I would find a place for Denis Law, Eusebio, Luigi Riva, Bobby Moore, and Jimmy Greaves. From the 80s, I think Bryan Robson gets in there too. To paraphrase Jacob Marley's ghost, it would be a ponderous chain.
Top 10 greatest players of all time
- Thread starter tentan
- Start date
I basically agree with what you've said here about Maradona. What I would say is that in the early 80s, a lot of people thought Maradona was the best player in the world, but it was more of a debate - some people thought it was Platini, and there were other players in the mix as well (Karl Heinz-Rumenigge was very highly regarded, for example).
After WC 1986 (compounded by the scudetto in 1987), there was no more debate. But it wasn't like everyone thought Platini was the best, then 1986 happened, and then everyone thought Maradona was the best. That's not how it was.
No one thinks that though. Just that he doesn't have as much natural footballing talent as many of the other people in the discussion. Which is fine, nothing controversial there.
16 European players and only 8 South Americans?
Nah. People are openly claiming he was was "one of the least technically gifted players" in most of the teams he starred in. It's open and blatant disrepect. I bet almost everyone sprouting such laughable bs is a Messi fanboi. Rather than an objective football fan.
No one remotely serious can actually believe hard work alone could get a player of supposedly modest technical talent to the accolades, records and things CR7 has achieved as a player. Frankly If that even had an iota of truth in it they'd be more of that type of player in 'Great of the greats" convo's.
Last edited:
We just never saw many S Americans until relatively recent wall to wall tv coverage of football
To be fair if we consider the length of their peaks, I’m pretty sure that Di Stéfano, Pelé, Maradona & Messi occupy something close to three decades on their own. 1956 to 1966 with Di Stéfano & Pelé (even if we assume that in the last years of the 60’s the latter was truly overtaken by Charlton, Best & co.), at least 3-4 years for Maradona (with van Basten stealing some from him), probably close to a decade by Messi as well even if we give some seasons to late Cristiano…
It’s more indicative of how dominant South Americans were, not the other way around. Although I would’ve added at least Zico in that late 70’s period.
Platini was considered the best player in the world up until 1986. And, no way Maradona winning a Ballon D'or over Platini even he was European until after the WC. Platini won 3 Ballon D'ors between 83-85. Napoli finished 8th in Serie A in his first season in 1985 and won their first title in 1987.
I don't think you have much idea about him or the 80s. He was considered on par or below Zico in the early 80s as well, so he was not even a consensus best South American player. Failed bad in 82 WC and Barca experience had no help either. Barca won its first title right after he left after 11 years.
Then there's Van Basten emerging in late 80s, don't think he'd beat Van Basten for Ballon D'ors either during that period if he were European.
Last edited:
Weirdly enough it’s often the other way around with Cristiano fans arguing that talent vs hard-work angle which in its most radical interpretation (and most online debates get simplified to that) transforms into “Cristiano wasn’t that talented/wasn’t a generational talent” (but he made up with it with his mentality and professionalism) etc.
Messi fans just say that Cristiano isn’t as good — and because Cristiano fans are arguing for the underdog, they have to get more creative. Which isn’t always good even for Cristiano’s image! I mean, imagine saying that Cristiano isn’t that talented between 2006 and 2008, people would question your sanity.
I get what you mean. I agree on Zico, but I would have also thrown Rivellino and Figueroa's names into the ring for the 1970s. But as someone else just pointed out, we are much less familiar with what those guys were doing vs the Europeans.
You have a quote/source for that?
You do not even sound like you were alive back then. I was, and I'm telling you for a fact that Maradona was routinely referred to as the best player in the world well before 1986. Not that there weren't people who thought it was Platini, but it was in no way a consensus opinion. And it was very difficult to have a consensus opinion anyway, because the elite football world was way more fractured than it is now.
How would you rank below players in terms of being "technically gifted"?
Modric
Kroos
Berbatov
Scholes
Ozil
Xabi Alonso
Ronaldo
Baggio was above laudrop.
His 94 performance was only below the untouchable quality showcased by Maradona 8 years ago which I don't think has been topped.
Only Ronaldo/rivaldo in 2002 and Messi the last edition have come close since.
His 94 performance was only below the untouchable quality showcased by Maradona 8 years ago which I don't think has been topped.
Only Ronaldo/rivaldo in 2002 and Messi the last edition have come close since.
I'm not sure about Rivellino, he wasn't the best Brazilian up until Pelé's swan song in 1970 and at that point Cruyff & Beckenbauer were already in more or less full flow, ready to pick up the mantle.
Figueroa in interesting one as it's at least plausible... he was that special. But considering the amount of full games that are available from his 1970's peak (virtually none except for the 3 games from the 1974 World Cup), I just don't feel confident putting him ahead of Cruyff and Beckenbauer who were still active and winning things left right and centre at the time (and whose legacy is way, way easier to witness with your own eyes). If Figueroa's peak was just a couple years later, I think he would've been seen as the best player in the world — to win 3 South Americal footballer of the year in a row in the 1970's as a centre back is simply unprecedented. And that performance against West Germany when we've got to see him in full flow was legendary. But against Cruyff and Beckenbauer — not sure.
Robson got terribly unlucky with the timing of his injuries which almost fully omitted him from the England squad when it mattered and his peak coincided with united being pretty disappointing overall.
A bit of a shame, really England had pretty decent chance in 82 for example, even having made a final would have done wonders for his reputation.
You could argue for Garrincha or Jairzinho and I really want to give Zico a place in the chain somewhere between 78-80. Everyone from the early 50s and up until about 68 has to surpass Puskas, Di Stefano or Pele in their respective primes. I don´t see that, even though they are truly fabulous players. Btw. I have been a newbie for more than two years now. When do you get to be a full member of the Caf?
Yeah, but it's my best. Kaka made 2 of our defenders king fu kick each other as well in Heinze and Evra. I can't remember anyone else doing that
Garrincha for sure, at least for that 1962 World Cup. Jairzinho I'm not so sure. After watching all of the available Botafogo footage (as well as his games for Brazil), I was a little underwhelmed by him. A great player and an absolute physical beast but far from an elite technician (which was especially evident given who his contemporaries were), a bit like Bale in the Messi & Ronaldo era. That goalscoring run in the 1970 World Cup really elevated his reputation to the level it shouldn't be on — I mean even on that team he was behind Pelé, Gerson, Tostão, Rivellino and Carlos Alberto (for me, at least); not far behind but I do consider them better players.
As for the last question — it's not about the time, it's about the posts (and 280 posts in 2 years isn't a lot). You're on 7 likes out of the required 10, so if you keep posting well-structured arguments, you'll get there in no time.
When France Football went back and reviewed Ballon d'Ors, they gave 7 to Pele but only 2 to Maradona (1986 and 1990). Their reasoning:
"The competition at the time of Maradona was much tougher than twenty years earlier, in the Pelé era. When the Brazilian erases Law, Yashin, Masopust or Sivori from the list of honours, Maradona has to contend with Rummenigge, Platini, Gullit or Van Basten, which is not quite the same thing, especially since they all played simultaneously in the same Championship as him, in Italy.
"It was during this period, in the second half of the 1980s, that Maradona reached his peak. It was there that he accumulated titles. That he blazed a trail."
You mention different times yet omit there was little crossover between continents outside of the World Cup and the Intercontinental Cup, which South America has always taken far more seriously than European clubs did. ‘The world’ didn’t amount to much as most of it didn’t have a voice or access to matches from the other side of the world. I would put forward there’s next to no chance of Platini being rated over Zico or Maradona in that time period in South America and vice-versa for Europe, which is why both of the aforementioned South Americans “announced” themselves via World tournaments or by playing in Europe despite being huge in their region of the world.
Maradona was not the big deal you speak of in England until 1986, for example and I know that goes for Germany and Austria of the time, too. Can’t speak for Spain, Italy etc as he moved to those countries and his talent was on display. And talent intermingles with potential until said player realises it and does what it was deemed they are predestined to do - Barcelona did not pay a world record fee for the Maradona they got, Napoli did, as an example. One is realised, the other was in waiting.
Platini on the other hand was at his peak and performing unprecedented feats in the best, most difficult and staid league in the world then he delivered spectacularly for his country. He was realised and performing, not potential, as Maradona went on to do when his time came.
And going into World Cup ‘86 there was no consensus on a best, which was why it was billed as the tournament in which one will be crowned from: Zico, Maradona and Platini - Platini’s star wasn’t as strong by then, however, which is why it is different to his zenith a couple of years prior.
It feels as though you’re conflating talent and delivery. Platini obviously cannot win when it comes to that, but it’s irrelevant as this about delivering, and that’s all he did at a rate that was unprecedented and unmatchable for his peers, crowned by a tournament you’ve tried to dismiss. You’re not the best until you prove it, which is why 1986 was the christening moment for Maradona on a universal scale and certainly not before.
Baggio might be the biggest forgotten man in football history, for my money. If Italy had’ve won that World Cup, the man would be still spoken of today, but as it is, he rarely gets a mention despite being absolutely elite for a period of time.
No, this is where I disagree with you. A lot of the stuff you said before that paragraph, I can agree with, but what I am arguing against is the notion that Maradona was only considered the best player in the world after 1986, when he finally 'delivered.' That is categorically false.
He was considered the best player in the world before that, by many people. After 1986, it was just a much stronger consensus, and in fact he was already being talked of as the greatest player of all time (David Pleat said on comms in WC 1986 "I think he's dethroned Pele. I've never seen such a wondeŕful player" - and that was before Argentina had even won the tournament).
I mentioned before about him being called the best player in the world in WC 1982. Someone posted a vid previously where he was called the best player in the world (along with Keegan) in that 1980 International game v England, when he was still a teenager. It was off the strength of his individual performances that he acquired this reputation (and that 1980 game did nothing to dispel that notion).
Edit: Another poster said 'Maradona pre 86 was like Neymar, talented, but hadn't done it yet' or words to that effect. That is the kind of opinion that I'm arguing is way off base.
Yet another edit: I'd argue that a better comparison is Ronaldo and Messi around 2007-8 (although the game was very different from the 80s, as we've discussed). At that time, a lot of people thought Messi was the best player in the world but Ronaldo had just won the European Cup (I know Messi had one by then, but he didn't play in the later rounds and it was Dinho's team) and had the 40 goal season and the Ballon D'Or (which they were both eligible for, unlike Diego and Platinj).
Last edited:
Nobody comes close to Messi, Maradona and Ronaldo Nazario on raw ability alone. Outstanding players.
Not sure about that. Ronaldinho, Best, Neymar, Garrincha, Zidane and a few others all had similar level raw ability imo.
A bit too much Eurocentric your view.
Not really, since people does the same for Puskas with even more stuff in his bag. Or fellas that Di Stefano considered better than him like Moreno or Pedernera, or even older fellas like Sastre prior to them being one of the first playing almost every role, not to mention Sivori that was almost the Gold Standard in Italy even in Platini's period and nowadays few know him or even knowing him has way less consideration than in his time. So there are plenty of extraordinary players forgotten.
The thing with Baggio it's that he belongs to the first globalization period in the 90s due to TV, CABLE, and the first steps of internet.
In such context, its true that he deserves nore praise and he is not receiving because of lack of exposure in terms of being in a Madrid and such winning huge stuff. Yet indeed in terms of talent, a maverick, perhaps my favorite player ever yet at the same time I dunno if I'm being unfair to oldies like Rivera or Meazza.
It gets kind of messy if there is a such a short list where Simonsen, Keegan and Nedved get in and Garrincha, Luis Suarez, Sivori or Kempes just at the top of my head doesn't.
That's the issue when we always measure from a Euro point of view and taking too much focus on players exposure, titles and stats and in others not. That's the silliness that tends to create the GOAT stuff, when it comes to players that aren't as over the top talented as a Pele and very few like him.
This is retrospective, and falls into the same trap of looking at who won what and then attaching preeminence to the main actors of the victorious teams. With the contemporary examples, i've given, Maradona was recognised as the best player in the world in the early 80s as well, and even to a degree in the late 70s. It was not a unanimous view then, but it was present.
A further example as to why this retrospective assessment is flawed, and ignores the context of the time, is the idea that Pele would have won 7. This is attaching a modern attitude to the award, when it can be given to the same player over and over again, and everyone plays in the same 2 or 3 leagues.
If you look at the actual awards, you will see that it was not even given to the same person in back to back years until well into the 1970s, and it was awarded in that period to players across 9 different leagues, including the Hungarian, Russian and Czech competitions. In fact, when it first began, there was a rule that it could not be given to the same person in back to back years (which is why DiStefano appears nowhere in the voting in the 1958 award).
This rule apparently didn't last, but there was obviously a conscious effort to have the award celebrate the whole of European football, and not just concentrate it on one person or one league. This is the context that is ignored when suggesting that Pele would have won 7 back then, had he been eligible.
I’m talking about de facto - king of kings, as he was after 1986, where, the argument was dead and buried and Zico and Platini’s legacies were essentially retconned because Maradona’s star began to shine so brightly, it effectively burned theirs. Even from the next generation up, it became Maradona, Maradona, Maradona, which was not a global thing prior to 1986.
You are blurring lines somewhat with what you’re saying, too. Print media was not hailing Maradona as *the* best player in the world in, say, 1985, perhaps in South America, but definitely not in Europe on a grand scale, and once again, best talent in the world is not the same as best player. You would be thought a fool to claim any knowledge of football and not see, clearly, that Maradona’s talent was peerless. It *still* did not make him the best player in the world without proof - backing up that talent is what turned the 80’s upside down, not before. Pockets of whoever thinking this is the greatest observable talent is not one and the same with being the best player in the world and ironically, when Maradona started delivering as effectively in Serie A as Platini had done during his legacy era, he became the anointed, no discussion, no debate because talent was then married to delivery/definitive execution.
Maradona’s observable talent has claim to be the greatest in history, and even if you go Messi or Ronalo fenom or Pele, it’s a bracket that belongs to only them; you’d be seen as a fool to deny them in a contemporary sense, but it doesn’t matter without being backed up. All of them had to show and prove and make good on that talent otherwise it remains niche and rather nebulous.
Platini was an exceptional player in his own right, yet you talk about him like he shouldn’t be in the conversation, when in fact he was just a third of it in the early 80’s - you’re doing what you accuse others of in using a modern lens and viewing the past by it, a past where 1986 actually determined future fallout for all three of these players. If Platini had’ve delivered another 1984, this isn’t a discussion; if Zico had’ve delivered another 1982 whilst actually winning it, this isn’t a discussion; if Maradona had had another 1982, this isn’t a discussion, and very probably he gets spoken of as the biggest waste of talent ever. 1986 was absolutely pivotal for all three of them - Maradona did not go into that tournament de facto hailed as the best player in the world or peerless.
Weird you would select that whilst seeing clarification in a subsequent post you quoted with another point. Not Eurocentric at all.
We are talking talent here not career. Yamal at 17 is a phenomenal talent maybe the most talented since Messi. He does amazing things on the pitch.
Cr7 wasn't unplayable in all his last 3 seasons. He was brilliant in 06/07 probably unplayable, a machine in 07/08 only sporadically unplayable and actually poor for most of 08/09.
In most greatest lists, Cristiano deservedly would get in above R9. But in terms of peak performances, R9 between 1996 to 1998 was better than any version of Cristiano. Therefore just comparing the 2 Ronaldos, Cristiano is the greater footballer, R9 is the better footballer in his prime. If you bring the world cup into it and give it more weight only than would you consider R9 above Cristiano. But most lists gives more weight to longevity because it would be much easier to win a world cup with the Brazilian sides of the 90s and early 2000s than with any Portugal team and than there is the luck factor when it comes to these tournaments; both Portugal in Euro 2016 and Brazil in wc 2002 had incredibly easy draws. Plus it is more difficult to do it over many seasons, compared to 7, albeit high pressure, matches.
As for talent, for me, for forwards there are 3 aspects: scoring, constructive dribbling, and playmaking (creative passing). R9 was inherently a better dribbler and an equal goalscorer. Neither was a great playmaker.
What makes someone like R9 more talented is his ability to more consistently create goals for himself using his superior dribbling ability compared to Cristiano, who would more likely require assistance from his team.
But, that doesn’t mean Cristiano isn’t talented, he is very talented just not to the level of some phenoms including R9.
No one says that.
A little bit below. When Messi came along, he often outshone peak Ronaldinho.
platini was great at goalscoring and passing but lacked the flair of his South American counterparts I.e Maradona and Zico. He wasn't as naturally talented as the two but applied what he had very well.
My take on the Maradona/Platini-discussion: Maradona was the most talented, but not the greatest player in the first half of the eighties. On a good day he may have been the best in the world, but that was not the norm yet. Platini dominated the first half of the decade with Maradona getting better and better. Maradona was behind Platini and Zico much in the same way that Neymar was behind CR7 and Messi for a while. Extremely talented, but not yet the king. The change really comes around 85 and after the 86 World Cup the throne belonged to Diego.
After reading the arguments in this thread, I have revisited my original list and made a few changes:
Puskas - Di Stefano - Pele - Charlton - Best - Müller - Beckenbauer - Cruyff - Simonsen - Keegan - Zico - Rummenigge - Platini - Maradona - Gullit - Van Basten - M. Laudrup - Romario - Ronaldo 9 - Zidane - Figo - Rivaldo - Nedved - Ronaldinho - Kaka - CR7 - Messi - ?
Some has argued against the inclusion of Simonsen, Keegan, Figo or Nedved because players like Eusebio, Garrincha, Law or Baggio are missing. While the list is my take, it is thought to be chronologically, and some players are simply having more luck with the competition than others. This goes for Baggio and Eusebio. I see Eusebio as a greater player than Simonsen, Keegan, Figo or Nedved, but Eusebio competed against Pele in his prime, and that is pretty much unbeatable. Baggio is the other great player, that I cant find a spot for. Laudrup takes it from 91-93 for me in his Barcelona-Prime with Baggio, Stoitchkov and Romario as the main competition. In 94 it is extremely close between Romario and Baggio, but the WC is the decider. In 95/96 there was a vacuum. Romario couldn´t handle being the superstar and left it to Sammer/Weah/R9/Baggio/Laudrup to fight it out.
Thank you for a really interesting discussion.
After reading the arguments in this thread, I have revisited my original list and made a few changes:
Puskas - Di Stefano - Pele - Charlton - Best - Müller - Beckenbauer - Cruyff - Simonsen - Keegan - Zico - Rummenigge - Platini - Maradona - Gullit - Van Basten - M. Laudrup - Romario - Ronaldo 9 - Zidane - Figo - Rivaldo - Nedved - Ronaldinho - Kaka - CR7 - Messi - ?
Some has argued against the inclusion of Simonsen, Keegan, Figo or Nedved because players like Eusebio, Garrincha, Law or Baggio are missing. While the list is my take, it is thought to be chronologically, and some players are simply having more luck with the competition than others. This goes for Baggio and Eusebio. I see Eusebio as a greater player than Simonsen, Keegan, Figo or Nedved, but Eusebio competed against Pele in his prime, and that is pretty much unbeatable. Baggio is the other great player, that I cant find a spot for. Laudrup takes it from 91-93 for me in his Barcelona-Prime with Baggio, Stoitchkov and Romario as the main competition. In 94 it is extremely close between Romario and Baggio, but the WC is the decider. In 95/96 there was a vacuum. Romario couldn´t handle being the superstar and left it to Sammer/Weah/R9/Baggio/Laudrup to fight it out.
Thank you for a really interesting discussion.
Last edited:
".....There are many more in that period who are technically superior to Ronaldo including many of his teammates at Real and United.
There is a world of a difference between saying his not as good/talented as compared to saying "it's not even close" and his rival "doesn't even have generational level talent."
No amount of professionalism and hard work could ever put a none generational talent into having the type of career he has had. Let alone being able to compete with a Messi type operating at a GOAT tier club for accolades. People just should be more respectful of players they don't favor.
Last edited:
Just to clarify? Which Ronaldo is this?
Yeah. But that's how simplification works in arguments. At first it was Messi's more talented but Cristiano works on himself more and then it became a clear dichotomy between talent and hard-work (as if Cristiano is not one of the most gifted footballers of all-time) in most of those pointless on-line (I see the irony) one-liner debates. You don't get a lot of nuance in facebook/twitter commentary section.
Going on players I've watched..
1.Messi
2.Cristiano
3.R9
4.Zidane
5.Ronaldinho
6.Rivaldo
7.Figo
8.Suarez
9.Neymar
10.Benzema
1.Messi
2.Cristiano
3.R9
4.Zidane
5.Ronaldinho
6.Rivaldo
7.Figo
8.Suarez
9.Neymar
10.Benzema
I don't think the irony should be brushed over, as it was Platini's genius and ability to think and read play as he did (he's easily one of the best of all time in both departments) that got him by despite not having the incisive dribbling of the other two. Flair is subjective, and by it, in this regard, you're almost certainly solely talking about dribbling and wowing the crowd with the ability to run through teams and multiple players without breaking a sweat, because in terms of passing and shooting, Platini was easily a match for the other two and some people found great beauty in the way he could glide along the pitch with ridiculous interplay (Euro '84) whilst orchestrating and then finish off the chances he'd been the catalyst for in the first place.
Incidentally, this played out to a lesser degree with the emergence of Zidane, when the clamour was to anoint him the greatest French player of all-time as if he'd usurped Platini; Zidane's ability to dribble and look as aesthetic in everything he did vs. Platini's incisiveness and certainty of purpose. Platini was there to get the job done, repeatedly, first and foremost, hence his ridiculous scoring rates from midfield. Allied to that, if there was even a moment of uncertainty or opportunity to hurt the opposition in the worst way, Platini would be on that before others even registered what was happening. As he said himself: 'Zidane will certainly entertain you' but Platini was cut from a more ruthless cloth and the beauty of what he did was incidental, almost boring for its formulaic nature, but again, Euro '84 >all so that culmination of everything Platini was is what defines him and is the bar for others to meet.
By the way, Maradona is by far my favourite of the 3. Platini would actually come in third for my desire for the dribbling aesthetic, but in terms of effectiveness and completion of a task, it's a very different conversation.