I think people overate players from the past,
On the contrary, I think older players are actually quite underrated. Folks sample videos of players today vs those of the eras gone by in a vacuum to further their argument, but the underlying reasoning for listing of the greatest (not quantitatively best) footballers ever is kind of flawed. Those players should be judged within the parameters of their era, and the tactics/ footballing culture/ training methodology of the time.
Even though a Cristiano Ronaldo now might be considered by some to be qualitatively better than a Cruyff or Di Stefano given the advancement in training, sports medicine and whatnot, those players weren't just the greatest of the era, they set the precedent that helped define the fabric of football as we know it today. Without a Rivelino there might not have been Elastico for Laudrup and Ronaldino, without Beckenbauer there might not have been a Blanc or Sammer.
Because conversely, one might argue that amateur cartographers today can replicate what Mercator or Song or Goode did in the past, and how XYZ is a better mathematician than Euler or Euclid or Gauss in a vacuum. Modern players aren't necessarily better, even when the stats are padded up, it's just that the environment of football has changed with each passing generation.
Also, although you are entitled to your opinion, Zidane looks awkwardly out of place in an all-time Top 5. His resume just doesn't stack up when tallied with some of the others. Borderline Top 10 if I'm being super kind.
Puskas was the figurehead of Kipset Honved and the Magical Magyars being absolutely instrumental to both teams and being the most unfortunate player not to have won the world cup. He also saw out his career being an old age wonder for Real Madrid.
Platini was at a godly level for the first half of the 80's and set Euro '84 alight with one of the greatest, if not the greatest individual performance the Euros has seen. Platini was a phenomenal player who was the figurehead for club and country for years and relied on no-one to have the influence he did on games.
Eusebio, there's a debate for, but I don't see how you mention Ronaldo with the other two.
In fairness to what was written, I have already considered all of what you have stated. Putting Ronaldo in the same tier as Puskas and Platini seemed kind of a natural fit. Puskas was a figurehead for Honved, but the team also had Czibor, Kocsis, Budai, Bozsik; and the Hungarian League wasn't the strongest one at the time, in comparison to the Premier League and La Liga while Ronaldo played there.
Puskas might not have shredded substantially weaker competition like a Bican did, but still, the gulf was quite wide in relative terms. The Magyars again, the Kispesti lot, plus Grosics, Hidegekuti, Zakarias, Lantos and Sebes. That level of talent didn't materialize for Cristiano with Portugal since the 2006 World Cup; and the likes of Quieroz or Bento were no patch on Sebes. All in all I do think Ronaldo is on par with Puskas, the productivity and overall effectiveness as comparable too. Puskas was one of the Top 3-ish players of that kind of 20 year time-frame, similar for Cristiano, and things kind of even out.
Platini again, he's someone I admire greatly alongside Zico; and he was certainly a greater play-maker than Ronaldo, better vision, better passing, and his heroics in 1984 triumph over anything Ronaldo has done on the national team level, so I have considered the reasons for putting Cristiano alongside him. But his peak at the absolute top level and league was more restricted compared with Ronaldo (Nancy and earlier Saint Etienne days vs Ronaldo at United); the latter is a greater direct threat, more consistent with his production.
The French national time of the period when he was at his best coincided with with the presence of Tigana and Amoros and Bossis and Fernandez and Giresse and Bats; while Ronaldo's peak was greeted by the slow withering and departure of the likes of Figo and Rui Costa. Ronaldo became to Messi what Platini eventually became to Maradona. On club level, like Ronaldo, Platini's peak was with team that was absolutely stacked - Zoff, Scirea, Gentile, Cabrini, Tardelli, Boniek; so the cupboard wasn't exactly empty. Again, overall it seemed a really good fit and like
@Chesterlestreet said, intuitively it makes sense with them falling a bit short of the Top 5-ish players.
EDIT:
Sounds intuitively right.
What immediately speaks against it, is his Ballon haul. But I don't put much stock in that, to be honest. It has never been a proper reflection of how good the player was. Keegan has two of the bloody things.
Yep. Plus, I feel the current Ballon D'Or is somewhat cheapened by FIFA's influence. Seems more a spiritual heir to the 'World Player of the Year', than France Football's.
