Top 10 greatest players of all time

[mertens]

The comparison with other greats interms of the continental competitions is not a fair one.

The European cup back in the day was much harder to win;

Are you aware that this lists every European competition Maradona played in, UEFA Cup, European Cup, Cup Winners Cup?

1. Only knock out therefore "on their day".

We have had knockouts before, during and after Maradona era. Knockouts are not specifically designed for Maradona only.

Not buying this.. you can make above excuses pretty much for any player and team. That logic also makes Argentina winning WC'86 a coincidence, because you know it's a knockout competition, therefore "on their day". We can pretty much excuse any knockout loss with "on their day" logic.

2. Only league winners therefore teams did not play in it every year losing familiarity, and

That list includes Cup Winners Cup and UEFA Cup too. Maradona didn't win 7 league titles, he won just two, that's why he only competed twice in European Cup.

And familiarity argument makes no sense. AC Milan won twice European Cup twice in 1988 and 89, they didn't have any familiarity, the last time they competed for European Cup was 1979-80. Roma had had a single Serie A title in 1984 after decades and played the final in European Cup in 1985, there goes the familiarity argument.

3. In case of Napoli, a team that had good players in the later part of these decade but, apart from Maradona had no real superstars.
Also, Napoli only started recruiting the likes of Careca and Giordiano in the later part of the decade. The talent distribution was also more even amongst European terms until Milan came along in the late 80s.

So, you mean the team that won Serie A twice over AC Milan, Inter Milan and Juve in 1987 and 1990, the team that finished Serie A 2nd in 1988 and 1989 and 3rd in 1986 is not comparable to AC Milan, Juve, Inter and other continental greats?

I'm sorry, I'm not able to follow your logic. All I see is an attempt to bring down other Napoli players as an excuse when they lose to rescue Maradona, and hype up & give all credit to Maradona when they win.

What 86 did for Maradona was propell him to the absolute top with Pele. Maradona would still have become the best of the 80s regardless of 86 due to his league success with Napoli (more crucial) and his individual play in the first half of the 80s; he was better than Platini

Now, you're hyping up his league success, which I do too as Serie A was the best league in that era.

but, similar point: hype Serie A up as a key competition affecting his legacy (which I agree) but then bring tons of excuses when one points out how such a great team capable of winning top-league Serie A was that underwhelming in European competitions.

 

[Fobal]

Before I address your comments, I'd like you to ask you to go back & see my first couple of posts so that you can see where I rank Maradona. You're arguing against a poster that put Maradona among top-3. Can you imagine someone having an agenda against Maradona putting him top-3? The fact is as much as I love Maradona, Pele, Messi etc. I don't shy away from pointing out the problems they had. I don't shy away from saying Messi underdelivered with Barca in UCL after 2015 (except for 2019) and had many disappointments (there might be many other reasons independent of Messi too), I don't shy away from saying he didn't deliver as much as expected in the WCs until Qatar, yet I see him as no.1.

I am someone who defends Maradona against people who say he's nowhere near Cristiano and call this BS. But, it doesn't mean that I'd avoid pointing out his failures. I don't even have Zico or Platini in my top-10, but I know how deterministic WC is and how all three had their chances but only one (Maradona) realized the dream which single-handedly took him to a position next to Pele. I might have sounded more critical of Maradona than usual as I didn't like the way Zico and Platini were mentioned in some comments.

As for the handball thing, I have mentioned Maradona's hand in only one post until you wrote a paragraph to me. You don't need VAR to see this handball. I didn't even need to use VAR metaphor there, remove VAR, the point stands. If you go back to that post, you'll see I mentioned the referee (which you seem to conveniently ignore focusing only on VAR), it seemed like the referee was sleeping, and that decision was a pretty big deal. Nobody said "let's ignore this because Maradona was fouled many times and English were tough, so thing balance out", so it rather sounds to me your imagination at work. My stance is the same standard stance on this issue most have but this is the first time I see someone defending him this way in any place, people generally use the "Hand of God" argument in a cheeky manner and everybody moves on.. That game is a part of his legend, his "larger than life" persona and his "genius", all in one game.

Technically, it's impossible to equate that handball with England's or other teams' tough style which is what your post seems to do. That tough style is accepted in those times, using handball that way has never been accepted. Italy would probably finish games with 7-8 men with today's standards in that era. So, you sound like you're trying to normalize blatant cheating with what's accepted in those times: "So what if he had blatant cheating, he was fouled brutally many times so that balances things out".

About imagination, the only thing I said was he'd be red-carded and going home. Yet, in your post, you sound like I have hundreds of other assumptions etc. Of course, nobody knows. But, what everyone knows is, without Maradona, Argentina's chances are "very significantly" reduced and likely will go home. With Maradona and without that goal, their chances are still reduced, imagine the demoralization English players had with a goal like that.

Pointing out handball is not dismantling his whole WC, it's your imagination in overdrive. Pointing out that implies that his team gained a significant and unfair advantage in a knockout game in a World Cup that largely shaped his legacy, it doesn't say anything about his performances in other games or even this game other than that incident.

I mean how would you feel if another team scored against and eliminated Argentina or Boca with "Hand of God"? Would you also avoid talking about this whenever it comes up?



How many red cards should England have received? 2-3-4.. Again, you're just equating blatant cheating with England's tough style (I'm saying English style, but pretty sure, England was not the only team that gave Maradona a special treatment) creating a narrative to fit your idea that England deserves "Hand of God" because "they should have received multiple red cards (your big assumption)". So, it seems to me rather your imagination at work.

Leaving out now your comment about VAR doesn't take away how you where leaning at that point in your discussion to some unnecesary lengths to support your view. The VAR take looked bizarre, you used it conveniently with old tendencies of turning the blind eye on systematic fouling in an old match to just point at one and only offense, among the tons that happened, when actually VAR was created to be more leanient to see and call all of them. That's a pretty perfect example of pushing too much the envelope to make some point.
That was the main idea behind making my initial post, how far we go sometimes even having valid points to make some assertion.

So VAR when it's convenient, or we leave it aside when not, we talk about blatant, yet we implied that we needed VAR to actually see it, Diego would have received a red card in that situation, yet even nowadays hardly refs call for a red card in such plays and the list goes on.

We end in endless and unnecessary circles that at the end of the day just for the sake of apparently win some sort of argument we end questioning the legacy (and outcome of an entire tournament) of a player in 2025 because of a handball.

A single play in a match full of other offenses not called, while we consider "the Tough Style" (more like systematic fouling actually, that included a blatant elbow to player without the ball even being there to be dispute) in those days (maybe even nowadays) just a style, not even cheating.
That's plain wrong.

Handballs to score goals it's against the rules since ever, systematic fouling, elbows, studs too, full stop.
That from some period players had it worse to actually make Refs call both in equall manner, does not equate to make a revisionism of those in 2025 in a particular match in a manner that only just admits one view. Every fecking play against the rules in that match should have been call, we would never know the way that match would have develope if such thing happened, yet we do know it didn't happen and that the match ended that way, period. Any other excercise, it's futile, it just silly, it's just said for the sake of some silly argument.

 

[mertens]

Leaving out now your comment about VAR doesn't take away how you where leaning at that point in your discussion to some unnecesary lengths to support your view. The VAR take looked bizarre, you used it conveniently with old tendencies of turning the blind eye on systematic fouling in an old match to just point at one and only offense, among the tons that happened, when actually VAR was created to be more leanient to see and call all of them. That's a pretty perfect example of pushing too much the envolope to make some point.
That was the main idea behind making my initial post, how far we go sometimes even having valid points to make some assertion.

So VAR when it's convenient, or we leave it aside when not, we talk about blatant, yet we implied that we needed VAR to actually see it, Diego would have received a red card in that situation, yet even nowadays hardly refs call for a red card in such plays and the list goes on.

You don't seem to have a problem with handball use that way, football world calls it cheating big time.
You say systematic fouls are type of cheating and justify handball type of cheating, football world disagrees.

I have no idea what your argument is really, everything is so clear to everyone who follows football.

You're talking back and forth about VAR to fit your narrative without even being aware of the fact that everybody saw it other than the referee, that's why it was shocking, because it was so obvious. Did you see English players' reaction?

I said VAR because the sleeping referee missed it not because it's like a fine-margin offside decision that only VAR could resolve. I said "Had VAR existed or the referee was as careful as everyone in the game against England", so why are you using this statement against me? because anyone reading it in good faith can understand that referee was not careful, sleeping, missed something obvious etc. Strange to me that you're to trying to portray something so obvious to everyone as if it's a tough decision that requires VAR. Never saw such a blatant handball goal like that in a high-profile occasion like WC all my life, it was basically volleyball.

Look what Shilton said: 'It was such an obvious handball. The referee and the linesman looked at each other but neither would be positive. Maradona took a chance and got away with it.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-God-goal-sparked-feud-referee-assistant.html

"Tunisian official Ali Bin Nasser later blamed his assistant referee for missing the blatantly obvious handball"
https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/ranked-the-25-worst-refereeing-decisions-of-all-time

seems to be ranked the 3rd worst refereeing decision in football.

 

[Querulous Megapode]

Absolutely no one outside of England cares that Maradona cheated at a football game. For one thing, @Fobal's entirely correct in saying the way teams treated attackers in that era was far more egrigious, both morally and in terms of impact on the sport (and that certainly extends to England's own defending in that match). That very much supercedes any moral or procedural outrage to be gamed here. (For another, both he and many of his competitors have done far more questionable things on and off the field.)

If the point's supposed to be how precarious his legacy was, that's fairly obvious. It does not quite hinge on this one 51st minute moment in a match he'd personally dominated while playing for the better team, though.

 

[Wand of a right foot]

Are you aware that this lists every European competition Maradona played in, UEFA Cup, European Cup, Cup Winners Cup?


We have had knockouts before, during and after Maradona era. Knockouts are not specifically designed for Maradona only.

Not buying this.. you can make above excuses pretty much for any player and team. That logic also makes Argentina winning WC'86 a coincidence, because you know it's a knockout competition, therefore "on their day". We can pretty much excuse any knockout loss with "on their day" logic.


That list includes Cup Winners Cup and UEFA Cup too. Maradona didn't win 7 league titles, he won just two, that's why he only competed twice in European Cup.

And familiarity argument makes no sense. AC Milan won twice European Cup twice in 1988 and 89, they didn't have any familiarity, the last time they competed for European Cup was 1979-80. Roma had had a single Serie A title in 1984 after decades and played the final in European Cup in 1985, there goes the familiarity argument.


So, you mean the team that won Serie A twice over AC Milan, Inter Milan and Juve in 1987 and 1990, the team that finished Serie A 2nd in 1988 and 1989 and 3rd in 1986 is not comparable to AC Milan, Juve, Inter and other continental greats?

I'm sorry, I'm not able to follow your logic. All I see is an attempt to bring down other Napoli players as an excuse when they lose to rescue Maradona, and hype up & give all credit to Maradona when they win.


Now, you're hyping up his league success, which I do too as Serie A was the best league in that era.

but, similar point: hype Serie A up as a key competition affecting his legacy (which I agree) but then bring tons of excuses when one points out how such a great team capable of winning top-league Serie A was that underwhelming in European competitions.

You have an agenda against Maradona, maybe "hand of god" related?. Argentina would've won anyway against a typically overhyped English team.

Mine aren't excuses for him; legitimately he played in a relatively weak team (partly his own fault). While it wasn’t a one man show, he was by far their best player which obviously wasn't enough in Europe. They signed Bruno Giordiano in 1985, careca in 1987. After he left, they finished 11th, before he went there they were 14th. During his time there, they were mostly contenders and won it twice and only won it again after 32 seasons. His time at Barcelona had alot of issues but when fit and playing, he was the bpitw.

The world cup gave him legacy but by default he was the bpitw in the 80s. Platini played for a much stronger and wealthier team giving him a platform to shine AND yes Maradona was a much superior footballer to both Platini and Zico, no doubt in my mind. I compare his situation to that of Messi in the last decade; for Cristiano or anyone else to have won the ballond'or ahead of Messi, it would be due to his team winning things but Messi was individually and by default the bpitw.

You don't seem to have a problem with handball use that way, football world calls it cheating big time.
You say systematic fouls are type of cheating and justify handball type of cheating, football world disagrees.

I have no idea what your argument is really, everything is so clear to everyone who follows football.

You're talking back and forth about VAR to fit your narrative without even being aware of the fact that everybody saw it other than the referee, that's why it was shocking, because it was so obvious. Did you see English players' reaction?

I said VAR because the sleeping referee missed it not because it's like a fine-margin offside decision that only VAR could resolve. I said "Had VAR existed or the referee was as careful as everyone in the game against England", so why are you using this statement against me? because anyone reading it in good faith can understand that referee was not careful, sleeping, missed something obvious etc. Strange to me that you're to trying to portray something so obvious to everyone as if it's a tough decision that requires VAR. Never saw such a blatant handball goal like that in a high-profile occasion like WC all my life, it was basically volleyball.

Look what Shilton said: 'It was such an obvious handball. The referee and the linesman looked at each other but neither would be positive. Maradona took a chance and got away with it.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-God-goal-sparked-feud-referee-assistant.html

"Tunisian official Ali Bin Nasser later blamed his assistant referee for missing the blatantly obvious handball"
https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/ranked-the-25-worst-refereeing-decisions-of-all-time

seems to be ranked the 3rd worst refereeing decision in football.

VAR would have sent off quite a number of players in 1982 and 1986 world cups.

 

[Spoony]

I still don't think it was a handball.

 

[Kwabs]

You have an agenda against Maradona, maybe "hand of god" related?. Argentina would've won anyway against a typically overhyped English team.

Mine aren't excuses for him; legitimately he played in a relatively weak team (partly his own fault). While it wasn’t a one man show, he was by far their best player which obviously wasn't enough in Europe. They signed Bruno Giordiano in 1985, careca in 1987. After he left, they finished 11th, before he went there they were 14th. During his time there, they were mostly contenders and won it twice and only won it again after 32 seasons. His time at Barcelona had alot of issues but when fit and playing, he was the bpitw.

The world cup gave him legacy but by default he was the bpitw in the 80s. Platini played for a much stronger and wealthier team giving him a platform to shine AND yes Maradona was a much superior footballer to both Platini and Zico, no doubt in my mind. I compare his situation to that of Messi in the last decade; for Cristiano or anyone else to have won the ballond'or ahead of Messi, it would be due to his team winning things but Messi was individually and by default the bpitw.

VAR would have sent off quite a number of players in 1982 and 1986 world cups.

To gain a greater understanding of what Maradona did, and how remarkable it was, one need only look at the Ballon D'Or dream team nominations, and the number of teammates that each of the (typical) GOAT candidates had in that list. For example:

Messi: Ramos, Busquets, Iniesta, Xavi, Eto'o, Henry, Ronaldinho

CR7: Ramos, Marcelo, Alonso, Figo, Giggs, Buffon, Casillas, Van Der Sar

Pele: C. Alberto, Djalma Santos, Nilton Santos, Didi, Gerson, Garrincha, Jairzinho, Rivellino

Maradona: Passarella, Schuster.

So one guy from pre WC 1986 with Argentina, and one guy from his 2 years at Barca.

Even if we look at guys we have been discussing from the next tier, you can see those guys had a lot more help.from 'Hall of Famer' level players than Maradona, e.g.

Platini: Zoff, Gentile, Scirea, Cabrini, Tardelli, Tigana,

Zico: Junior, Falcao, Socrates, Jairzinho, Rivellino, Alberto

This doesn't mean that Maradona is definitely the GOAT, but he definitely had the least all-star help of pretty much all the candidates. This is why it makes no sense to say 'he didn't achieve this and he didn't achieve that'. Football is a team sport.

 

[Fobal]

You don't seem to have a problem with handball use that way, football world calls it cheating big time.
You say systematic fouls are type of cheating and justify handball type of cheating, football world disagrees.

I have no idea what your argument is really, everything is so clear to everyone who follows football.

You're talking back and forth about VAR to fit your narrative without even being aware of the fact that everybody saw it other than the referee, that's why it was shocking, because it was so obvious. Did you see English players' reaction?

I said VAR because the sleeping referee missed it not because it's like a fine-margin offside decision that only VAR could resolve. I said "Had VAR existed or the referee was as careful as everyone in the game against England", so why are you using this statement against me? because anyone reading it in good faith can understand that referee was not careful, sleeping, missed something obvious etc. Strange to me that you're to trying to portray something so obvious to everyone as if it's a tough decision that requires VAR. Never saw such a blatant handball goal like that in a high-profile occasion like WC all my life, it was basically volleyball.

Look what Shilton said: 'It was such an obvious handball. The referee and the linesman looked at each other but neither would be positive. Maradona took a chance and got away with it.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-God-goal-sparked-feud-referee-assistant.html

"Tunisian official Ali Bin Nasser later blamed his assistant referee for missing the blatantly obvious handball"
https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/ranked-the-25-worst-refereeing-decisions-of-all-time

seems to be ranked the 3rd worst refereeing decision in football.

It seems I'm quite clear of what I'm talking about in terms of the game itself, that play (and others in that game) and how it looked for me your revisionism:

Absolutely no one outside of England cares that Maradona cheated at a football game. For one thing, @Fobal's entirely correct in saying the way teams treated attackers in that era was far more egrigious, both morally and in terms of impact on the sport (and that certainly extends to England's own defending in that match). That very much supercedes any moral or procedural outrage to be gamed here. (For another, both he and many of his competitors have done far more questionable things on and off the field.)

If the point's supposed to be how precarious his legacy was, that's fairly obvious. It does not quite hinge on this one 51st minute moment in a match he'd personally dominated while playing for the better team, though.

My initial post wasn't that much related to the match itself, the plays involved, but like I've said before, of how you pushed the envelope too far even in a silly way including VAR in the way I've described it just for the sake of making a point and how that VAR would backfire regarding the match itself to sustain such point if we actually do some sort of reviosionism with a real balanced view of the game.

And sorry, I'm feeling that to start a talk (a real one) about: how many players seen it, or not, of how blatant or cunning it was the play, if you think that "tough style" was and is cheating or not or the reason why that hand it's a cultural thing and the one by Diego (way more blatant) against Russia avoiding a goal it's not would end in a mess with so many nitpicking elements. Could be talked here? yeap, specially the Cultural and iconic place the so called "Hand of God" has in the history of the game and the player himself, yet I feel like that there is no place for it if, when you continuosly answer that you don't get what I'm talking about. It won't work, we'll be everyone to death and would be another example among many of how almost everyone of this GOAT threads tend to derraill.

​

 

[antohan]

So, you completely disagree that:

1) Maradona cheated in WC'86

I completely disagree with making it remotely relevant.

2) He's where he is in terms of legacy (top-3 of all time) due to WC'86

I completely disagree with the notion that you can even attempt to qualify the assessment of a player removing the greatest tournament performance of all time. Take 1970 away from Pelé and he struggles as well, even if that was essentially a farewell coronation. Personally I'm far more impressed by 1958 but I'm probably in a minority.

3) WC'86 is what put him above Platini and Zico (You yourself said: " I've mentioned before that pre-WC 86 you had kids wanting to be like Platini, Zico or Maradona. Within weeks, they just wanted to be Maradona.")

I said I agreed with your base case.

4) He was underwhelming in European competitions

Concerning point 4, because, you had an earlier response to one of my posts on European competitions, I just checked what his teams did in European competitions overall on transfermarkt (other than his UEFA Cup win in 1989) without isolating European Cup & his time at Napoli:

1983: eliminated by Austria Vienna in the QF (Cup Winners Cup)
1984: eliminated by United in the QF (Cup Winners Cup)
1986: eliminated by Toulouse in the 1st round (UEFA Cup)
1987: eliminated by Real in the 1st round (European Cup)
1989: eliminated by Werder Bremen in the 2nd round (UEFA Cup)
1990: eliminated by Spartak Moscow in the 2nd round (European Cup)

I'd say pretty disappointing compared to other all-time greats in continental tournaments.

A completely irrelevant point.

This is where you really really really should listen to those saying you can't construct an argument googling things and applying your biases but living through them and actually understanding them.

I don't mean to be nasty, you are just younger and used to acquiring knowledge second hand through that vast resource that is the internet. It is how it is, nothing right or wrong about it.

You say it was expected that Italian teams would make European finals, which is just plain wrong. Nothing to do with "winning an internet argument" either, but I'll lay it out for you chronologically:

1) Throughout the 70s and early 80s the strongest league in Europe was the Bundesliga, by a distance. Bayern was dominant, but nothing like today, it was chockful with fantastic sides and players taking turns at challenging them. It was the Germans that regularly made deep runs in European competitions (and Liverpool, who still lost Kevin Keegan to the German league).

2) In the first half of the 80s Juventus emerges as a superteam. It was basically world champions Italy with Boniek in stead of Conti and Platini (for me at least, the best at the time). For a contemporary parallely, think how that dominant Spain were Barca with no Messi. A well oiled machine, with a defined and very effective system + the cherry on the cake.

3) Even then, it should be noted that Juve played differently in Serie A and Europe. They needed to adapt their style for the cup/knockout format. Platini would drop deeper and play like Pirlo in Europe, while he would typically be more advanced and incisive in the league. He was absolutely perfect and custom made for that adaptation. Going back to the earlier parallel, imagine if Messi could be regular Messi in the league and turn into Xavi to pull the strings from midfield as and when needed. Juve didn't have Messi and Xavi, they just had Platini performing both roles. Of course he was the best player in the world, even if Maradona was more exciting and unplayable as an individual.

4) The only team that really competed with them domestically was Roma. They were nowhere near as fun to watch. A strong, resilient Liedholm/Eriksson side that were very hard to beat and in Falcao, Cerezo and Conti had the ingredients to turn draws into wins. Falcão is woefully underrated, absolute beast of a midfield general.

5) You have to bear in mind two things here: two points for a win (whoever lost the least was champion, it was all geared towards defending) and only two foreigners allowed (else Roma could have had Zico and that would have made them insanely good). Neither of those hold all the way to 1995, which is why your randomly picked "Italians in Europe" timeframe makes zero sense.

6) So far what you have is two great sides which also happened to be set up as great cup sides, nothing to do with Italian dominance. Not that they dominated anything, Juve won the EC once and nobody else did until Milan emerges. Furthermore, depth was nothing like it is today when we regularly yap about possible quadruples. Nobody managed a double throughout the 80s, your player pool was entirely domestic bar two imports and with Juve hoarding the NT and Milan/Inter picking up spare parts, the rest were scrambling to have a decent XI, let alone depth. Doing well in Europe systematically sacrificed the league, so much so that the Juve side that won it did a Liverpool 2005 and only qualified to European competitions through winning the EC.

7) That brings you to the point of incentives. You seem to look down at Spartak, Steaua, Red Star, certainly diss Galatasaray at one point. What you fail to see there is many of these were dominant domestically, much like PSG in Ligue 1 today. They lived for Europe. There was also this somewhat relevant geopolitical context which we can summarise as "the iron curtain". The state and their FAs were heavily invested in the importance of performing in Europe so some of these were almost the national team out there, much like Puskas' Honved were effectively Hungary 40 years earlier. At the other end you have the likes of Juve and Milan, which have won the scudetto plenty of times and happily sacrifice it for Europe. Napoli? They had never won it, they are a team from the deep historically impoverished south, they don't give two shits about Europe or geopolitics and they only live for the day they stick it up to the rich industrial northerners. Feck Europe, the league is all that matters. They didn't want to do a Verona and knick the league only to be 10th the next season.

8) You note the importance of World Cup 86 for Maradona, but not its importance and that of Maradona to Serie A. Serie A took off in the second half of the 80s. Money poured in and suddenly you had the Bundesliga losing their top players to it. Where Juve had been the base of the Italian team, now Milan was. The rich northerners wouldn't have these bloody southerners sticking it up to them so went shopping for the very best and since two wasn't enough they made it three foreigners, eventually 3+2 naturalised and later there was Bosman and it all went haywire. Again, it makes absolutely no sense to have pre-1988 compared to the 90s. Completely different constraints.

9) Suddenly you had Milan adding a spine of Rijkaard, Gullit and van Basten to their Italian NT core. Inter instead went for Matthäus, Brehme and Klinsmann. This is basically the biggest stars of two of the best NTs at the time added to the lion's share of the Italian NT. Napoli had Maradona, Careca and added Alemao to an Italian core with a handful of NT subs. Good players, mind, but not at the same world class tier as the others. I don't actually find the first Napoli scudetto all that remarkable. It could easily be marked as a Verona/Leicester one off. What was incredible was how even after that rule change in 1988 and others arming thenselves to the teeth, they managed to pick up a UEFA Cup and another Serie A. That was the truly remarkable club-level feat.

10) You mention how "Napoli's rivals" Milan managed to do well in Europe. Firstly, nobody in their right mind would compare the status and greatness of that AC side to the Napoli one, so using their relative accomplishments as an evaluation of Maradona is mental. Still, for all their legendary all-time status, they had to watch Inter and Napoli reclaim the league while they excelled in Europe. They won two ECs off a single league win. They were a great cup side which prioritised that, so instead of losing 2 league games they would end up losing 5 or 6 and that was the league gone.

I'll pass on going beyond 1990. It is completely irrelevant for comparison purposes or to assess his career, which pretty much imploded the day Argentina beat Italy in the semifinal of their World Cup. There's a clear before and after.

 

[Spoony]

I completely disagree with making it remotely relevant.


I completely disagree with the notion that you can even attempt to qualify the assessment of a player removing the greatest tournament performance of all time. Take 1970 away from Pelé and he struggles as well, even if that was essentially a farewell coronation. Personally I'm far more impressed by 1958 but I'm probably in a minority.


I said I agreed with your base case.


A completely irrelevant point.

This is where you really really really should listen to those saying you can't construct an argument googling things and applying your biases but living through them and actually understanding them.

I don't mean to be nasty, you are just younger and used to acquiring knowledge second hand through that vast resource that is the internet. It is how it is, nothing right or wrong about it.

You say it was expected that Italian teams would make European finals, which is just plain wrong. Nothing to do with "winning an internet argument" either, but I'll lay it out for you chronologically:

1) Throughout the 70s and early 80s the strongest league in Europe was the Bundesliga, by a distance. Bayern was dominant, but nothing like today, it was chockful with fantastic sides and players taking turns at challenging them. It was the Germans that regularly made deep runs in European competitions (and Liverpool, who still lost Kevin Keegan to the German league).

2) In the first half of the 80s Juventus emerges as a superteam. It was basically world champions Italy with Boniek in stead of Conti and Platini (for me at least, the best at the time). For a contemporary parallely, think how that dominant Spain were Barca with no Messi. A well oiled machine, with a defined and very effective system + the cherry on the cake.

3) Even then, it should be noted that Juve played differently in Serie A and Europe. They needed to adapt their style for the cup/knockout format. Platini would drop deeper and play like Pirlo in Europe, while he would typically be more advanced and incisive in the league. He was absolutely perfect and custom made for that adaptation. Going back to the earlier parallel, imagine if Messi could be regular Messi in the league and turn into Xavi to pull the strings from midfield as and when needed. Juve didn't have Messi and Xavi, they just had Platini performing both roles. Of course he was the best player in the world, even if Maradona was more exciting and unplayable as an individual.

4) The only team that really competed with them domestically was Roma. They were nowhere near as fun to watch. A strong, resilient Liedholm/Eriksson side that were very hard to beat and in Falcao, Cerezo and Conti had the ingredients to turn draws into wins. Falcão is woefully underrated, absolute beast of a midfield general.

5) You have to bear in mind two things here: two points for a win (whoever lost the least was champion, it was all geared towards defending) and only two foreigners allowed (else Roma could have had Zico and that would have made them insanely good). Neither of those hold all the way to 1995, which is why your randomly picked "Italians in Europe" timeframe makes zero sense.

6) So far what you have is two great sides which also happened to be set up as great cup sides, nothing to do with Italian dominance. Not that they dominated anything, Juve won the EC once and nobody else did until Milan emerges. Furthermore, depth was nothing like it is today when we regularly yap about possible quadruples. Nobody managed a double throughout the 80s, your player pool was entirely domestic bar two imports and with Juve hoarding the NT and Milan/Inter picking up spare parts, the rest were scrambling to have a decent XI, let alone depth. Doing well in Europe systematically sacrificed the league, so much so that the Juve side that won it did a Liverpool 2005 and only qualified to European competitions through winning the EC.

7) That brings you to the point of incentives. You seem to look down at Spartak, Steaua, Red Star, certainly diss Galatasaray at one point. What you fail to see there is many of these were dominant domestically, much like PSG in Ligue 1 today. They lived for Europe. There was also this somewhat relevant geopolitical context which we can summarise as "the iron curtain". The state and their FAs were heavily invested in the importance of performing in Europe so some of these were almost the national team out there, much like Puskas' Honved were effectively Hungary 40 years earlier. At the other end you have the likes of Juve and Milan, which have won the scudetto plenty of times and happily sacrifice it for Europe. Napoli? They had never won it, they are a team from the deep historically impoverished south, they don't give two shits about Europe or geopolitics and they only live for the day they stick it up to the rich industrial northerners. Feck Europe, the league is all that matters. They didn't want to do a Verona and knick the league only to be 10th the next season.

8) You note the importance of World Cup 86 for Maradona, but not its importance and that of Maradona to Serie A. Serie A took off in the second half of the 80s. Money poured in and suddenly you had the Bundesliga losing their top players to it. Where Juve had been the base of the Italian team, now Milan was. The rich northerners wouldn't have these bloody southerners sticking it up to them so went shopping for the very best and since two wasn't enough they made it three foreigners, eventually 3+2 naturalised and later there was Bosman and it all went haywire. Again, it makes absolutely no sense to have pre-1988 compared to the 90s. Completely different constraints.

9) Suddenly you had Milan adding a spine of Rijkaard, Gullit and van Basten to their Italian NT core. Inter instead went for Matthäus, Brehme and Klinsmann. This is basically the biggest stars of two of the best NTs at the time added to the lion's share of the Italian NT. Napoli had Maradona, Careca and added Alemao to an Italian core with a handful of NT subs. Good players, mind, but not at the same world class tier as the others. I don't actually find the first Napoli scudetto all that remarkable. It could easily be marked as a Verona/Leicester one off. What was incredible was how even after that rule change in 1988 and others arming thenselves to the teeth, they managed to pick up a UEFA Cup and another Serie A. That was the truly remarkable club-level feat.

10) You mention how "Napoli's rivals" Milan managed to do well in Europe. Firstly, nobody in their right mind would compare the status and greatness of that AC side to the Napoli one, so using their relative accomplishments as an evaluation of Maradona is mental. Still, for all their legendary all-time status, they had to watch Inter and Napoli reclaim the league while they excelled in Europe. They won two ECs off a single league win. They were a great cup side which prioritised that, so instead of losing 2 league games they would end up losing 5 or 6 and that was the league gone.

I'll pass on going beyond 1990. It is completely irrelevant for comparison purposes or to assess his career, which pretty much imploded the day Argentina beat Italy in the semifinal of their World Cup. There's a clear before and after.

Good post.

 

[mertens]

7) That brings you to the point of incentives. You seem to look down at Spartak, Steaua, Red Star, certainly diss Galatasaray at one point. What you fail to see there is many of these were dominant domestically, much like PSG in Ligue 1 today. They lived for Europe. There was also this somewhat relevant geopolitical context which we can summarise as "the iron curtain". The state and their FAs were heavily invested in the importance of performing in Europe so some of these were almost the national team out there, much like Puskas' Honved were effectively Hungary 40 years earlier. At the other end you have the likes of Juve and Milan, which have won the scudetto plenty of times and happily sacrifice it for Europe. Napoli? They had never won it, they are a team from the deep historically impoverished south, they don't give two shits about Europe or geopolitics and they only live for the day they stick it up to the rich industrial northerners. Feck Europe, the league is all that matters. They didn't want to do a Verona and knick the league only to be 10th the next season.

None of what you wrote in points 1 through 10 other than 7 and 10 refute what I said, 80% of what you wrote are not much relevant to my points (I mean no disrespect). You have couple of major assumptions that I completely disagree, and in the end we'll just agree to disagree.

For no. 7, it comes down to “Napoli didn’t underperform in Europe, they just didn’t care.”
Did Maradona and Napoli fans know about this? I'm pretty sure they gave two shits about Europe as they won UEFA Cup unless you argue back saying something along the line of "in that specific year, they cared" or "they won despite not giving two shits about Europe".

You also said AC Milan and Juve supposedly chose to focus on Europe and decided to sacrifice Serie A (ignoring the very small detail that they had to win the league to qualify for the European Cup in the first place (unless they won the prior version)). Red Star had geopolitics, and Napoli were just too passionate about the league to bother. What was Inter Milan doing by the way, did they choose the league or Europe?
This is just fiction to me, to be honest. For ex., in AC Milan’s case, they managed to win only two league titles within a twenty-two year period after 1968, one in 79 and the second one in 1988, so “happy to sacrifice Serie A for Europe.” argument hardly sounds serious especially when the league title was the very pathway to the European Cup.

I also find it rather unconvincing that Napoli’s players supposedly shrugged off European competitions because they were too busy with the socio-economic injustices of the north-south divide (not discounting the intensity of the grudge between South-North Italy as evidenced in the game between Argentina-Italy in WC'90 in Napoli by the way). Saying they prioritized the league is one thing; claiming they didn’t give two shits about Europe is an entirely different thing.

10) You mention how "Napoli's rivals" Milan managed to do well in Europe. Firstly, nobody in their right mind would compare the status and greatness of that AC side to the Napoli one, so using their relative accomplishments as an evaluation of Maradona is mental.

This to me is mental..

Let me get this straight, you’re saying Napoli’s underwhelming results in Europe compared to AC Milan were totally normal because “they weren’t comparable” to AC Milan? That would almost make sense… if Napoli hadn’t beaten that same Milan side to the Serie A title twice and pushed them to the brink in the season Milan won Serie A.

Napoli also managed to destroy them, with results like 3–0 and 4–1.. No other team in Europe was capable of treating Milan this way during that era. Juve also got its share of regular beatings from Napoli. So the idea that Napoli were some poor underdog against Milan etc. is misleading and not even a serious argument to me. It conveniently overlooks the fact that they consistently outperformed these great sides (AC Milan, Juve, and Inter).

Your argument essentially boils down to this: Milan were supposedly too good for Napoli to compete with in Europe (and it's even mental to compare them)… but somehow not too good for Napoli to outperform them in arguably the toughest league at that time. Sorry, but this makes no sense, you can't have it both ways.

 

[Fortitude]

@antohan @mertens nice to see reasoned posts on both sides of the discussion; takes me back a few years!

 

[Red the Bear]

I completely disagree with making it remotely relevant.


I completely disagree with the notion that you can even attempt to qualify the assessment of a player removing the greatest tournament performance of all time. Take 1970 away from Pelé and he struggles as well, even if that was essentially a farewell coronation. Personally I'm far more impressed by 1958 but I'm probably in a minority.


I said I agreed with your base case.


A completely irrelevant point.

This is where you really really really should listen to those saying you can't construct an argument googling things and applying your biases but living through them and actually understanding them.

I don't mean to be nasty, you are just younger and used to acquiring knowledge second hand through that vast resource that is the internet. It is how it is, nothing right or wrong about it.

You say it was expected that Italian teams would make European finals, which is just plain wrong. Nothing to do with "winning an internet argument" either, but I'll lay it out for you chronologically:

1) Throughout the 70s and early 80s the strongest league in Europe was the Bundesliga, by a distance. Bayern was dominant, but nothing like today, it was chockful with fantastic sides and players taking turns at challenging them. It was the Germans that regularly made deep runs in European competitions (and Liverpool, who still lost Kevin Keegan to the German league).

2) In the first half of the 80s Juventus emerges as a superteam. It was basically world champions Italy with Boniek in stead of Conti and Platini (for me at least, the best at the time). For a contemporary parallely, think how that dominant Spain were Barca with no Messi. A well oiled machine, with a defined and very effective system + the cherry on the cake.

3) Even then, it should be noted that Juve played differently in Serie A and Europe. They needed to adapt their style for the cup/knockout format. Platini would drop deeper and play like Pirlo in Europe, while he would typically be more advanced and incisive in the league. He was absolutely perfect and custom made for that adaptation. Going back to the earlier parallel, imagine if Messi could be regular Messi in the league and turn into Xavi to pull the strings from midfield as and when needed. Juve didn't have Messi and Xavi, they just had Platini performing both roles. Of course he was the best player in the world, even if Maradona was more exciting and unplayable as an individual.

4) The only team that really competed with them domestically was Roma. They were nowhere near as fun to watch. A strong, resilient Liedholm/Eriksson side that were very hard to beat and in Falcao, Cerezo and Conti had the ingredients to turn draws into wins. Falcão is woefully underrated, absolute beast of a midfield general.

5) You have to bear in mind two things here: two points for a win (whoever lost the least was champion, it was all geared towards defending) and only two foreigners allowed (else Roma could have had Zico and that would have made them insanely good). Neither of those hold all the way to 1995, which is why your randomly picked "Italians in Europe" timeframe makes zero sense.

6) So far what you have is two great sides which also happened to be set up as great cup sides, nothing to do with Italian dominance. Not that they dominated anything, Juve won the EC once and nobody else did until Milan emerges. Furthermore, depth was nothing like it is today when we regularly yap about possible quadruples. Nobody managed a double throughout the 80s, your player pool was entirely domestic bar two imports and with Juve hoarding the NT and Milan/Inter picking up spare parts, the rest were scrambling to have a decent XI, let alone depth. Doing well in Europe systematically sacrificed the league, so much so that the Juve side that won it did a Liverpool 2005 and only qualified to European competitions through winning the EC.

7) That brings you to the point of incentives. You seem to look down at Spartak, Steaua, Red Star, certainly diss Galatasaray at one point. What you fail to see there is many of these were dominant domestically, much like PSG in Ligue 1 today. They lived for Europe. There was also this somewhat relevant geopolitical context which we can summarise as "the iron curtain". The state and their FAs were heavily invested in the importance of performing in Europe so some of these were almost the national team out there, much like Puskas' Honved were effectively Hungary 40 years earlier. At the other end you have the likes of Juve and Milan, which have won the scudetto plenty of times and happily sacrifice it for Europe. Napoli? They had never won it, they are a team from the deep historically impoverished south, they don't give two shits about Europe or geopolitics and they only live for the day they stick it up to the rich industrial northerners. Feck Europe, the league is all that matters. They didn't want to do a Verona and knick the league only to be 10th the next season.

8) You note the importance of World Cup 86 for Maradona, but not its importance and that of Maradona to Serie A. Serie A took off in the second half of the 80s. Money poured in and suddenly you had the Bundesliga losing their top players to it. Where Juve had been the base of the Italian team, now Milan was. The rich northerners wouldn't have these bloody southerners sticking it up to them so went shopping for the very best and since two wasn't enough they made it three foreigners, eventually 3+2 naturalised and later there was Bosman and it all went haywire. Again, it makes absolutely no sense to have pre-1988 compared to the 90s. Completely different constraints.

9) Suddenly you had Milan adding a spine of Rijkaard, Gullit and van Basten to their Italian NT core. Inter instead went for Matthäus, Brehme and Klinsmann. This is basically the biggest stars of two of the best NTs at the time added to the lion's share of the Italian NT. Napoli had Maradona, Careca and added Alemao to an Italian core with a handful of NT subs. Good players, mind, but not at the same world class tier as the others. I don't actually find the first Napoli scudetto all that remarkable. It could easily be marked as a Verona/Leicester one off. What was incredible was how even after that rule change in 1988 and others arming thenselves to the teeth, they managed to pick up a UEFA Cup and another Serie A. That was the truly remarkable club-level feat.

10) You mention how "Napoli's rivals" Milan managed to do well in Europe. Firstly, nobody in their right mind would compare the status and greatness of that AC side to the Napoli one, so using their relative accomplishments as an evaluation of Maradona is mental. Still, for all their legendary all-time status, they had to watch Inter and Napoli reclaim the league while they excelled in Europe. They won two ECs off a single league win. They were a great cup side which prioritised that, so instead of losing 2 league games they would end up losing 5 or 6 and that was the league gone.

I'll pass on going beyond 1990. It is completely irrelevant for comparison purposes or to assess his career, which pretty much imploded the day Argentina beat Italy in the semifinal of their World Cup. There's a clear before and after.

A bit of a nitpick but even if you consider Bundesliga of the 70s and early 80s the best league in would still be a bit of a stretch to say it was so by a distance.

Measured by their European performances England clearly comes up on top while a more qualitative and admittedly subjective analysis points to all the major leagues being somewhat equal in rank, before the days of mass movement of players from one league to another there simply wasn't much room to take of and get too much ahead of the pack.

In fact it probably would be a fair statement to consider some South American leagues ahead of their European counterparts during periods of that time frame before the mass migration of their very best and as the Intercontinental results suggests.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

I completely disagree with making it remotely relevant.


I completely disagree with the notion that you can even attempt to qualify the assessment of a player removing the greatest tournament performance of all time. Take 1970 away from Pelé and he struggles as well, even if that was essentially a farewell coronation. Personally I'm far more impressed by 1958 but I'm probably in a minority.


I said I agreed with your base case.


A completely irrelevant point.

This is where you really really really should listen to those saying you can't construct an argument googling things and applying your biases but living through them and actually understanding them.

I don't mean to be nasty, you are just younger and used to acquiring knowledge second hand through that vast resource that is the internet. It is how it is, nothing right or wrong about it.

You say it was expected that Italian teams would make European finals, which is just plain wrong. Nothing to do with "winning an internet argument" either, but I'll lay it out for you chronologically:

1) Throughout the 70s and early 80s the strongest league in Europe was the Bundesliga, by a distance. Bayern was dominant, but nothing like today, it was chockful with fantastic sides and players taking turns at challenging them. It was the Germans that regularly made deep runs in European competitions (and Liverpool, who still lost Kevin Keegan to the German league).

2) In the first half of the 80s Juventus emerges as a superteam. It was basically world champions Italy with Boniek in stead of Conti and Platini (for me at least, the best at the time). For a contemporary parallely, think how that dominant Spain were Barca with no Messi. A well oiled machine, with a defined and very effective system + the cherry on the cake.

3) Even then, it should be noted that Juve played differently in Serie A and Europe. They needed to adapt their style for the cup/knockout format. Platini would drop deeper and play like Pirlo in Europe, while he would typically be more advanced and incisive in the league. He was absolutely perfect and custom made for that adaptation. Going back to the earlier parallel, imagine if Messi could be regular Messi in the league and turn into Xavi to pull the strings from midfield as and when needed. Juve didn't have Messi and Xavi, they just had Platini performing both roles. Of course he was the best player in the world, even if Maradona was more exciting and unplayable as an individual.

4) The only team that really competed with them domestically was Roma. They were nowhere near as fun to watch. A strong, resilient Liedholm/Eriksson side that were very hard to beat and in Falcao, Cerezo and Conti had the ingredients to turn draws into wins. Falcão is woefully underrated, absolute beast of a midfield general.

5) You have to bear in mind two things here: two points for a win (whoever lost the least was champion, it was all geared towards defending) and only two foreigners allowed (else Roma could have had Zico and that would have made them insanely good). Neither of those hold all the way to 1995, which is why your randomly picked "Italians in Europe" timeframe makes zero sense.

6) So far what you have is two great sides which also happened to be set up as great cup sides, nothing to do with Italian dominance. Not that they dominated anything, Juve won the EC once and nobody else did until Milan emerges. Furthermore, depth was nothing like it is today when we regularly yap about possible quadruples. Nobody managed a double throughout the 80s, your player pool was entirely domestic bar two imports and with Juve hoarding the NT and Milan/Inter picking up spare parts, the rest were scrambling to have a decent XI, let alone depth. Doing well in Europe systematically sacrificed the league, so much so that the Juve side that won it did a Liverpool 2005 and only qualified to European competitions through winning the EC.

7) That brings you to the point of incentives. You seem to look down at Spartak, Steaua, Red Star, certainly diss Galatasaray at one point. What you fail to see there is many of these were dominant domestically, much like PSG in Ligue 1 today. They lived for Europe. There was also this somewhat relevant geopolitical context which we can summarise as "the iron curtain". The state and their FAs were heavily invested in the importance of performing in Europe so some of these were almost the national team out there, much like Puskas' Honved were effectively Hungary 40 years earlier. At the other end you have the likes of Juve and Milan, which have won the scudetto plenty of times and happily sacrifice it for Europe. Napoli? They had never won it, they are a team from the deep historically impoverished south, they don't give two shits about Europe or geopolitics and they only live for the day they stick it up to the rich industrial northerners. Feck Europe, the league is all that matters. They didn't want to do a Verona and knick the league only to be 10th the next season.

8) You note the importance of World Cup 86 for Maradona, but not its importance and that of Maradona to Serie A. Serie A took off in the second half of the 80s. Money poured in and suddenly you had the Bundesliga losing their top players to it. Where Juve had been the base of the Italian team, now Milan was. The rich northerners wouldn't have these bloody southerners sticking it up to them so went shopping for the very best and since two wasn't enough they made it three foreigners, eventually 3+2 naturalised and later there was Bosman and it all went haywire. Again, it makes absolutely no sense to have pre-1988 compared to the 90s. Completely different constraints.

9) Suddenly you had Milan adding a spine of Rijkaard, Gullit and van Basten to their Italian NT core. Inter instead went for Matthäus, Brehme and Klinsmann. This is basically the biggest stars of two of the best NTs at the time added to the lion's share of the Italian NT. Napoli had Maradona, Careca and added Alemao to an Italian core with a handful of NT subs. Good players, mind, but not at the same world class tier as the others. I don't actually find the first Napoli scudetto all that remarkable. It could easily be marked as a Verona/Leicester one off. What was incredible was how even after that rule change in 1988 and others arming thenselves to the teeth, they managed to pick up a UEFA Cup and another Serie A. That was the truly remarkable club-level feat.

10) You mention how "Napoli's rivals" Milan managed to do well in Europe. Firstly, nobody in their right mind would compare the status and greatness of that AC side to the Napoli one, so using their relative accomplishments as an evaluation of Maradona is mental. Still, for all their legendary all-time status, they had to watch Inter and Napoli reclaim the league while they excelled in Europe. They won two ECs off a single league win. They were a great cup side which prioritised that, so instead of losing 2 league games they would end up losing 5 or 6 and that was the league gone.

I'll pass on going beyond 1990. It is completely irrelevant for comparison purposes or to assess his career, which pretty much imploded the day Argentina beat Italy in the semifinal of their World Cup. There's a clear before and after.

Really good post.

For what it's worth, I also agree with you re: Pele.

I think his 1958 World Cup performances were clearly better than 1970 and more impressive.

His performances in the semi-final and then the final in '58 might be the 2 best games any player has played consecutively and he was only 17 too.

 

[Zico1982]

This thread has driven a bit off topic and ended up being a discussion about when Maradona became the best player in the world. But who are the top 10 GOATS? I tried putting in a chronological chain of best players in the world to create some kind of inspiration list. A few of the very great did not make it in because of the competition, but who are the 10?

My two cents without ranking:

Pele - Maradona - Di Stefano - Puskas - Cruyff - Beckenbauer - Messi are always in the top ten.

R9 - Zico - Platini - Ronaldinho - M Laudrup - CR7 - Eusebio - Van Basten - Zidane - Baggio are fighting it out for the remaining three spots.


My ten favorite players includes Bergkamp, Zico, Robben, Ronaldinho, Zlatan, Maldini, M Laudrup, Falcáo (the midfield general), R9 and Luis Figo.

And btw. Good post from Antohan and also the last. one from Mertens. Let´s get back to topic.

 

[antohan]

None of what you wrote in points 1 through 10 other than 7 and 10 refute what I said, 80% of what you wrote are not much relevant to my points (I mean no disrespect). You have couple of major assumptions that I completely disagree, and in the end we'll just agree to disagree.

Yeah, agree to disagree, absolutely.

You also said AC Milan and Juve supposedly chose to focus on Europe and decided to sacrifice Serie A (ignoring the very small detail that they had to win the league to qualify for the European Cup in the first place (unless they won the prior version)).

Chicken and egg, right? That's how eventually you get to post-2006 Arsenal systematically targeting Top Four, qualifying to the CL every year, struggling to balance Europe and the Top 4 run in come February/March and winning nothing. I digress, but always found it ridiculous. In fairness, they had a stadium to pay for.

What was Inter Milan doing by the way, did they choose the league or Europe?

I'm buggered if I know. Inter were always a tough read. I always wanted them to do well for various reasons and they consistently disappointed. Now I think about it, a bit like Arsenal: they wanted it all but inevitably fell on their arse trying to execute it.

Let me get this straight, you’re saying Napoli’s underwhelming results in Europe compared to AC Milan were totally normal because “they weren’t comparable” to AC Milan? That would almost make sense… if Napoli hadn’t beaten that same Milan side to the Serie A title twice and pushed them to the brink in the season Milan won Serie A.

Napoli also managed to destroy them, with results like 3–0 and 4–1.. No other team in Europe was capable of treating Milan this way during that era.

No, I was saying that Milan (and the Capello variant with the same core Italian personnel) are definitely in the Top 10 club sides of all time so it's unfair to use the relative accomplishments of these collectives against ONE individual player.

Indeed, it is the exact other way around, we should marvel at how unplayable Maradona was that he just shat on them and all their trophies regularly. Not a single other player ever ran rampant against that side, only Diego.

 

[antohan]

A bit of a nitpick but even if you consider Bundesliga of the 70s and early 80s the best league in would still be a bit of a stretch to say it was so by a distance.

Measured by their European performances England clearly comes up on top while a more qualitative and admittedly subjective analysis points to all the major leagues being somewhat equal in rank, before the days of mass movement of players from one league to another there simply wasn't much room to take of and get too much ahead of the pack.

In fact it probably would be a fair statement to consider some South American leagues ahead of their European counterparts during periods of that time frame before the mass migration of their very best and as the Intercontinental results suggests.

Fair point. I always felt from a technical standpoint BuLi was more accomplished and the football more free-flowing, but I largely had access to continental leagues.

With English sides, I only got to see them in continental cups, or when they invariably failed to beat the South American champions looking quite, erm, agricultural. They probably didn't take it as seriously, mind.

 

[Spoony]

Fair point. I always felt from a technical standpoint BuLi was more accomplished and the football more free-flowing, but I largely had access to continental leagues.

With English sides, I only got to see them in continental cups, or when they invariably failed to beat the South American champions looking quite, erm, agricultural. They probably didn't take it as seriously, mind.

English/European clubs never took the old club world Cup seriously...whereas South American sides did.

 

[Kwabs]

A bit of a nitpick but even if you consider Bundesliga of the 70s and early 80s the best league in would still be a bit of a stretch to say it was so by a distance.

Measured by their European performances England clearly comes up on top while a more qualitative and admittedly subjective analysis points to all the major leagues being somewhat equal in rank, before the days of mass movement of players from one league to another there simply wasn't much room to take of and get too much ahead of the pack.

In fact it probably would be a fair statement to consider some South American leagues ahead of their European counterparts during periods of that time frame before the mass migration of their very best and as the Intercontinental results suggests.

At the very least on a par. With so much less movement, it was a more level playing field, between European leagues and between European teams and South American teams. Now all the world's best players (including loads from Africa and Asia - another modern difference) play in a handful of European leagues.

 

[Fobal]

Yeah, agree to disagree, absolutely.

Chicken and egg, right? That's how eventually you get to post-2006 Arsenal systematically targeting Top Four, qualifying to the CL every year, struggling to balance Europe and the Top 4 run in come February/March and winning nothing. I digress, but always found it ridiculous. In fairness, they had a stadium to pay for.

I'm buggered if I know. Inter were always a tough read. I always wanted them to do well for various reasons and they consistently disappointed. Now I think about it, a bit like Arsenal: they wanted it all but inevitably fell on their arse trying to execute it.


No, I was saying that Milan (and the Capello variant with the same core Italian personnel) are definitely in the Top 10 club sides of all time so it's unfair to use the relative accomplishments of these collectives against ONE individual player.

Indeed, it is the exact other way around, we should marvel at how unplayable Maradona was that he just shat on them and all their trophies regularly. Not a single other player ever ran rampant against that side, only Diego.

Not even going to such extent, Milan is a powerhosue in Italy, Napoli not. They had more tradition in Euro competitions and more importantly they had more elite players at their disposal that when you are facing many competitons helps a lot.

 

[Quagmaguire]

For me I have seen better players than Maradona and Pele now.

In my opinion Maradona and Pele remain high on the list mostly due to their legacy as football superstars of their generation of football, especially Pele as the first superstar of football.

I've seen much more refined and skillful footballers now partly because the football environments has also evolved.

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

English/European clubs never took the old club world Cup seriously...whereas South American sides did.

The old intercontinental cup the European sides always brought over their strongest XI and travel wasn't as easy in those days, in the 1968 Intercontinental Cup United played Best, Law and Charlton. According to the wiki, the match generated over £50,000 (approximately £1.27 million in 2010), a record earning for any English club at the time. It was a very big deal in the 1960s.

From the late 1960s and early 1970s it became marred by South American violence though and then lost its lustre by the 1980s somewhat.

 

[Fobal]

For me I have seen better players than Maradona and Pele now.

In my opinion Maradona and Pele remain high on the list mostly due to their legacy as football superstars of their generation of football, especially Pele as the first superstar of football.

I've seen much more refined and skillful footballers now partly because the football environment players play in has also evolved.

The reality it's that there is no such thing as an individual best player without a single shadow of a doubt, yet they were group of players on every period of the game that were more gifted than the rest that at the same time at least a competent or great carreer that makes them stand up.
So we have to respect everyone of them in their respective periods, with their respective achievements and predominant characteristics of their eras.
Even thinking the GOAT stuff in such style, in a more reasonable way, we'll never be fair.
There are players that for many reasons will loose appeal when years go by, there are players sometimes very close or equally gifted as many "GOATS" from every period that didn't had the greatest of carreers, that had huge injuries, that played in places or clubs that aren't under the biggest spotlight, etc. etc. that would make them look in a lesser way and sometimes even forgotten.

Regarding seeing better players than the two mentioned, being those two from the type that trascend their periods because of their atributes, I do not see it that clear, I do think of course nostalgia plays a big part when we analyze current and past players, happenned in any era, yet these two had a particular aspect of actually looking quite modern, current.
More than a linear and strict better gifted players as time goes by, in general like any sport, athletes become better, yet on a technical department some people it's just really special, they' perhaps be less fast in this current period than in theirs, they ll have more competition in terms of being among the strongest, but every period had its nuances that in a collective sport like football, tends to equilibrate stuff and that the best among the best from any period more than probaly would adapt to the tendencies from any period and be stellar too, we are dealing from rare specimens when somebody puts himself in that stratosphere.

BTW what people even in current period does not give enough importance, it's that in the adaptation of any player, the coach, the way a club it's managed, your teammates and the style of your team, the new enviroment of your life in a new country/ town and your mental health, it's way more important than any League or period of the game for any player to be their best self.

 

[Fortitude]

For me I have seen better players than Maradona and Pele now.

In my opinion Maradona and Pele remain high on the list mostly due to their legacy as football superstars of their generation of football, especially Pele as the first superstar of football.

I've seen much more refined and skillful footballers now partly because the football environments has also evolved.

You’ve seen more refined and skilfull footballers than Maradona…? And who goes into this extensive list?

 

[Demyanenko_square_jaw]

English/European clubs never took the old club world Cup seriously...whereas South American sides did.

I don't know if it's that simple. During the initial two-legged home/away format it was extremely prestigious in the '60s, there's plenty of accounts from players themselves of how much it meant, but that took a dent by the early '70s when the softie hypocrite European teams complained about rough play. Ajax and Bayern seemed to try and avoid playing in it most of the time. That factor and constant issues on when best to schedule the games to suit both teams reduced its prestige during the '70s.

After that period, it became a one-off in Tokyo, and you would probably need to try and judge it on a season by season basis. I'd bet it would depend more on how it suited the clubs on both sides at the time, rather than people just not caring. for instance...Flamengo vs Liverpool does seem to have been a big deal to the players and fans from what I've read/watched. The fact it was a Brasilian team meant a lot to them.

 

[Camara]

I don't know if it's that simple. During the initial two-legged home/away format it was extremely prestigious in the '60s, there's plenty of accounts from players themselves of how much it meant, but that took a dent by the early '70s when the softie hypocrite European teams complained about rough play. Ajax and Bayern seemed to try and avoid playing in it most of the time. That factor and constant issues on when best to schedule the games to suit both teams reduced its prestige during the '70s.

After that period, it became a one-off in Tokyo, and you would probably need to try and judge it on a season by season basis. I'd bet it would depend more on how it suited the clubs on both sides at the time, rather than people just not caring. for instance...Flamengo vs Liverpool does seem to have been a big deal to the players and fans from what I've read/watched. The fact it was a Brasilian team meant a lot to them.

You know there was a reason for that, right?
Just look at what happened in the late 1960s early 1970s ties to know why some european clubs declined to participate.
The competition was saved when Toyota came on to present a change to a single game final in neutral ground.

 

[Spoony]

I don't know if it's that simple. During the initial two-legged home/away format it was extremely prestigious in the '60s, there's plenty of accounts from players themselves of how much it meant, but that took a dent by the early '70s when the softie hypocrite European teams complained about rough play. Ajax and Bayern seemed to try and avoid playing in it most of the time. That factor and constant issues on when best to schedule the games to suit both teams reduced its prestige during the '70s.

After that period, it became a one-off in Tokyo, and you would probably need to try and judge it on a season by season basis. I'd bet it would depend more on how it suited the clubs on both sides at the time, rather than people just not caring. for instance...Flamengo vs Liverpool does seem to have been a big deal to the players and fans from what I've read/watched. The fact it was a Brasilian team meant a lot to them.

I watched the one off Tokyo games in the 80s... They looked half arsed. That said I did love watching Independentiente beat Liverpool. Palmeiras looked distraught when we beat them in 99, but clearly it just didn't mean as much to us...Always thought it was a glorified charity shield game or on the same level as the Super Cup.

 

[Demyanenko_square_jaw]

Oh, I know some of the games were brutal, and I think a neutral venue game was a good decision, but you only need to watch European football itself at the time to see they weren't much different, even if maybe that Estudiantes team ( not the south american teams as a whole) did have a singular reputation for going too far at times.

 

[Demyanenko_square_jaw]

I watched the one off Tokyo games in the 80s... They looked half arsed. That said I did love watching Independentiente beat Liverpool. Palmeiras looked distraught when we beat them in 99, but clearly it just didn't mean as much to us...Always thought it was a glorified charity shield game or on the same level as the Super Cup.

Some of them might have been, but others were excellent games, or at least intense and competitive....Juventus vs Argentinos juniors, Hamburg vs Gremio, Nacional vs PSV, or Porto vs Penarol (slugfest in bad conditions). The Sao Paulo games vs Barca and Milan were maybe the last higher profile ones, with Cruyff definitely wanting to win it and not making excuses when they lost.

The scheduling always seemed to be the main issue of contention. It was in the middle of the season for European teams during that era, so the effort was probably depending on league and other competition results, etc...

By the late '90s, yeah, It was on the way out in terms of being seen as anything other than a curiosity, and South American stars were already moving regularly to Europe by then. That was when fifa attempted to replace it with the club world cup thing.

 

[The holy trinity 68]

My two cents without ranking:

Pele - Maradona - Di Stefano - Puskas - Cruyff - Beckenbauer - Messi are always in the top ten.

R9 - Zico - Platini - Ronaldinho - M Laudrup - CR7 - Eusebio - Van Basten - Zidane - Baggio are fighting it out for the remaining three spots.


My ten favorite players includes Bergkamp, Zico, Robben, Ronaldinho, Zlatan, Maldini, M Laudrup, Falcáo (the midfield general), R9 and Luis Figo.

Gerd Muller should always be in the top 10.

 

[antohan]

English/European clubs never took the old club world Cup seriously...whereas South American sides did.

Yeah, I know that it wasn't as important. For a period in the 70s it wasn't even the EC winner playing it but the runner-up. Ajax and Bayern started that trend, which only stopped in 1980 when it became a single game in Tokyo instead of home and away legs.

I do wonder though how irrelevant that one game was for the likes of Forest or Villa. You also have Liverpool getting a hiding from Flamengo so would (maybe) expect them to try put that right the next time? They didn't.

 

[Red the Bear]

Yeah, I know that it wasn't as important. For a period in the 70s it wasn't even the EC winner playing it but the runner-up. Ajax and Bayern started that trend, which only stopped in 1980 when it became a single game in Tokyo instead of home and away legs.

I do wonder though how irrelevant that one game was for the likes of Forest or Villa. You also have Liverpool getting a hiding from Flamengo so would (maybe) expect them to try put that right the next time? They didn't.

That flamengo side was in my opinion better than anything europe had to offer in that time.

So even if they had tried the winner would have probably stayed the same.

 

[antohan]

You know there was a reason for that, right?
Just look at what happened in the late 1960s early 1970s ties to know why some european clubs declined to participate.
The competition was saved when Toyota came on to present a change to a single game final in neutral ground.

Estudiantes were notoriously unsportmanlike. Bilardo (yes, the 86 Argie manager with the 90s contaminated water incident) used to have pins in his pocket which he used to prick forwards before set pieces.

If anything, it should go some way to give massive credit to the great Libertadores clubs and players. That is exactly what they faced every single time they played away on their way to the title.

But no, instead you have people saying "Pelé never played in Europe".

 

[Josh 76]

This thread has to be one best in Redcafe. Some of the posts have been incredible and very enjoyable to read. Keep them coming!

 

[Josh 76]

For me I have seen better players than Maradona and Pele now.

In my opinion Maradona and Pele remain high on the list mostly due to their legacy as football superstars of their generation of football, especially Pele as the first superstar of football.

I've seen much more refined and skillful footballers now partly because the football environments has also evolved.

For me I have seen better players than Maradona and Pele now.

In my opinion Maradona and Pele remain high on the list mostly due to their legacy as football superstars of their generation of football, especially Pele as the first superstar of football.

I've seen much more refined and skillful footballers now partly because the football environments has also evolved.

You are probably seeing more refined and skilful players because the defending has changed so much since the days of Pele and Maradona. The players are so much more protected and also the pitches are like carpets compared to the mud baths back in the day.

 

[Fortitude]

You are probably seeing more refined and skilful players because the defending has changed so much since the days of Pele and Maradona. The players are so much more protected and also the pitches are like carpets compared to the mud baths back in the day.

To date in football, there’s no such thing as more skilful players than Diego Maradona. Par, for a very select few of one player, is the maximum. I mean, that’s one of the zaniest things I’ve ever seen in a discussion of this type.

 

[Josh 76]

To date in football, there’s no such thing as more skilful players than Diego Maradona. Par, for a very select few of one player, is the maximum. I mean, that’s one of the zaniest things I’ve ever seen in a discussion of this type.

I agree with you. Maradona was the GOAT. I was replying to a post and trying to make a point that players in the 70s and 80s had it much more harder due to the shocking tackling in that era.

 

[Kwabs]

To date in football, there’s no such thing as more skilful players than Diego Maradona. Par, for a very select few of one player, is the maximum. I mean, that’s one of the zaniest things I’ve ever seen in a discussion of this type.

I mean; I haven't seen one. Maybe Messi, but that's it, and I'm not sure even he measures up. Players are bigger, stronger and more athletic now (overall), but not necessarily more skilful.

 

[Kwabs]

@Hammondo , if you want to continue discussing this, I'll do it here. Again, what is your evidence that Ronaldo was significantly better in the air than Pele? I'm not particularly concerned as to whether he can jump higher than Fikayo Tomori or Bevis Mugabi. That's great for him, but doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. What you shared clearly doesn't go back very far in terms of recording jumps anyway.

Re what I posted, so this guy who was around at the time and played with and against Pele believes completely made up myths about him? You think that's plausible? I wonder what myths Ronaldo's teammates and colleagues believe about him......surely as peers, they should be less inclined than fans and followers to believe fables, but OK.

But let's humour you and say that it's completely made up (I think that's clearly BS, but for arguments sake). Does this mean that Ronaldo is much better in the air than Pele? Do you get that Pele's aerial ability is one of his major strengths that he was legendary for? That he has iconic headed goals on the biggest stage (World Cup finals and knockout games - which Ronaldo doesn't have)? Heck, his headers even created the most iconic moments for other players. Step forward Gordon Banks.......

 

[Stocar]

Messi is not only the most skillful player in the history of football. He is comfortably a level above anyone else in that regard. Close control, burst of pace, precision, reading and processing the game in fraction of a second... No one comes even close.

Maradona was more imaginative and expressive player that acquired a mythic status, with basic football skills on the level that was unseen before and was supposed never to be matched. But the strangest thing happened and the left footed player from the same country appeared, with those same fundamental football skills basically upgraded. Just look at ten random games of both of these players, or simply look at the numbers. Messi is on his own level.

And I think that the only player in history who was able to make it a contest for the crown of the best player in the world is Cristiano Ronaldo, who also happened to play at the same time. And he would not have been able to challenge Messi if he was only the super athlete with very good skills. He is indeed one of the most gifted footballers to ever play the game - only a different type of player with different set of skills in comparison with Maradona or Messi. In fact, he was rightfully proclaimed as such at the very beginning of his career, and from the on he has consistently improved and refined his game.