Top 10 greatest players of all time

[Demyanenko_square_jaw]

For me, that hardly can be take as a written in stone thing, there is no such thing as a solely best player ever. And I hate the type of assertions (demeriting or glorifying in an obtuse way) a certain player that discussions like the GOAT thing usually bring, like many I'm already reading here.

There is a liitle group of players, from every period of the game (let's say a decade) that maybe deserve that Best of the Best from such period status.
PD: as a side note, only because there are some players that we fans many times feel "clearly" in another level of talent, because I'm not that fond of trying to find huge gaps between a Di Maria, Ribery, Salah, etc..on any role, or let's say Kross, Modric, Rodri, Rikjaard, Redondo, Xavi, etc.
I can find some of these last type of names Phenoms in their roles, absolute legends, cracks, many even forgotten and deserving the same praise that usually players that won a lot in such roles (I wish people remember a lot more an Overath for instance).
Yet the Top of the Crop are a combination of let's say Genius talent (and traits in the form of power, atheltism, pace combine with extraordinary skills) and not few times with quite a carreer to boost too.

For me, I know I'm a bit alone in this one, I'll never rate a defender, defensive mid, organizative one at the same level of a rarity someone like Pele is.
This on the other hand doesn't mean that because what Pastore can do with a ball it's more of what Baresi can, I'll say that Pastore was bigger for the history of the game, yet when we go up the ladder, the Pastores are replaced with players in the offensive roles that trully are freaks, more rare human specimens than any Figueroa, Passarella, Baresi and such (as freaky as for their roles many of those legendary defenders were).

In this line, certainly Maldini and Baresi have bigger, better and more easily rated as among the best of the best ever in their roles, but Baggio for me would always closer to that level people tend to grant to GOAT fellas, he is better than them and had enough of a carreer.
The only exception I at least consider, is Franz, more due to his array of roles and level of skills for those and his importance for a major powerhouse, but still not entirely my Cup of tea to have him in that trully upper echelon in terms of talent, sounds sacriledge, I know, but it goes with what I've said above.

Finally like every player, the so call GOATS, face diff circumstances that will help or create problems to have a better carreer in terms of titles, stats, etc. From injuries, to being in a club in a bad period, to just a coach not that fond of them. So I'm not that incline to dismiss anyone that thinks that Maradona was the best, enough arguments for me, yet, at the same time I'll be more prone to say: "from the best ones I've seen, I rate, I LIKE HIM MORE". That's diff from sthg that will never be as tangible as we sometimes would like it to be. No matter if it's Messi, Pele, Di Stefano, Puskas, etc.. with tons of titles and stats in their back.
In any case on any of these discussions, with parameters like some of the ones I've preffer, it's just a prefference, we sometimes put too much effort in trying to always find the One and only, when there is no real need.

I agree about the distinction between defenders and the real genius types. It's just much easier to destroy than create, and it's easier to create from deep (with all/most of your passing options neatly laid out in front of you) than create and finish decisively and regularly in the opposition half or final third.


With kaiser, he was basically the best overall W.German midfielder of the second half of the sixties, even if some, like Overath and Netzer, surpassed or matched him in certain areas/roles on the ball. But he decides he wants to play as a defender (for his club; he kept playing in midfield for national team for longer) while still a young player early in his prime. You just don't get the great midfield or attacking talents doing that. Not at that stage of their careers. No surprise that he revolutionised the scope of the "free defender" concept.

It tends to go the other way, with players dropping back into deeper roles as they age or suffer injuries. Look at the large amount of midfield/attacking players and even full/wingbacks that did that throughout the '70s-late '90s after Franz popularised the attacking/playmaking sweeper role, and they usually excelled at it and managed to extend their careers and reputations, though none were ever quite as good as him. It was basically the go-to role for decades for skilful, aging formerly elite players to get a second lease of life in high-level football because it's very useful yet easier on the brain and legs than playmaking, tracking runners, and intercepting from further up.

So, I think part of the reason we never quite saw another Beckenbauer level sweeper or centreback before the position died that had the same blend of skill on the ball and actually being strong in defence is simply because 99% of the players that might have had the skillset to do it just aren't interested in following that career path at the right time.

 

[Michaelf7777777]

I agree about the distinction between defenders and the real genius types. It's just much easier to destroy than create, and it's easier to create from deep (with all/most of your passing options neatly laid out in front of you) than create and finish decisively and regularly in the opposition half or final third.


With kaiser, he was basically the best overall W.German midfielder of the second half of the sixties, even if some, like Overath and Netzer, surpassed or matched him in certain areas/roles on the ball. But he decides he wants to play as a defender (for his club; he kept playing in midfield for national team for longer) while still a young player early in his prime. You just don't get the great midfield or attacking talents doing that. Not at that stage of their careers. No surprise that he revolutionised the scope of the "free defender" concept.

It tends to go the other way, with players dropping back into deeper roles as they age or suffer injuries. Look at the large amount of midfield/attacking players and even full/wingbacks that did that throughout the '70s-late '90s after Franz popularised the attacking/playmaking sweeper role, and they usually excelled at it and managed to extend their careers and reputations, though none were ever quite as good as him. It was basically the go-to role for decades for skilful, aging formerly elite players to get a second lease of life in high-level football because it's very useful yet easier on the brain and legs than playmaking, tracking runners, and intercepting from further up.

So, I think part of the reason we never quite saw another Beckenbauer level sweeper or centreback before the position died that had the same blend of skill on the ball and actually being strong in defence is simply because 99% of the players that might have had the skillset to do it just aren't interested in following that career path at the right time.

Older world class players dropping deeper was a thing pre-Beckenbauer doing it with the first example that comes to mind being Brian Clough and Peter Taylor giving a weeper role to Dave Mackay after he signed for Derby in 1968 with Mackay going on to share the FWA Footballer of the Year award in 1969 despite playing that season in the 2nd division.

 

[Gio]

For me, that hardly can be take as a written in stone thing, there is no such thing as a solely best player ever. And I hate the type of assertions (demeriting or glorifying in an obtuse way) a certain player that discussions like the GOAT thing usually bring, like many I'm already reading here.

There is a liitle group of players, from every period of the game (let's say a decade) that maybe deserve that Best of the Best from such period status.
PD: as a side note, only because there are some players that we fans many times feel "clearly" in another level of talent, because I'm not that fond of trying to find huge gaps between a Di Maria, Ribery, Salah, etc..on any role, or let's say Kross, Modric, Rodri, Rikjaard, Redondo, Xavi, etc.
I can find some of these last type of names Phenoms in their roles, absolute legends, cracks, many even forgotten and deserving the same praise that usually players that won a lot in such roles (I wish people remember a lot more an Overath for instance).
Yet the Top of the Crop are a combination of let's say Genius talent (and traits in the form of power, atheltism, pace combine with extraordinary skills) and not few times with quite a carreer to boost too.

For me, I know I'm a bit alone in this one, I'll never rate a defender, defensive mid, organizative one at the same level of a rarity someone like Pele is.
This on the other hand doesn't mean that because what Pastore can do with a ball it's more of what Baresi can, I'll say that Pastore was bigger for the history of the game, yet when we go up the ladder, the Pastores are replaced with players in the offensive roles that trully are freaks, more rare human specimens than any Figueroa, Passarella, Baresi and such (as freaky as for their roles many of those legendary defenders were).

In this line, certainly Maldini and Baresi have bigger, better and more easily rated as among the best of the best ever in their roles, but Baggio for me would always closer to that level people tend to grant to GOAT fellas, he is better than them and had enough of a carreer.
The only exception I at least consider, is Franz, more due to his array of roles and level of skills for those and his importance for a major powerhouse, but still not entirely my Cup of tea to have him in that trully upper echelon in terms of talent, sounds sacriledge, I know, but it goes with what I've said above.

Finally like every player, the so call GOATS, face diff circumstances that will help or create problems to have a better carreer in terms of titles, stats, etc. From injuries, to being in a club in a bad period, to just a coach not that fond of them. So I'm not that incline to dismiss anyone that thinks that Maradona was the best, enough arguments for me, yet, at the same time I'll be more prone to say: "from the best ones I've seen, I rate, I LIKE HIM MORE". That's diff from sthg that will never be as tangible as we sometimes would like it to be. No matter if it's Messi, Pele, Di Stefano, Puskas, etc.. with tons of titles and stats in their back.
In any case on any of these discussions, with parameters like some of the ones I've preffer, it's just a prefference, we sometimes put too much effort in trying to always find the One and only, when there is no real need.

This is always the interesting question. Ask an Italian who their greatest ever player is and many will say Baggio. Even though Maldini and Baresi are probably number one or two of all time in their respective roles/positions, and Baggio was perhaps outside the top half dozen, that doesn't carry as much weight as what the little genius brought to the table. The hard thing is comparing inflluence across positions.

To me these rankings become a bit meaningless outside of the top one or two tiers. It's a lot easier just to split off by position, rather than equate across them.

 

[Acrobat7]

It's all about opinions, but these 5 players need to be in everyone's top 10 in whatever order.

Maradona
Messi
Ronaldo
Pele
Cruyff

These players were not just great footballers, but they were icons of the game in their own right. Pele dominated the 60s, Cruff the 70s, Maradona the 80s and Messi and Ronaldo 2005 +

Di Stefano and Beckenbauer want a word with you.

 

[Coxy]

It's all about opinions, but these 5 players need to be in everyone's top 10 in whatever order.

Maradona
Messi
Ronaldo
Pele
Cruyff

These players were not just great footballers, but they were icons of the game in their own right. Pele dominated the 60s, Cruff the 70s, Maradona the 80s and Messi and Ronaldo 2005 +

Whilst I appreciate Cruyff, Maradina and Pele are icons - I wouldn’t have them in my top 10 simply because I never saw them play.

My only knowledge of them is from what others say and Wikipedia!

 

[Acrobat7]

Whilst I appreciate Cruyff, Maradina and Pele are icons - I wouldn’t have them in my top 10 simply because I never saw them play.

My only knowledge of them is from what others say and Wikipedia!

I understand your approach, but the title of this thread is "greatest of all time" and not "greatest that I saw myself".

 

[Spoony]

I understand your approach, but the title of this thread is "greatest of all time" and not "greatest that I saw myself".

Yes, but judging players you've not seen play is ridiculous.

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

Yes, but judging players you've not seen play is ridiculous.

You wouldn’t say that you couldn’t judge The Beatles as the best rock band because they were before your time. Who was the best British prime minister? Tony Blair. What about Atlee or Churchill? Oh they were before my time etc.

All-time involves a bit of research and trusting contemporary reports, achievements, stats and some footage that give you a guide. Otherwise it’s just ‘best players in a select number of years you’ve chosen’ which isn’t the question.

 

[mertens]

Yes, but judging players you've not seen play is ridiculous.

So one can't rank greatest commanders of all time and include Napoleon, Caesar, Hannibal, Genghis etc. unless they had personally witnessed their military tactics & victories? wondering how their names made this far with that logic..

 

[Pascal Quiff]

So one can't rank greatest commanders of all time and include Napoleon, Caesar, Hannibal, Genghis etc. unless they had personally witnessed their military tactics & victories? wondering how their names made this far with that logic..

To give balance, unless you spend hours trawling through old matches, how can you objectively say that players such as Di Stefano, Puskas etc belong in your personal top 10. I was too young to see Dalglish in his pomp, so for me the top 3 players that I've witnessed are Barnes, Gerrard, Salah. I got what he meant.

 

[Zico1982]

According to the great Franz Beckenbauer it goes like this: Pele was the best in the 60s, Cruyff in the 70s. Maradona was the best in the 80s and (Michael) Laudrup in the 90s. Laudrup is totally missing on the first 14 pages of this thread. He is Iniestas and David Silvas GOAT. Guardiola also called him the best player in the world. Historically the Goat Tier is Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Maradona and Messi for me. If we talk about pure ability, Ronaldinho, R9, Zico, Bergkamp, Zidane, CR7 and Laudrup have a claim to be the GOAT as well. If leadership is a factor, I would have to mention Platini.

 

[terraloo]

Whilst obviously not up there in terms of World Class there was a player called Robin Friday.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Friday

 

[G97]

According to the great Franz Beckenbauer it goes like this: Pele was the best in the 60s, Cruyff in the 70s. Maradona was the best in the 80s and (Michael) Laudrup in the 90s. Laudrup is totally missing on the first 14 pages of this thread. He is Iniestas and David Silvas GOAT. Guardiola also called him the best player in the world. Historically the Goat Tier is Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Maradona and Messi for me. If we talk about pure ability, Ronaldinho, R9, Zico, Bergkamp, Zidane, CR7 and Laudrup have a claim to be the GOAT as well. If leadership is a factor, I would have to mention Platini.

That would be a debate for ‘best’ not ‘greatest’ players of all time. Being the greatest is different than just being the best, yeh you have to be world class but it’s also trophies won, impact in major international tournaments, longevity, consistency…
Not ‘pure ability’ Because on this metric you’d have Le Tissier in your top 10. As he had as much pure ability as anyone.

De Bruyne also has the same ability as the players you’ve mentioned but persistent injuries and lack of impact internationally means he’s not even close to top 10 of all time.

 

[Wand of a right foot]

According to the great Franz Beckenbauer it goes like this: Pele was the best in the 60s, Cruyff in the 70s. Maradona was the best in the 80s and (Michael) Laudrup in the 90s. Laudrup is totally missing on the first 14 pages of this thread. He is Iniestas and David Silvas GOAT. Guardiola also called him the best player in the world. Historically the Goat Tier is Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Maradona and Messi for me. If we talk about pure ability, Ronaldinho, R9, Zico, Bergkamp, Zidane, CR7 and Laudrup have a claim to be the GOAT as well. If leadership is a factor, I would have to mention Platini.

CR7 isn't about pure ability. Infact, of all the names you mentioned, CR7 is the one who totally reached levels way above his what his talent on its own would have allowed him.
And while Laudrup was amazing, never really a goat contender regardless of whose idol he was.

 

[Zico1982]

CR7 isn't about pure ability. Infact, of all the names you mentioned, CR7 is the one who totally reached levels way above his what his talent on its own would have allowed him.
And while Laudrup was amazing, never really a goat contender regardless of whose idol he was.

GOAT is not really that clearly defined. Some people leave out Ibrahimovic, Best or Giggs just because of them playing for national teams that will not win titles. If you go on pure ability, you will end up with other names. For influence on the game, it is the usual suspects DI Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Maradona and Messi for me. Zidane won WCs, but he did not change the game. The discussion is not black and white. And yes. I forgot about loads of fantastic players with incredible abilities. Still do. I fancy the GOAT discussion as a combination of skills, succes, creativity, leadership and influence on the game. The people putting Laudrup in the discussion are often players and trainers more than the common fans. For instance, he never won a Ballon DÓr, which made Guardiola question the worth of the award. When people like Guardiola, Cruyff and Beckenbauer puts him into the GOAT discussion (with their criteria), i listen. Guardiola has stated, that he has never seen anything like Laudrups level in the 91/92 season for Barcelona while discussing the Ballon DÓr. The discussion and the criterias will always be subjective though. And Laudrup, while among the contenders is not my GOAT. Cruyff is the one.

 

[harms]

According to the great Franz Beckenbauer it goes like this: Pele was the best in the 60s, Cruyff in the 70s. Maradona was the best in the 80s and (Michael) Laudrup in the 90s. Laudrup is totally missing on the first 14 pages of this thread. He is Iniestas and David Silvas GOAT. Guardiola also called him the best player in the world. Historically the Goat Tier is Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Maradona and Messi for me. If we talk about pure ability, Ronaldinho, R9, Zico, Bergkamp, Zidane, CR7 and Laudrup have a claim to be the GOAT as well. If leadership is a factor, I would have to mention Platini.

Platini’s assessment of him is a bit too snappy but he has a point: “Laudrup is the greatest player in the world… in training”. He did reach enormous heights just because of how outrageously talented he was but ultimately he didn’t have that mental edge to bring him into the true GOAT conversation, a bit like Bergkamp (but even better). Still, he was pure magic and the best final third passer that I’ve ever seen — not Messi, not Maradona, not Zico, not De Bruyne… Laudrup (although they’re all up there).

 

[Kwabs]

That would be a debate for ‘best’ not ‘greatest’ players of all time. Being the greatest is different than just being the best, yeh you have to be world class but it’s also trophies won, impact in major international tournaments, longevity, consistency…
Not ‘pure ability’ Because on this metric you’d have Le Tissier in your top 10. As he had as much pure ability as anyone.

De Bruyne also has the same ability as the players you’ve mentioned but persistent injuries and lack of impact internationally means he’s not even close to top 10 of all time.

I mean, he really didn't. Very skilful player by the standards of English domestic football, but was he Zico in terms of ability? Uh, no.

People always make this distinction between 'best' and 'greatest', and I'm not sure the dictionary supports this. What I think they are trying to do is split people who are very talented but not that accomplished (best) from people who are very accomplished, but maybe not as talented (greatest).

The fact is that 'best' AND 'greatest' mean the same thing - those who are the most talented AND the most accomplished.

 

[Nevilles.Wear.Prada]

None of them could do what CR did despite being a prisoner. PFFFT

 

[adexkola]

People always make this distinction between 'best' and 'greatest', and I'm not sure the dictionary supports this.

It does.

Best is more objective and can be expressed as the sum of a set of measurable and observable quantities. Player A is a better passer than Player B. Player B is a better dribbler than Player A. And how you value different qualities factors into

Greatness is more intangible and associated with narratives and stories that captivate and resonate, and the spirit of the time.

For example: Messi, to me, was the best player that ever existed as early as 2012. His argument for the greatest player of all time became exponentially stronger after Qatar.

 

[Wand of a right foot]

GOAT is not really that clearly defined. Some people leave out Ibrahimovic, Best or Giggs just because of them playing for national teams that will not win titles. If you go on pure ability, you will end up with other names. For influence on the game, it is the usual suspects DI Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Maradona and Messi for me. Zidane won WCs, but he did not change the game. The discussion is not black and white. And yes. I forgot about loads of fantastic players with incredible abilities. Still do. I fancy the GOAT discussion as a combination of skills, succes, creativity, leadership and influence on the game. The people putting Laudrup in the discussion are often players and trainers more than the common fans. For instance, he never won a Ballon DÓr, which made Guardiola question the worth of the award. When people like Guardiola, Cruyff and Beckenbauer puts him into the GOAT discussion (with their criteria), i listen. Guardiola has stated, that he has never seen anything like Laudrups level in the 91/92 season for Barcelona while discussing the Ballon DÓr. The discussion and the criterias will always be subjective though. And Laudrup, while among the contenders is not my GOAT. Cruyff is the one.

Ibrahimovic, Giggs were never really goat level players regardless of what they would have achieved at club or international level. I did not see Best play, but he is praised quite alot.

 

[Kwabs]

It does.

Best is more objective and can be expressed as the sum of a set of measurable and observable quantities. Player A is a better passer than Player B. Player B is a better dribbler than Player A. And how you value different qualities factors into

Greatness is more intangible and associated with narratives and stories that captivate and resonate, and the spirit of the time.

For example: Messi, to me, was the best player that ever existed as early as 2012. His argument for the greatest player of all time became exponentially stronger after Qatar.

This is a distinction that you have created in your head, with respect. The dictionary doesn't support it. Saying someone is the best player of all time is the same as saying they are the greatest player of all time. Anything else is just messing around with semantics. 'Greatest' is a grander word than 'best', which ties into what you're saying about narratives, but they ultimately mean the same thing. Number one.

By the way, I'm not sure what Messi did that made him the best player that ever existed by 2012 (and age 25), with Puskas, DiStefano, Pele etc. having done similar things and been similarly prolific and multifaceted previously. He may have been the best player you'd personally seen up to that point, but there was nothing to suggest that he was the best player of all time by 2012.

 

[Kwabs]

Ibrahimovic, Giggs were never really goat level players regardless of what they would have achieved at club or international level. I did not see Best play, but he is praised quite alot.

This is interesting because people talk about winning the World Cup being a prerequisite for being the GOAT, and others argue against this, saying "what if you're potentially the GOAT, but you're born in a country that has no chance of winning the World Cup?"

And yet, George Best is the only player ever that you could maybe make this argument for. I don't think there's a single other guy who is good enough. Ibra and Giggs are way off the pace, as you say.

It seems that most of the time, GOAT candidates come from countries with strong footballing histories and cultures, and that's probably not a coincidence.

 

[Josh 76]

According to the great Franz Beckenbauer it goes like this: Pele was the best in the 60s, Cruyff in the 70s. Maradona was the best in the 80s and (Michael) Laudrup in the 90s. Laudrup is totally missing on the first 14 pages of this thread. He is Iniestas and David Silvas GOAT. Guardiola also called him the best player in the world. Historically the Goat Tier is Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Maradona and Messi for me. If we talk about pure ability, Ronaldinho, R9, Zico, Bergkamp, Zidane, CR7 and Laudrup have a claim to be the GOAT as well. If leadership is a factor, I would have to mention Platini.

If we are saying Pele was the man in the 60s, Cruyff the 70s, Maradona the 80s and Messi/ Ronaldo 2000s

Who was the player of the 90s?
I don't think there is one that stands out on his own. It's probably a choice of, Zidane, Baggio, R9 ?

 

[G97]

I mean, he really didn't. Very skilful player by the standards of English domestic football, but was he Zico in terms of ability? Uh, no.

People always make this distinction between 'best' and 'greatest', and I'm not sure the dictionary supports this. What I think they are trying to do is split people who are very talented but not that accomplished (best) from people who are very accomplished, but maybe not as talented (greatest).

The fact is that 'best' AND 'greatest' mean the same thing - those who are the most talented AND the most accomplished.

Bergkamp was put on the original list of pure ability players. Le Tiss was lazy, slow and overweight and still managed to score over 100 PL goals as a midfielder (more than Bergkamp in less games btw) for a side in numerous relegation battles and he was 24 when the prem started.
His pure ability was on par with Bergkamp, his legacy and attitude wasn’t though so Bergkamp is a far ‘greater’ player.
I’ll agree Zico was on a level above in ability though.

You seriously don’t think there is a difference between best and greatest?? Really? I don’t believe you are that silly.
I’ve just given you one example. Another would be, Suarez, who is one of the best players to ever play in the premier league but isn’t in anyones discussion for greatest in prem history and nor should he be, he won nothing and didn’t do it for long enough.

 

[harms]

If we are saying Pele was the man in the 60s, Cruyff the 70s, Maradona the 80s and Messi/ Ronaldo 2000s

Who was the player of the 90s?
I don't think there is one that stands out on his own. It's probably a choice of, Zidane, Baggio, R9 ?

It’s a decade with the least obvious outstanding player.

Laudrup/Romário/Baggio/Zidane/Ronaldo all have a claim with Ronaldo being the best in terms of top performances but probably the least impressive in terms of longevity. Also, you can always mention someone like Maldini as the ultimate consistency monster.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

It’s a decade with the least obvious outstanding player.

Laudrup/Romário/Baggio/Zidane/Ronaldo all have a claim with Ronaldo being the best in terms of top performances but probably the least impressive in terms of longevity. Also, you can always mention someone like Maldini as the ultimate consistency monster.

saying maldini gets in on the basis of consistency is an insult to best defender of all time. Its not as flashy as your Cruyffs(also, "his" decade belongs to Kaiser), Maradonas, Messis etc. but he is the most deserved winner.

 

[Zico1982]

If we are saying Pele was the man in the 60s, Cruyff the 70s, Maradona the 80s and Messi/ Ronaldo 2000s

Who was the player of the 90s?
I don't think there is one that stands out on his own. It's probably a choice of, Zidane, Baggio, R9 ?

Well. According to Beckenbauer it was Laudrup. R9 and Zidane would be up there as well. To me, Baggio , while being a fantastic player, is behind those three. Romario, Maldini, Baresi are also in the 90s top 10 for me.

 

[Andycoleno9]

1. Ronaldo original, one and only
2. Messi
3. Maradona
4. Pele
5. Maldini
6. Cruyf
7. Kaiser Franz
8. Di Stefano
9. Zidane
10.Yashin

5 of them i didn't watch but you simply can't ignore Pele or Yashin (who is labelled as GOAT gk).

 

[harms]

saying maldini gets in on the basis of consistency is an insult to best defender of all time. Its not as flashy as your Cruyffs(also, "his" decade belongs to Kaiser), Maradonas, Messis etc. but he is the most deserved winner.

Don’t be pedantic (says the biggest pedant on the forum)… you don’t get in just because you’re consistent, you get in because you’re consistently excellent. I don’t think that even 1993/94 Maldini (probably his best season for me) was as influential as, say, 1997/98 Ronaldo… not just because he wasn’t flashy. Yet Maldini is the only one on that list that had 10 world class seasons in that decade.

The 1970’s were obviously split between Cruyff & Beckenbauer just like the 1950’s were split between Puskás and Di Stéfano. Not sure if you can say that one is clearly ahead of the other.

 

[adexkola]

This is a distinction that you have created in your head, with respect. The dictionary doesn't support it. Saying someone is the best player of all time is the same as saying they are the greatest player of all time. Anything else is just messing around with semantics. 'Greatest' is a grander word than 'best', which ties into what you're saying about narratives, but they ultimately mean the same thing. Number one.

By the way, I'm not sure what Messi did that made him the best player that ever existed by 2012 (and age 25), with Puskas, DiStefano, Pele etc. having done similar things and been similarly prolific and multifaceted previously. He may have been the best player you'd personally seen up to that point, but there was nothing to suggest that he was the best player of all time by 2012.

It's not. It's a simple concept recognized across many sports.

Here is what ChatGPT says:

In the context of sports, "best" and "greatest" are often used interchangeably, but they can carry slightly different connotations depending on the context.

Best: This typically refers to someone’s overall skill, ability, or performance at their peak. When we say someone is the "best" player, we might be focusing on their technical ability, consistency, or overall impact on the game. It's more about the quality of play in a given time period.

Greatest: This is often used to describe someone who has achieved the most in terms of championships, records, or legacy. When we refer to the "greatest," we usually mean someone who has had a lasting impact on the sport, perhaps because of their longevity, accolades, or how they’ve influenced the game. It has a broader scope, including achievements over time.

 

[VictoriaRed]

First name on my team sheet in any era would be Roy Keane.

 

[Fobal]

Bergkamp was put on the original list of pure ability players. Le Tiss was lazy, slow and overweight and still managed to score over 100 PL goals as a midfielder (more than Bergkamp in less games btw) for a side in numerous relegation battles and he was 24 when the prem started.
His pure ability was on par with Bergkamp, his legacy and attitude wasn’t though so Bergkamp is a far ‘greater’ player.
I’ll agree Zico was on a level above in ability though.

You seriously don’t think there is a difference between best and greatest?? Really? I don’t believe you are that silly.
I’ve just given you one example. Another would be, Suarez, who is one of the best players to ever play in the premier league but isn’t in anyones discussion for greatest in prem history and nor should he be, he won nothing and didn’t do it for long enough.

The thing that Kwabs meant in some way (I think), it's that even unfair, Le Tissier before even trying to be included in that All time Top 10 in terms of pure ability (that is a very very narrow affair), has to be better than maybe hundreds of players from Sivori, Leonidas, Eusebio, Pedernera, Futre, from different periods with high profiles and great carreers yet forgotten and later deal with lots of extraordinary players like Reinaldo or Bochini that had extraordinary ability and fantastic carreers in their regions with even less Global exposure and later deal with lots of Ruben Sosas, Recobas, Pastores, Djalminhas, Okochas, etc...
I think that it's right that you can be Greater in an overall sense being Baresi and have a lesser abilty, or skills than Pastore, yet when the funnel gets extremely thinner (not always in a fair way) to claim that Matt it's almost a lock for an All Time Top 10 worldwide with more ability in the history of the game, he'll have to walk over maybe at least a thousand names, doesn't look that feasible to clearly put him, nor BTW putting any of those other thousands fellas above him in a more clear way like saying: yeap that Pele was sthg else.

PD: This reminded me also some young fellas in youtube discussing what place Adriano had in the history of the game and one said that for him Pogba was a top 20 or top 10 in France, so since for him Adriano wasn't in that realm for Brazil, he was less of a player.
Leaving aside if any of the two deserve such praise or not, to think that cracking into an All Time Top 20 in Brazil it's the same that doing it in France (as extraordinary France has been producing players) it's not exactly the same scenario. Sthgs similar happens if we want to conclude that Matt was surely a Top 10 Alltime player in terms of Ability.

 

[Fobal]

First name on my team sheet in any era would be Roy Keane.

I think he is quite underrated, big fan of Roy, yet at the same time to put him first on an alltime, worldwide rooster looks a bit extreme? anyway, we all know he at least would try to do his job.

 

[Josh 76]

At minute 1.52. Barry Davies states "we are arguably seeing the best two players in the World."

Maradona was one of them. I didn't realise the other one was thought of in that calibre.

 

[harms]

At minute 1.52. Barry Davies states "we are arguably seeing the best two players in the World."

Maradona was one of them. I didn't realise the other one was thought of in that calibre.

Keegan? Why not? He was European Footballer of the Year twice in 1978 & 1979. Realistically it was probably between Zico and, perhaps, Maradona already (with Rummenigge and Platini also coming around), but it wouldn't be a stretch to say that Keegan was one of the best players in the world in 1980, especially if it's a British commentator.

That late 1970's spell with Simonsen and Keegan (twice) is probably the weakest period in terms of Ballon d'Or winners though. Even though both were brilliant, you don't win Ballon d'Or if you're not a brilliant footballer.

 

[Kwabs]

It's not. It's a simple concept recognized across many sports.

Here is what ChatGPT says:

The 'appeal to authority' is a logically fallacious debate strategy, especially when you are appealing to 'Chat GPT', of all things. The first part of what you quoted is the actual truth and consistent with what the words actually mean.

And the distinction made by Chat GPT is something that I already pointed out, if you read my earlier post, where I explain that this is what people do in labelling people 'best' or 'greatest'.

My point is, if you are talking about the GOAT, then these terms can only be used interchangeably. Because how can someone who is the best player of all time not also be arguably the greatest player of all time? That literally makes no sense. Any player who is reasonably the best of all time (I.e. more gifted than literally anyone else who has ever walked the earth) can also be argued to be the greatest of all time.

 

[Kwabs]

Bergkamp was put on the original list of pure ability players.

OK

Le Tiss was lazy, slow and overweight and still managed to score over 100 PL goals as a midfielder (more than Bergkamp in less games btw)

A) Le Tissier was not really a midfielder, though he was nominally.

B) He did not play less games in the Premier League than Bergkamp, so I'm not sure what you mean here

C) The fact that Le Tissier scored more goals than Bergkamp has no bearing on their respective levels of footballing ability

for a side in numerous relegation battles and he was 24 when the prem started.

Ok, but he also never played at a level higher than the Premier League, save for a few poor run outs with England. Doing it against Blackburn is one thing, doing it against Argentina is quite another

His pure ability was on par with Bergkamp,

Debatable, but even if we accept that, there are several levels above Bergkamp in world football when it comes to pure ability.

his legacy and attitude wasn’t though so Bergkamp is a far ‘greater’ player.
I’ll agree Zico was on a level above in ability though.

I'd argue Bergkamp was better and greater.

You seriously don’t think there is a difference between best and greatest?? Really?

i don't, and I've explained why. The words mean the same thing. You can say, for example, that player A has more talent than player B, but player B achieved way more. But if that's the case then it doesn't necessarily mean that player A is better OR greater than player B. It just means that player A has more talent. It's as simple as that.

I don’t believe you are that silly.

Just because you use words in a certain way, doesn't mean your use is factual.

I’ve just given you one example.

Not a good one

Another would be, Suarez, who is one of the best players to ever play in the premier league but isn’t in anyones discussion for greatest in prem history and nor should he be, he won nothing and didn’t do it for long enough.

He's one of the greatest players to play in the premier league as well, what are you talking about?

 

[Wand of a right foot]

1. Ronaldo original, one and only
2. Messi
3. Maradona
4. Pele
5. Maldini
6. Cruyf
7. Kaiser Franz
8. Di Stefano
9. Zidane
10.Yashin

5 of them i didn't watch but you simply can't ignore Pele or Yashin (who is labelled as GOAT gk).

1. R9 while being an amazingly talented footballer is really not a goat candidate because of the lack of longevity and too little success at club level. He is really difficult to compare to others because whether you like it or not, the idea of "what might have been" definitely comes into play.

2. Cristiano has to be in the list for sure, below the top 3. As much as i hate his personality, his success at club level and longevity means he deserves to be there.

If we are saying Pele was the man in the 60s, Cruyff the 70s, Maradona the 80s and Messi/ Ronaldo 2000s

Who was the player of the 90s?
I don't think there is one that stands out on his own. It's probably a choice of, Zidane, Baggio, R9 ?

60s: Pele
70s: Cruyff/Backenbauer
80s: Maradona
90s: R9 (based on seasons 1996 to 1998) or Van Basten
2000s: Ronaldinho
2010s: Messi
2020s: ? Yamal

Of these only Pele and Messi can truly claim to have dominated an entire decade.
you can even have Pele for the 50s and Messi for the 2000s because they were that good even in their teens. I don't put Cristiano for 2000s because he was clearly second best just like Platini.

 

[mertens]

1. R9 while being an amazingly talented footballer is really not a goat candidate because of the lack of longevity and too little success at club level. He is really difficult to compare to others because whether you like it or not, the idea of "what might have been" definitely comes into play.

2. Cristiano has to be in the list for sure, below the top 3. As much as i hate his personality, his success at club level and longevity means he deserves to be there.

60s: Pele
70s: Cruyff/Backenbauer
80s: Maradona
90s: R9 (based on seasons 1996 to 1998) or Van Basten
2000s: Ronaldinho
2010s: Messi
2020s: ? Yamal

Of these only Pele and Messi can truly claim to have dominated an entire decade.
you can even have Pele for the 50s and Messi for the 2000s because they were that good even in their teens. I don't put Cristiano for 2000s because he was clearly second best just like Platini.

Van Basten retired in 1993. He really shot to fame with that iconic Euro'88 and back to back European cups between 1988-90 with legendary AC Milan, therefore I I would not call him the best player of 90s . During that period, I'd say his popularity was comparable to or even higher than that of Maradona.

That AC Milan team was something else, and Van Basten was the crown jewel of it.

 

[Andycoleno9]

1. R9 while being an amazingly talented footballer is really not a goat candidate because of the lack of longevity and too little success at club level. He is really difficult to compare to others because whether you like it or not, the idea of "what might have been" definitely comes into play.

2. Cristiano has to be in the list for sure, below the top 3. As much as i hate his personality, his success at club level and longevity means he deserves to be there.

60s: Pele
70s: Cruyff/Backenbauer
80s: Maradona
90s: R9 (based on seasons 1996 to 1998) or Van Basten
2000s: Ronaldinho
2010s: Messi
2020s: ? Yamal

Of these only Pele and Messi can truly claim to have dominated an entire decade.
you can even have Pele for the 50s and Messi for the 2000s because they were that good even in their teens. I don't put Cristiano for 2000s because he was clearly second best just like Platini.

R9 was world champion where he was best player of his team.
And he did win stuff with clubs.

By your standards (where longevity and club success is priority) we should exclude trio R9, Pele, Maradona and include players like Dani Alves, Carvajal, Maxwell, Gary Neville etc....

Regarding Cristiano; for me, he is great player and top goal maschine but nowhere near best players of all time. For me at least.