Ronaldo in one-on-one situations was hilarious. Keepers knew he was going to take it round them but could never stop it
Where does Cristiano Ronaldo rank in the All time list?
- Thread starter K2K
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
all these stats and graphs being used, take away some of the romance of it all and distort perspectives. Its quite sad really.
You're kidding me on? I was absolutely sure you were 16 or 17.Yes I'm very serious, Luiz' Ronaldo's prime lasted about 2 years, do you also have Ronaldinho in your top 10? (Albeit a much more spectacular fall from the top)
The first game I watched was during the WC in 86, I've basically seen the entirety of Luiz Ronaldo's career.
Ronaldinho could do things Messi could only dream of, so what if they can't do it for more than a while?
If that's the case then football isn't the sport for you Cal. Did you actually watch Luiz Ronaldo? He may have had a very short peak but he was much more likely to give jaw dropping big game performances than your man Cristiano. Ronaldo weighing in with so many goals against cannon fodder and his distinct lack of real big game 'wow' moments is why I think he struggles to get in that top 10.
You thought he signed up on the Caf as a 4 year old back in 2002?
I don't really look at the join dates mate. But to be honest reading some of his football 'analysis' he has about the same level of insight as a 4 or 5 year old
Good post.
Baseball
Hockey
lol, really? There are defenders now that are as good as Thuram, Cafu, RCarlos, Zanetti, Maldini, Costacurta, Hierro, Desailly, Kohler, Nesta, Cannavaro, Stam, Lizarazu, Blanc,Sammer, Bergomi, etc, etc, who played in the 90's? Please do share...
Top 100 I said it before and I'll say it again !
David Luiz is will worth £50m though! Must be difficult to defend in the current era, to be fair, the game is heavily in favour of attackers - it's become a non contact sport.
Ronaldo is better than the Brazilian Ronaldo IMO. The Brazilian had a higher peak and was a more talented player but he didn't play at that level long enough for me. Cristiano Ronaldo in comparison, has been one of the top two players for almost a decade now. His consistency has been incredible and far greater than the Brazilians. I do not always think that a player is better than another just because he is more consistent. There are players that have been more consistent than Zidane and Brazilian Ronaldo but I do not consider them to be better than them because I think that Zidane and the Brazilians peak level were significantly higher than theirs. That is not the case with Ronaldo and the Brazilian Ronaldo for me. The Brazilians peak was higher but it was not anywhere close to being enough to make up for Cristiano Ronaldo's far superior consistency. Not even the Brazilians better international career is enough to bridge the gap (Cristiano Ronaldo more than makes up for it with his far superior CL record). If the Brazilian had managed to avoid injury then he would have gone on to have been the better player (after his injuries he never reached his Barcelona or Inter level again and I imagine that without the injuries he would have improved on his Barcelona and Inter level the same way Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo continued to improve over the years without being disrupted by injury). But he didn't, so I consider Ronaldo to be better than the Brazilian and he would rank higher in my all-time list. All IMO of course.
Last edited:
So what, Ronaldinho should be rated even higher if that's the case? Oh, let's rate Lewandoski as one of the best ever for scoring 5 goals in 9 minutes, jaw dropping enough for you?
Cristiano's record in big games stand up to any kind of scrutiny, doesn't he hold the record for scoring in consecutive El Clasico games? Big enough for you?
or are you going to go with the WC final argument which results in your whole Messi case falling apart?
You do realize that Bergomi and Zanetti span a career of 35 years? Many of the players you are referring to were peaking around 2000, about 10 years later than the era I was talking about. Big difference already between 1990 and 2000. I also don't think Roberto Carlos and Desailly are very comparable as players. We're mostly talking CB's and a few of the ones you mentioned have recently retired.
Yeah goals is all he has. There's not enough wow moments. Even if he merely gets on the scoresheet via a penalty you'd count that as a win for him and I simply wouldn't in this case.
And Ronaldinho was better than Ronaldo too. I don't think there's any doubt of that, and for similar reasons too. All Cristiano has is his goal tally and longevity. When you break it down and look at it in more detail that's when he falls short.
What's Ronaldo's biggest career games? His 3 CL Finals? Because aside from the header vs Chelsea he really hasn't put in particularly good performances in any of them, certainly not what you'd expect from one of the very best players to play the game, and he doesn't exactly have injuries or bad form in any of them.
You're entitled to an opinion, no matter how ridiculous it is.
Ronaldinho better than C Ronaldo.
Ronaldinho was shit in the CL final against a 10 man Arsenal to be fair. He made fools out of Chelsea with that ridiculous goal but was still eliminated in the tie (4-2 I believe. God those were epic times). And that Real game where he got a standing ovation... well this was the Real who perfected the art of not going beyond the last 16 of the Champions League, and were utter jokes in the league. Speaking of utter jokes, wasn't Zidane in that team? It's like he gets a pass for just coasting in the league all those years, that CL goal in the final bought him lots of time.
Love Ronaldinho to death. I'm sure someone can dig up past posts on here where I proclaim Ronaldinho to be better than Ronaldo and Messi. But we're not applying the same standards here.
I asked you for games that weren't with us, as that was part of my original point that Ronaldo has become a reductive or minimalist player who is a lot more reliant on others and part of the reason why he, more often than not fails to shine on the Int. stage.
What we then have is the matches in italics. I wonder how many people would see those as career defining, out of this world performances. You said earlier that whatever you threw out I'd dismiss for some selective or subjective reason, so whatever I say here you won't take at face value, but for the record, I think he was good in some of those games, but outstanding and career defining? Not really.
I just don't think I'm alone in this opinion, and there's been a number of people in this thread alone who have said something similar. I thought this post was apt:
As it's not dissimilar to what I said and was written independent of it, and I'm sure numerous others would say the same thing.
If your currency is 'just' raw consistency, then you have to deliver more on the grandest stages, the same way as any other more raw goal-scorer is assessed as opposed to those who constantly create or dictate and have other avenues to leave an indelible stamp on a game.
And as an example of what it means to be outstanding even if you don't score a goal, Ronaldo (and Rooney's) performance in the FA Cup final vs Arsenal as kids was just that, for me, absolutely outstanding they both were that day.
Same standards? Cals banging on about his clasico record but Ronaldo preyed on a weak Barcelona defence for years and particularly mascherano who is a midfielder and was still struggling to adapt. When a fit Puyol was in there Ronaldo often couldn't buy a clasico goal.
I know you're a huge CR7 fan but surely you can't deny Zidane has those big game wow moments that Ronaldo lacks?
Barcelona have had the strongest (or at worst 2nd strongest defence) in La Liga for the last six or seven seasons. They have never had a "weak" defence. They have always had a stronger defence than Madrid but I never see you or anyone try to take anything away from Messi's goals or other players that score against Madrid because of that (and rightly so).
Perhaps, but not everyone judges who is a better player by who has more "big game wow" moments. If you do then fair enough but I doubt that is the way the majority of people do it. It doesn't really look at the big picture. Even if Ronaldo does lack these "big game wow" moments, he doesn't lack them anywhere near as much as Zidane lacks a full campaign as good as about 5 or 6 of Ronaldo's. Zidane never had a full season as good as several of Ronaldo's. And this is coming from someone who loves Zidane and I like him more than I do Ronaldo.
Last edited:
I'm not denying that. I can't say I've seen C Ronaldo produce the kind of performance I saw Zidane pull out of the wazoo during France 2006.
That said... it seems like a very, very lazy and biased way to determine what players make the grade and what players don't. I just mentioned that Ronaldinho didn't have that jaw dropping final performance in the CL. The performance against a weakened Real isn't scrutinized. And that goal against Chelsea was excellent but otherwise he couldn't turn the tide enough to prevent Barcelona from getting eliminated that night. Yet if I was to place him amongst the greats (not Pele and Maradona, the tier below) no one would bat an eye. Zidane for all his big game performances did diddly squat for Real after that CL goal. Nowhere to be found when they were knocked out by Monaco, Juventus, Arsenal in the first round. Didn't do much for them in the league either. Yet he gets a bye.
It's either this, or he himself is massively under-performing at international level. You can't have it both ways.
And solely is a tad hyperbolic, as it's obvious Ronaldo has his moments of genuine class, but at the same time, he is largely reliant on others in a way players such as Neymar, Robben, Suarez and the like are not. If they, as inferior players can maintain their own standards no matter what, then why can't Ronaldo?
Now this is disingenuous. You can't possibly be comparing defence-splitting, sublime 30+ yard through ball passes with squared balls across a box? In terms of raw assist numbers via relatively easy final balls, or rebounds etc Ronaldo probably has as many as Riquelme, one of the greatest through-ball passers of the last 30 years, there's not a sane soul who is going to validate a Ronaldo final pass on a 1:1 with the players you mentioned.
Ronaldo isn't a RVN or Inzaghi, no, but he's quite a different animal from the majority of other all-time greats, too, which is why I said how he is and what he's doing is very unique. Even his Benjamin Button-esque reversal to a striker to see out his career is an absurdity, which makes for a player who is far removed from the normal trajectory of a footballer, let alone all-time great. I don't know how many other players have converted from winger, to wing-forward to striker to see out a career, but it really can't be many.
Puskas forged an insane amount of chances for himself off the back of unspectacular passages of play, not dissimilar to an Aguero or Martial turning nothing into something, but to a higher degree. Ronaldo certainly doesn't do that with the same kind of frequency. As I said before, Puskas was the outstanding player amongst outstanding players - he wasn't just given that moniker for the sake of it, it was because he was a sublime individual, just the same as all other players generally mentioned in top 5 and 10 lists.
He proved that no matter what, his own individual standard did not drop, which is all any player can do under any circumstance and what Ronaldo doesn't do enough times for it to be noted. As I have said time and time again, it doesn't matter if a player is on a stacked team or not, you can still gauge them as individuals. Everyone on planet earth knows when Messi is being Messi or Robben is being Robben.
Ronaldo has been to three world cups and three European championships and will probably go to another two Euros and one more World Cup. He has had ample opportunity to pad out his stats. The amount of games he has played for his country 122!! is a platform others have not had. I am not trying to character assassinate the guy, but if you're going to bring up such things, perspective and context is vitally important. I can only imagine what Eusebio would've done inside 122 caps.
Wherever and whenever Portugal happen to be knocked out, all that's asked of Ronaldo is to be Ronaldo and let the chips fall where they may. That alone would elevate his legacy amongst people such as myself, Spoony and others because then, no matter what, you could say Ronaldo did his bit and cannot be faulted - just the same as Robben was hailed as having a spectacular tournament just gone, or James did even though Columbia didn't even reach the quarter finals.
Ronaldo doesn't have to win an international tournament to be hailed, the only time that was expected of Portugal as a NT was when the golden generation was about.
Sorry but the narrative before Neymar even set foot in Catalunia was whether what he does in Brazil and for his NT can be anywhere near replicated in big, bad Europe in the big time La Liga in a stacked team where he was no longer the star and had to defer to Messi. Turns out, he is the exact same player he ever was, playing in the same way, doing the same things and delivering more often than not. You bring up the World Cup but don't mention his being curtailed by injury - before that, he was in the running for player of the tournament.contd.
Aye, Neymar is ace :
Friendlies of zero significance all around, 1 goal in the 2011 Copa America, 1 in the 2015 Copa America, 2 in his home nation with a public wave of euphoria. I mean, don't get me wrong, he has done well, but as a standard Ronaldo should be held to, someone who has conquered big game odds against severe competition to lead Brazil to tangible success? Never. Not to mention the fact that despite the narrative of Brazil being poor, they're actually much superior to Portugal giving Neymar the platform to shine. Similarly, Keane's performance was a bit anomalous over the larger sample size.
The bottom line is that his performances and overall output, whether Brazil win or lose, is recognisably Neymar...errr.. rific..
Apart from his diving and amateur dramatics, he doesn't do much that can be faulted.
International football is part of the package in combination with club football that solidifies legacies and says this guy is a bona fide great that can thrive with variable teammates and outside the perfect and familiar conditions of club football. Someone like Klose falls down at the club level, which is why he isn't taken particularly seriously, someone like Xavi thrived and displayed that he is more than capable of dominating games without Messi in front of him.
The only time international football can't be factored in is for players at genuine minnow nations, which is why you'll never hear it factored in for someone like Weah, Litamanen, Best or Shevchenko and so on.
Ronaldo plays in a time where his club will always be in the European Cup because he doesn't have to win the trophy or be a league winner to enter, under the conditions Platini faced, Ronaldo would have played in 5 European Cups in his career to date. How many goals and whatever else do you think Ronaldo would have then? Conversely, if Platini played in the European Cup for over a decade straight with numerous group stages, given he was a consummate tournament player who thrived in tournament conditions, what would his European career stats have looked like?
I'd have Platini being top scorer from midfield for three seasons straight in 80's serie A over the majority of Ronaldo's season numbers, myself as I believe it's the much harder feat.
All players I've mentioned played when Ronaldo was at his peak or in his era. Most of those mentioned played against him(I'm not sure only for Sammer and Bergomi). I'm talking also about defenders whose peak or were close to their peak around 93' - 05' when Ronaldo was at his peak or at least close to it.
Roberto Carlos, Panucci, Zanetti etc, were still defenders, I'm not comparing them directly, but world class full backs nowadays are very much lacking as well.
I'm interested however in your previous post, who do you think compares today to those CB's and full backs of 10-20 years ago?
3rd behind Diego Armando Maradona and Lionel Messi
He was meh in the Copa, until he acted like an idiot and got banned for the rest of the tournament.
You're talking about a 12 year era. Cannavaro's peak was long after Maldini's. Did you watch Cannavaro when he played for Inter? You got any idea how he compares to Smalling?
Juanfran-Miranda-Godín-Filipe Luis. What's your take on those defenders? Don't think they're up to scratch with those you mentioned? These guys made up the back 4 that won La Liga against two of the best club sides in history (at least one of them). Both teams scored 100 times in the league.
I think it's weird that defenders and defenses were so much better back then but their defensive record isn't any better than teams today or 10 years ago. Were the attackers just equally just as better? Or was Italy maybe a very defensive footballing place? Let's look at it from a NT perspective. The WC in 1990 in Italy is widely regarded as one of the worst WC's. It was boring, not many goals scored. That's certainly in tune with my arguments so far. Was it solely because of the great defenders or was the lack of a back-pass rule perhaps one of the factors in this? Imagine watching a game where your team is 1-0 up and they are allowed to pass the ball back to the goalkeeper and he can pick it up with his hands. That was still allowed when Baresi was in his prime.
Defenders had it easier back then. That's a fact. There have been many advances in football and a lot of them have made it harder for defenders. Sports science, pressing tactics, rules changes, ball, pitches, extra referees, video technology.
Pips Messi for me as he's done it in two different leagues. Class player.
In defence of the Brazilian Ronaldo, due to the discussions about him vs C. Ronaldo and their respective longevity, it's not as if the Brazilian one just faded into obscurity after he had his very best peak years at Barca/Inter. He was still an excellent goalscorer for Real Madrid, and produced some superb performances for them like his famous one against us. He still peaked very early, in that he'd pretty much faded out by his 30s, but he's not someone who was excellent for a couple of seasons and then immediately turned to shit. You could arguably make that argument more with Ronaldinho - who had three or four seasons in which he was one of the best around (maybe even two if we're being harsh), but really didn't make anywhere near the same impact before or after that peak.
To answer the question, I said top 20 for C. Ronaldo, although you could easily make an argument for top 10.
To answer the question, I said top 20 for C. Ronaldo, although you could easily make an argument for top 10.
I've never really gotten the "two leagues" argument, tbh. If Messi was someone who only delivered in La Liga and struggled outside of it, I'd understand, but that's not the case. He's the most prolific player in Champions League history, and has performed superbly against teams from across the whole of Europe, on a consistent basis.
It's why I don't get the "he'd struggle away to Stoke" argument, even if it's mostly satire now. If Messi can deliver against a title winning Manchester United side, scoring and delivering excellent all-round performances in a CL final, he'd probably demolish Premier League also-rans.
and Djemba Djemba
Of course it was, but Brazilian Ronaldo played against both, that is my point. Cannavaro struggled with injures while at Inter, especially the 2nd season. He was at his best at Juve.
I wouldn't put Miranda and Godin over Ayala, let alone Stam, Nesta, Montero, Costacurta, Hierro etc..
Atletico Madrid defends like a unit and all over the pitch, it's more due to Simeone rather than individual talent. We saw Felipe Luis at Chelsea...
Baresi is a bit out of that time period, if we're to compare it with Brazilian Ronaldo. The period is from 93' onward. It's not like that time was shy of quality attackers either with Romario, Batistuta, Del Piero, Baggio, etc. Yes you have a point with the teams being more defensive but this is my point as well, as Ronaldo was destroying those defences at that time, even though struggling with injuries. As for goals scored, I'm not sure about that. Juve were notorious for low number in goals conceded. I think back in 2000 they had a season with like 20 goals conceded. Most of the seasons in the late 90's, early 00's up to until they were relegated Juve didn't concede more than 30 goals. If they did surely that would have been like 1-2 times in a 10 years span.
You may make a case of them not conceding many now as well, but the league itself is a shadow of what it once was. Italy back then had Parma, Inter, Milan, Juve, Lazio all playing euro cup finals and winning euro titles. It was the best league for a decade, afterwards to be replaced by the Premier league. And by that time when back pass was abolished, as it was up until 92' or 93' or something.
Football is moving towards being more of athletes first and footballers afterwards, which of course takes part of the romanticism. However, I don't think we have the same quality of defenders nowadays. Yes it's more of tactics and giving less space on the pitch, but in the last 5 years, as you have watched the ones I mentioned before, who can you put in the same bracket? Thiago Silva? Ottamendi? Sergio Ramos? Pique? When you see Mascherano with Mathieu in the CB for Barca something is going on. Can you even name me 5 world class defenders nowadays?
When you compare CB's today with those CB's you get better footballers. That's one thing. They're better at football. They're not as focused on just defending. That's a sacrifice that top CB's have made. Silva, Ramos, Mathieu, Hummels are all excellent footballers. When Rio emerged he was an anomaly. Now his kind of defender is becoming the norm. The reason why Mathieu is a CB now is because that he can defend and play football. For Valencia he played most of his career on the left, either as a full back or a winger. Can't think of a player 20 years ago that played as a winger and then became a CB.
These abilities are more essential. That's why Atletico were a success. It wouldn't have worked if any of the back 4 weren't good footballers. Of these defenders you mentioned, the very best of them were good footballers. Some of them weren't great their whole career. Plenty of defenders now look the be really good players and frankly quite underrated.
We can only compare the defenders to the quality of the attackers. I think the average is generally higher.
Another thing. You mention Costacurta. Looking at him he had a decent career. One thing I noticed is something I haven't touched on. Despite having a long career, 20 years, and playing for most of it he's played less than Terry who still has 5 years on him at top level. Basically players now are playing on average 10-15 games more, not counting international games.
I'll give you that the number is most likely bigger than the 2-4 that I mentioned but I don't think that a handful of individuals is a good representation of a generational difference.
I have to disagree with this. Whats happened is that because the athletic qualities of players has improved because of sports science and training methods players have had to increase their footballing abilities to be able to be effective at pace and under pressure. In terms of footballing ability the average player is now more technically capable and more skillful than they were 15 years ago. The athletic requirements are hiding this from most people. When I mean at pace and under pressure I dont just mean when moving with the ball at pace. Players are now performing skill moves to enable them to find passes faster than they used to, they also are doing this while having more intense pressure applied.
In terms of defending the difference between now and then is that there is more emphasis on defending and less on tackling. The quality of defenders now is no less than 20 years ago, however defending has become a more combined effort rather than relying on individual defending. The reason you struggle to name 5 world class defenders is because of this. The basic principles of defending still revolve around 1v1 principles, 2v2 principles and 3v5 principles. Its just that the 3v5 principles are the ones which are more strongly worked on at training when 20 years ago 1v1 and 2v2 principles were worked on more.
Well, we'll never know will we. Like you say he probably would. But with Ronaldo we definitely know. Other great players have struggled in the premier league Schevchenko, amongst others, springs to mind. It's not necessarily the standard of the league that drops for these players but the standard of their new team and the service they get. But Messi is a hell of a player.
I agree with a lot of the points you're making. They reiterate what I was saying earlier about defensive, negative football, complacent referees, two points for a win, etc. That said, I still think the calibre of pure defender is not as high as it was in the 1980s and 1990s. It's pretty clear that the top teams today prioritise defenders who are good on the ball, whereas 20-30 years ago it would typically have been about defensive quality first and foremost and anything beyond that was a bonus. That is reflected in how teams train and young players are developed. More time is spent on developing players on the ball and relatively less time off it. We're now producing far more rounded players at the back, and their ability on the ball is miles ahead of the general standard from the 1970s or 1980s. As part of that trend though, it seems pretty obvious that there are fewer off-the-ball specialists. In any era you see concentrations of quality in certain positions or roles depending on the overall style or tactical approach prevalent at the time. For example, nowadays I think we produce greater numbers of intricate inside-forwards who excel at the short give-and-go than at any other time in the modern era, and again that's largely a reflection of the possession game.
On the 1990 World Cup, I rate that Italy defence as perhaps the greatest of all time. Baresi was at his peak and completely dominated the tournament. He was supported by other world-class defenders like Maldini, Bergomi and Ferri, with other world-class defenders like Vierchowod and Ferrara largely stuck on the bench. No wonder they did not concede a single goal all tournament until deep into the semi-final against Argentina (and even that was a feck-up by the keeper rather than the back line). Importantly though all those defenders continued to excel as the game slowly opened up in the 1990s with the changes to the passback rule and the shift to three points for a win.
Not sure I agree with that, I don't think there's any defender who has matched Rio yet in terms of being as good defensively as well as on the ball. I would say the norm now is for defenders to either be good on the ball or good at defendign, very few are great at both, and non are as great at both as Rio was.
It's why Rio, for me, was SAF's glaring ommission in the World Class debate.
I don't see it. For me Mathieu, Hummels, Silva and Ramos are not on par with Maldini, Hierro, Nesta, Blanc, Montero and Ayala. Nowadays is very hard to find a defender that is excellent in both defending and ball playing skills. Ramos has been a large question mark in his defensive duties and it is since couple of season a center back, most of his career he has been a right back. Hummels is not very consistent and his lack of pace is exposed nowadays on more than one occasion. Mathieu I wouldn't rank as one of the best defenders and Silva is probably the closest you get to those mentioned above. Rio was a freak of nature, no one comes close to the all round package he had in his locker. Let's not forget that 2-3 months ago when LvG said that he wanted a ball playing defender how everybody struggled to name one who was also good at defending.
Here as well is worth mentioning that quality full backs are also a scare commodity. In the past we had Lizarazu, Carlos, Cafu, Maldini, Panucci, Zanetti, Thuram... Now Luke Shaw who was pretty inexperienced is worth 30m pounds and as we needed a quality RB this summer out of the most of the established names that came up was Dani Alves who is nearly retired.
Atletico's success is generally due to Simeone. Having a great manager is the #1 priority when you are trying to build good and successful team(something we're learning the hard way after Fergie). Luis failed at Chelsea, Godin and Miranda were already there until Simeone took over. Before he did, they conceded 26 in 16 games and 53 goals the season before. Only afterwards they began to tighten the defence, and besides if you see Atletico regularly they defend all over the pitch which helps a lot.
The quality of attackers nowadays is a bit questionable as well in terms of individual. From the top of my head I can think of Lewa, Benzema, Ronaldo, Diego Costa as world class strikers this year. Feel free to add if you think of more.
Costacurta in the 90's was pretty consistent and free of injuries. Let's not forget that the calccio was 18 teams and they had to play 4 games less every season. He rarely missed more than 3-4 games per season in Seria A. Also in England there are more fixtures due to the league cup etc..
Well there are other names that I haven't mentioned, those were just cream of the crop, but there were also Tasotti, Ferrara, Iuliano, Torricelli, Couto, Sensini, Benarrivo, Reuter, Irwin, Popescu, etc.... I'd say if you look at the defenders individually, the quality in both defensive and ball playing skills was better, of course the tactics have changed and overall football has moved on in some directions so possibly this takes part as well.
Isn't that actually supporting Snow's point? Surely we all agree that Simeone's Atletico team is a wonderful retro side that reminds us of the good old days of defending? If he can turn a team's defensive stability around so quickly and in such an extreme way, maybe the quite clearly different 'modern' tactics really play such a significant role?
It's not possible to state this as a fac(h)t - and doing so makes these debates less interesting. Just my opinion.
I agree with several of your points, however. Or, rather, I think they're points we have to consider - but which many don't: They simply go with the accepted (in some circles, at least) notion that the 80s and 90s were the golden decades of defenders - and that the current crop are mediocre at best.
It's usually not as simple as that. For instance, it's no doubt true that in one sense defenders have a harder time these days than they've ever had in terms of what is allowed contact/challenge wise. As Spoony said above, football is fast becoming a non-contact sport. A certain brand of thuggish defender of yore would've been utterly out of his depth in the current game.
Then again you had defenders back in the violent 80s too who didn't rely much on contact, who certainly didn't base their game on thuggery, but who excelled at precisely the things a modern defender needs to master.
You're quite right in one respect, though: The overall climate in the 80s and 90s was much more defensive than it is today. Teams were much more stingy, the football itself was - simply - less attacking. To a certain extent this benefited defenders - as you suggest. In another sense, however, it did not if we're talking about individual defenders, as more focus on defending meant that it took more to stand out as a defender: In an era where "pure" defending isn't valued as highly, it takes less to make a name for yourself as a defender - that seems undeniable to me.
It's more of a case with physical attributes and the way Atletico set up, more than individual brilliance. Yes, he relies on the qualities he imposed on the pitch in the 90's which makes it similar, but if he had the individuals in the back line it will be even harder to beat them. Don't get me wrong, their back line is quality, but if you look at them individually they are not as good as those mentioned. Tactics is very important to how the defense will set up of course, but you don't see that many teams like that at the moment. Simeone's one is a bit exception of the rule.