as he should be and can be surprisingly poor in terms of 3d sense of space and press resistance when he drops deeper to playmake. It's really no surprise the more I see that he flopped when the time came to replace Platini, despite him being groomed for it for years. Or that the club didn't have much faith in him doing it and tried to bring in Francescoli/Zavarov, even giving Giancarlo Marocchi the role for a time. He also struggled at that time at Euro 88 when it was his time to step up and be a leader of an aging team; he was one of the disappointments of the tournament.
He found his place in Spain, and was great there, but he's not any better in the tougher games that I've seen than a bunch of other less regarded 10'ish la liga players despite having a better platform than some. Other than some of his absolute peak games from early '90s, I actually like him better in some of his later, past physical peak matches at Real Madrid and for Denmark. He's more involved then, covers a wider area of the pitch and more effectively dictates and combines as a main creative player should.
He found his place in Spain, and was great there, but he's not any better in the tougher games that I've seen than a bunch of other less regarded 10'ish la liga players despite having a better platform than some. Other than some of his absolute peak games from early '90s, I actually like him better in some of his later, past physical peak matches at Real Madrid and for Denmark. He's more involved then, covers a wider area of the pitch and more effectively dictates and combines as a main creative player should.
I agree.
Le Tissier played 270 prem games. Bergkamp, 315. You’ve disagreed with actual facts and said I’m wrong… Your other points are therefore redundant to me. I think we are done here.
Sure, Rivaldo had great world cup. And i am not the guy who thinks that best player is the one who scores most goals.
But Ronaldo scored 8 goals that WC (all from open play). He scored in all games except against England including both goals in final. Hard to go against that.
Cannavaro for me 2006.
I made this post on another forum
Sure, Rivaldo had great world cup. And i am not the guy who thinks that best player is the one who scores most goals.
But Ronaldo scored 8 goals that WC (all from open play). He scored in all games except against England including both goals in final. Hard to go against that.
Cannavaro for me 2006.
Indeed, it's never a one player affair, not even with Diego, Garrincha or even Zidane in their respective winning Cups.
But for me in these three examples, Rivaldo, Pirlo and Villa, the three of them gave that THING more in need for their respective teams in spades.
In 2002 without Rivaldo there was no Brazil in terms of creativity and also he was great in the malice and clever department, in fact R9 in that WC missed a lot of sitters and have some uncharacteristic plays by his standard, he wasn't as refined as his usual self, yet he was absolutely on a mission, he went for every rebound, he ran every channel, he was comitted as hell and ended with an incredible ammount of goals, scoring those freaking goals in a WC it's a feat in itself (even on any KO competition) but that wasn't vintage R9 that could create the majority of his stuff by himself.
Rivaldo provided Brazil with tons of plays to make Brazil impose and other great mids and forwards from the period from Brazil, didn't hit the level Brazil wanted and Rivaldo (very very critized prior to 2002) finally delivered. Villa was the only real finisher in that Spain that wasn't firing in all cilinders in the mid as other verions of it and without Pirlo Italy wouldn't advance a single match. Yet it's no wrong either in consider other players of those teams as favorites in those WCs.
Would Henry not be considered to be the best in the 2000s ? PL, La Liga, CL, World Cup, Euros. Won the big prises. Scored all the goals and was easy on the eye as most of the greats.
Maradona had club success with a relatively unfancied side but is mainly included in the top tier due to his otherworldly and unmatched world cup campaign in 1986.
Pele achieved significant success at club level. Santos were considered the best team in the world in the 60s. His success with Brazil is something I don't need to write about.
The others you mentioned were never at any point considered the best players in the world. We are comparing individuals who were the considered the best in the world not just supporting casts like Gary Neville and Alves.
My opinion regarding Brazilian Ronaldo's very high rankings in some of these lists is that the "what if" plays a very big role when there is no guarantee especially given his lifestyle that he would go on to achieve what people assume he would have in absence of injury. I place him in my top 10 (definitely not top 3) purely because of his accolades with Brazil and even than the "what if" still comes in. He did not win enough at club level and did not have longevity. Interms of pure talent probably just behind Messi, Maradona and Pele.
As for Cristiano, not having him in top 10 (but not to 3) makes the list questionable. He may not be the most likeable character nor the best to watch but you can't deny his success and his longevity that is only matched by Pele and Messi.
The only decent side Brazil faced in that world cup. Honestly though, he wasn't the player he was in 1998.Sure, Rivaldo had great world cup. And i am not the guy who thinks that best player is the one who scores most goals.
But Ronaldo scored 8 goals that WC (all from open play). He scored in all games except against England including both goals in final. Hard to go against that.
Cannavaro for me 2006.
Why would you exclude Pelé if longevity and club success is a priority?
Laudrup began as a second striker, and his italian career has ups and downs. He thrived as a young second fiddler to Platini at the frenchmans peak, but he was not able to take the crown afterwards for Juventus. Laudrup has one flaw, and that is leadership. He is the anti-Keane in that department. He rarely got mad, and he could not lead a struggling team. A shame really. The one time I remember him getting mad was after his move from Barca to Real. He had something to prove to Cruyff, who had let him out of the CL final against Milan. The result ended in a devastating 5-0 trashing of his former team. Cruyff respected the reaction, saying that when Laudrup is fuelled, noone in the world comes anywhere near his level. - But yes. Leadership is his issue. The rest is not really worth debating. There is a feature length video (83 min) of his tearing everyone apart with his passing. Thierry Henry is watching it all the time, probably wishing to be at the end of such passing. Laudrup is top 10, but not the Goat.
I mean, you're obviously wrong by the vagaries of the English language. Here's the dictionary definitions:
best
adjective
of the most excellent or desirable type or quality.
great
adjective
superlative adjective: greatest
1.
of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above average.
2.
of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above average.
Re Bergkamp and LeTissier, I made the grave mistake of counting the 170 odd games that LeTissier played in the First Division. So technically, you are correct that Bergkamp played more 'Premier League' games. Not sure it's the strongest point though, when you have to pretend that 170 top flight games didn't happen.
If you look at their entire careers, Bergkamp's club league goal ratio is actually slightly better, but it's a difference of fractions. And again, goalscoring is not how you determine who has the most footballing ability, so I'm not even sure what point you were originally trying to make.
I remember when he was the Swansea manager and some of the players said he was the best player in training. That's him being over 50!
I agree Bobby is underrated in these but I think it’s because Beckenbauer did something more unique with moving to sweeper and being so influential, the best ever in that role whereas Charlton was brilliant but just one of many brilliant attacking midfielders in history, the most stacked position historically.
Henry's biggest flaw was his inability to shine for France and in the ucl for Arsenal. In 2002, when Zidane got injured, Henry failed top carry France. He was comfortably outshone in other tournaments by Zidane.
The premier league version was amongst the greatest in the 2000s.
In football, best doesn't necessarily equal greatest. R9, Ronaldinho were better footballers than any version of Cristiano but the Portuguese is greater than them due to his achievements over a looong period. Neymar was a better footballer than Rivaldo but the later is greater. George Best was a better footballer than Bobby Charlton but the later ranks highest among English football greats.
Last edited:
There’s an easy explanation for that…
Most decades get split down the middle. It is extremely rare for the dominant force of the first 5yrs to still be the man in the second and many times the lines blur; you might even break it into thirds, which is more appropriate for a few decades.
50's: Puskas, Di Stefano, Pele
60's: Pele, Di Stefano, (3rd is arguable: Eusebio, Charlton, Best)
70's: Cruyff, Beckenbauer, (3rd is an arguable blur between a number of players: Rummenigge, Keegan, Simonsen, Zico, Platini)
80's: Platini, Zico, Maradona (for whatever repute he had, Maradona only went clear and stratospheric in 1986; Platini was in pole position to be the man off the back of a number of incredible seasons in the early 80's before topping it off with arguably the greatest tournament run in the history of the game with his comic book Euro '84), Gullit, Van Basten.
90's: Van Basten, Baggio, Romario before Ronaldo burst onto the scene and made it his own until injury, Zidane.
00's: Zidane, Shevchenko, Henry, Ronaldinho (takes over as the dominant force just as Maradona and Ronaldo did in their decades), then the lines blur again with his decline with Kaka' and Xavi in particular being placeholders whilst C.Ronaldo and Messi emerge.
10's: pointless mentioning anyone but Messi and C.Ronaldo.
Platini wasn't clearly second best as he was delivering at an unprecedented clip in the best league in the world and performing superbly in Europe and internationally; he would've been the Messi of the early '80's in terms of being creator, scorer, game controller and conduit through which entire games were played. He had the most justifiable credentials to have done "a Maradona" at the World Cup, especially after Euro '84.
As with most things, the spoils of history go to the few despite the reality of their active often being quite a bit more layered and uncertain. Maradona was just as much potential until he proved himself, despite his absurd talent, and that is the story for most and in the meantime there is always someone whose star is pushed to the wayside in lieu of that despite them being huge in their own times as contemporaries. Baggio and Shevchenko are steadily being erased from the timeline, for example despite being a hair's breath from godhood in their own eras.
Not a single player that I have watched comes close to Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo, in terms of both talent, consistency and achievements. And I have actively watched football from World Cup in Italy. In fact, all those legendary players from the past look even less impressive as the time goes on. The standard of football has improved so much, even if the game did lose some of the romanticism and individuality.
So, who would be the one closest to Messi and C. Ronaldo? There were a lot of football artists and mavericks, fantastic goalscorers, midfield orchestrators who changed the way the game is played and perceived, ironmen captains who have played on a high level for almost two decades, etc etc. But when you take those three basic things into account: sublime talent, impressive consistency/longevity, and key role in many remarkable team achievements, there is one name that checks all the boxes: Luka Modric. I guess 99% of people will still prefer Maradona, Zidane, or Iniesta, but that's all right.
So, who would be the one closest to Messi and C. Ronaldo? There were a lot of football artists and mavericks, fantastic goalscorers, midfield orchestrators who changed the way the game is played and perceived, ironmen captains who have played on a high level for almost two decades, etc etc. But when you take those three basic things into account: sublime talent, impressive consistency/longevity, and key role in many remarkable team achievements, there is one name that checks all the boxes: Luka Modric. I guess 99% of people will still prefer Maradona, Zidane, or Iniesta, but that's all right.
Maradona was clearly the superior talent to Platini. No debate. It was just that things did not come together for him at Barcelona with the hepatitis, the ankle injury and the fights. With some luck and discipline, he could have dominated the entire decade like Messi and Pele did. As it is, he had 1986 which really saved his legacy and played a big part in the Napoli myth that he did it on his own.
That is not true when it comes to Cristiano. While talented, he wasn't a generational talent like Messi, like even Neymar, Yamal, Ronaldinho, R9, Maradona etc. He manages to get into the conversation ahead of them all bar Messi purely because of his longevity, winning mentality and goal scoring ability. I find it ridiculous when someone like Neville say they haven’t seen anything like Cristiano when it is a clear exxageration.
The insults CR7 gets about his talent honestly never cease to amaze. Freaking George Best said cr7 being compared to him was a compliment to him. This was before even his first "Balon Dor" season. But supposedly " it's an exaggeration he is a generational talent" . GTFOMF with that bs. ..
No way did you just say Yamal is more talented than Ronaldo?
You are doing Cristiano a massive disservice here or you’d say Lewandowski (as good as he’s been) is sitting with CR7 and Messi which he clearly isn’t.
I agree Messi is better but people have short memories, Ronaldo’s last 3 seasons with us he was simply unplayable in the best league in the world.
I've seen many highlight videos of Pele, Best, Maradona, for example, but in terms of the 10 best I've actually seen it would have to be:
Our Ronaldo
Original Ronaldo
Rooney
Giggs
Henry
Drogba
Keane
Schmeichel
Robben
Messi
Bear in mind I couldn't care about non Premier League football or whatever Ireland were doing in international tournaments. I'm not a purist by any stretch - as one might be able to tell haha.
Outside of that, a few honourable mentions would go to scholes, Gerrard, lampard, VDS, Ashley Cole, Kaka, and Ronaldinho
Our Ronaldo
Original Ronaldo
Rooney
Giggs
Henry
Drogba
Keane
Schmeichel
Robben
Messi
Bear in mind I couldn't care about non Premier League football or whatever Ireland were doing in international tournaments. I'm not a purist by any stretch - as one might be able to tell haha.
Outside of that, a few honourable mentions would go to scholes, Gerrard, lampard, VDS, Ashley Cole, Kaka, and Ronaldinho
Ronaldo is not even the 2nd most talented player since Italy'90. Just thinking about players from Brazil in the last 30 years, he's below R9, Ronaldinho and Neymar. There are many more in that period who are technically superior to Ronaldo including many of his teammates at Real and United.
And between Messi & Ronaldo, in terms of talent, there's a big big gap, it's not even close. Messi is Maradona level playmaking+dribbling combined with GOAT level goalscoring.
Last edited:
Literally none of this is true, and it's all just your opinion. E.g. R9 has more natural talent than CR7, but whether he is an all round 'better' footballer is open to question.
Football is not just about natural ability, and being 'better' is not just about skill. What about strength? speed? IQ and reading of the game? stamina? versatility? leadership? ability in the air? And many others.
I'd favour R9 as the better AND greater footballer (because R9 achieved much more at international level and in the World Cup - the greatest test), but a CR fan could easily point to CR's ability in the air, his ability to excel in different positions, his more voluminous goalscoring, his stamina etc. etc. as to why he is better, without even having to refer to his accolades.
Edit: I should also point out that George Best is Irish, so he's hardly going to ranked on the list of English football greats. But I've heard many people say that Best is the greatest British player of all time, which would make him greater than Bobby Charlton in the opinion of those people.
Last edited:
Iniesta and Xavi tore us apart. To leave them out and not even give them a mention when you’ve named Cole, Drogba and Lampard is wild.
The debate is about who was factually the best player per performance and Platini was the man of the early 80’s bar none.
I'm not sure this is true. Platini was obviously more successful in the early - mid 80s than Maradona, but Maradona was routinely described as the world's best player. I'm sure he was described as such when he was sent off against Brazil in the 1982 World Cup (something like 'so the tournament, for the world's greatest player, ends in ignominy'). I could be misremembering, though.
It was a different time back then anyway - it isn't like now when everybody watches everybody all the time. And the top players didn't all play in the same 3 leagues and in the Champions League, so there was much more disconnect, and it was much harder to determine who was in fact the prime performer.
In waiting and without the accolades yet. Maradona was obviously a world record breaking, huge deal. Based on potential, not what he had done to that point in time. Meanwhile Platini was utterly dominant in Serie A for 3 consecutive seasons and topped off arguably the best tournament display of all-time in 1984. Up until World Cup ‘86, Platini was the man of the decade.
I will try something different. This is my chain of the best/greatest player chronologically starting with the 1950s:
Puskas - Di Stefano - Pele - Charlton - Best - Müller - Beckenbauer - Cruyff - Simonsen - Keegan - Rummenigge - Platini - Maradona - Van Basten - M. Laudrup - Ronaldo 9 - Zidane - Figo - Rivaldo - Nedved - Ronaldinho - Kaka - CR7 - Messi - ?
Puskas - Di Stefano - Pele - Charlton - Best - Müller - Beckenbauer - Cruyff - Simonsen - Keegan - Rummenigge - Platini - Maradona - Van Basten - M. Laudrup - Ronaldo 9 - Zidane - Figo - Rivaldo - Nedved - Ronaldinho - Kaka - CR7 - Messi - ?
Gullit would be in before Laudrup and I’m not sure Figo makes the cut. Romario shouldn’t be omitted and Baggio also. I think you’re missing quite a few players post-Zidane, but it’s a pretty good list.
Its amazing we have actual humans alive who think a CR7 got his balon dors and records on Cameron Jerome level of talent.....
That's not true though. It wasn't 'potential'. He hadn't won big in Europe, but winning in South America and being continental player of the year over there meant a lot more than it does now. People were awed by his performances - that's not 'potential'. The issue was that he hadn't won a league title in Europe (though he won some cups) and he hadn't won a senior title with Argentina. But he was not 'potentially' the best player in the world, he was already in actual fact the best player in the world in the eyes of many.
So many things that you are adamant about didn't mean the same thing back then. The Euros was far beneath the World Cup in terms of importance, it was an 8 team tournament and it was not even shown live on UK TV (except for the final and one other match). There's the aforementioned greater importance of South American club football compared to now. The Ballon D'Or was only for European players, etc. Maradona had won the South American Footballer of the Year award twice by age 20. And, despite his troubles at Barca, he did win with that team (Schuster was his best teammate) and he produced some truly astonishing performances.
Platini obviously did amazingly well for Juve and France, but they were both great teams. Just off of watching them, many people thought Maradona was the world's best player in the early 80s, despite Platini's undoubted success.
Luis Ronaldo
Messi
Maradona
Pele
Iniesta
Di Stefano
Zidane
Ronaldinho
Hagi
Cristiano
Messi
Maradona
Pele
Iniesta
Di Stefano
Zidane
Ronaldinho
Hagi
Cristiano
It will always be subjective. Gullit was on my mind, but he would actually fit in right before Van Basten. I cant find a space for Baggio, who would be my number two in 1993 after Laudrup. You are right about Romario though. He was actually number one in 1994. Figo was my number 1 in 2000 edging it over Zidane. You could argue for Weah or Sammer in 1995-1996. I hate that I cant find a place for Zico, Bergkamp, Maldini, Matthäus, Baresi or Robben in the chain, but others are in front by a narrow margin. There are notably periods of time where the best are no GOAT-contenders. An example is the late seventies with Simonsen, Keegan and Rumennigge. Another is the early 2000s with Figo, Rivaldo and Nedved. All of them fantastic players, but not GOAT-contenders.
Tbh, i wasn't aware how much he won in Brazil.
Would you not have Zico ahead of Simonsen and possibly even Rummenigge at the time?
It's a good chain though. I'd try to find a place for Eusebio, but it's difficult to unseat Pele who has a good case for simply being the best player in the world until the late 60s. Perhaps swap Cruyff and Beckenbauer around to match their EC wins. No issues with Figo being there, but for me it goes Ronaldo 96-98, Rivaldo 98-00, Zidane 00-02, opens up for Nedved/Henry/Shevchenko, then Ronaldinho 03/04 - 06.
Platini was way better than Maradona in the early 80s. He was the best player in the world at Juventus by a margin. The display at the EUROs on home soil in 1984 was the single most dominant performance in a big tournament ever. At that point Maradona was kind of the Neymar-player of the time. Talent in spades, but it did not click on a regular basis yet. Maradona took over for the second half of the decade.
Looking at your nickname, I feel obligated to ask, don’t you feel like Zico was the best player in the world at some point in the late 70’s? I do feel like one of the Brazilians (Zico or Falcão) or Argentinians (Kempes and, already, Maradona) have a better claim than Simonsen and Keegan personally. Especially Simonsen, I really like him, but I don’t think he was ever the best player in the world… best performing for a season, perhaps, but even that can be challenged by the South Americans. That Beckenbauer/Cruyff to Kalle/Platini link feels quite weak.
I have Zico at number two from 77-83. He might take it in 78, 79 or 80. He is like the dutch team who never wins the WC. Simonsen was the best in 77 and possibly also in 76 for me with the legendary Gladbach team. Henry is another one deserving a spot, but I can´t find one. - Kempes had a great WC in 78 and Falcao was a top 5 player for me in the early 80s, especially on my favorite team of all time, Brazil 1982. None of them beats Simonsen or Keegan in my book.