5th Best player of all time

The list in the OP is clearly not complete. If we go with the premise that the four mentioned are the greatest (they aren't, in my opinion, but hey) I'd go with Beckenbauer as the 5th.

Of the ones actually on the list, it has to be Di Stefano or Cruyff.
 
You're not really contextualising the changes in the club game since the 1990s. Teams were needing 65-80 points to win a league title then, now they need 90-100 - all because teams are getting more and more stacked as the gulf in resources within leagues becomes ever wider. It's the same as looking at Van Basten's best season at Milan, 25 goals in Serie A, and then saying Higuain shits on that with his 36 goals in 2015/16.

Don't know where you get this 29 goals figure from either. He scored 62 goals in total for Barcelona and Brazil in 1996/97.
Goal-wise his season at Barca is the only season which puts him in GOAT discussion. In the last 20 years or so, I think only Messi in 2012 had a better year.

His longevity is a problem though, as is his relative lack of club trophies (1 league title, 0 UCL in more than a decade playing for the top teams in his country). I also don't look fondly on his Real Madrid years, when Real had won 3 on 5 years, added him and weren't able to go close to winning UCL. They even got eliminated from Fernando Morientes whom he had just replaced. And in Italy, he was consistently outscored.

I think that when he was in song, he was as good as anyone has ever been, but he was nowhere as consistent as the other Ronaldo or Messi. So career wise, I think that he is a couple of levels below them. On absolute peak (season-wise), he is below Messi IMO, and probably around Cristiano's level. If you look at their best ever games, then, he is better than anyone. Essentially, a more powerful and faster version of Messi (without the GOAT passing).
 
His top level still wasn’t Messi or Ronaldo level no matter how you try and dress it up. You mention the World Cup in 02 but that season he scored 7 goals for Inter, again nobody remembers that.

His best year at Barce was 29 goals, I mean Messi is almost doubling that season after season whilst leading Barce to trebles it’s just not comparable.

His Madrid days resulted in and around 20 goals a season I don’t need to link Cristiano’s record to prove he’s almost trebling them numbers on a consistent basis whilst helping Madrid to 4 CL titles in 5 years.

Ronaldo was good but to put some prospective on it Ruud took his place in the team and relegated him to the bench, I mean I love Ruud but we’re taking GOAT levels here for me the nostalgia is insane with R9.

His Milan days really fecked him too, he was about 18 stone and scored 6 goals in 2 years meh he was wank for the majority of his career.

He scored 7 goals for Internin 02 because he was injured for the whole year (yet still managed to come back just before the WC and win the golden boot, scoring in the final), and his best season at Barca was famously 47 goals. At about 19 years old. But never mind, he was poor at the end of his career at Milan so hey.
 
Regarding Ronaldo, there's always this urge to post just his numbers and titles without any context. He was 23 when he got his big injury that would sideline him for almost 3 full seasons, he played less than 25 games in that period when he should've been entering his peak. It's almost impossible for most players to have any kind of meaningful comeback after that. It's a testament to his greatness that he was able to be a huge part of a world cup winning team and scoring over 100 goals to Real Madrid after losing most of what made him that very rare talent people raved about.
 
Goal-wise his season at Barca is the only season which puts him in GOAT discussion. In the last 20 years or so, I think only Messi in 2012 had a better year.

His longevity is a problem though, as is his relative lack of club trophies (1 league title, 0 UCL in more than a decade playing for the top teams in his country). I also don't look fondly on his Real Madrid years, when Real had won 3 on 5 years, added him and weren't able to go close to winning UCL. They even got eliminated from Fernando Morientes whom he had just replaced. And in Italy, he was consistently outscored.

I think that when he was in song, he was as good as anyone has ever been, but he was nowhere as consistent as the other Ronaldo or Messi. So career wise, I think that he is a couple of levels below them. On absolute peak (season-wise), he is below Messi IMO, and probably around Cristiano's level. If you look at their best ever games, then, he is better than anyone. Essentially, a more powerful and faster version of Messi (without the GOAT passing).
Good post.
 
Fair enough. That said, if not for extreme circumstances in 1998 then who knows? He was certainly the best player in the world at the time.
Yeah, I agree with your post in general, just 2 World Cups seemed wrong somehow. Alongside Pele he is the best teenager that the football had ever seen, and even after all of his injuries he still stays the best player of his generation.
 
I don't get the Ronaldo Lima argument, the what if he stayed fit he would've been better than all of them one. That's the thing though, he didn't stay fit, so it's irrelevant. Longevity is a vital part of the GOAT discussion. If you don't have it, you're not the one.
 
Ronaldo #9.


Ronaldinho at his peak was by far the best player i have ever seen, but unfortunately it has been a short period of time. Too short. Otherwise he would be the GOAT.
 
Yeah, I agree with your post in general, just 2 World Cups seemed wrong somehow. Alongside Pele he is the best teenager that the football had ever seen, and even after all of his injuries he still stays the best player of his generation.
That is extremely debatable, considering Zidane's status. I think that the debate on Ronaldo vs Zidane is as close as Messi vs Ronaldo, and more like a matter of preference. It is that close.
 
You're not really contextualising the changes in the club game since the 1990s. Teams were needing 65-80 points to win a league title then, now they need 90-100 - all because teams are getting more and more stacked as the gulf in resources within leagues becomes ever wider. It's the same as looking at Van Basten's best season at Milan, 25 goals in Serie A, and then saying Higuain shits on that with his 36 goals in 2015/16.

Don't know where you get this 29 goals figure from either. He scored 62 goals in total for Barcelona and Brazil in 1996/97.
Just to reiterate this:

XWP9PsV.png


Transfermarkd club/team value of all teams in La Liga. Nothing definite of course but the gulf is staggering.

If you include Atletico as well - three clubs are worth as 60% of the whole league.

When Fenomeno was tearing it apart in Seria A, Milan finished 10th with players like Maldini, Weah, Costacurta, Desailly, Boban, Kluivert, Savicevic etc..
 
That is extremely debatable, considering Zidane's status. I think that the debate on Ronaldo vs Zidane is as close as Messi vs Ronaldo, and more like a matter of preference. It is that close.
Not for me.
 
Just to reiterate this:

XWP9PsV.png


Transfermarkd club/team value of all teams in La Liga. Nothing definite of course but the gulf is staggering.

If you include Atletico as well - three clubs are worth as 60% of the whole league.

When Fenomeno was tearing it apart in Seria A, Milan finished 10th with players like Maldini, Weah, Costacurta, Desailly, Boban, Kluivert, Savicevic etc..
On his one fantastic season at Inter, he was outscored in the league from Oliver Bierhoff who was playing for Udinese. Now there is no shame to be outscored from Bierhoff - he was an excellent striker - and anyone would say that Ronaldo had a better year. However, does anyone think that Messi or Cristiano (playing for that strong Inter) would have been outscored from Bierhoff playing for Udinese? I just cannot see that. He also didn't have assists in double digits and wasn't in top 10 at it, something that Cristiano and Messi do it all the time.

Yes, it is easy to say 'stats are irrelevant' etc etc, but even comparing Luis Ronaldo with his respective peers, he doesn't go near Messi/Cristiano compared with their peers. So, unless football was much better back then, I just cannot see how Luis Ronaldo should be put in the discussion with Messi/Cristiano.

So, as I said before, when people talk about him there is a part of 'what could have been if not for injuries' added with nostalgia, and him being such a wonderful player to watch.
 
On his one fantastic season at Inter, he was outscored in the league from Oliver Bierhoff who was playing for Udinese. Now there is no shame to be outscored from Bierhoff - he was an excellent striker - and anyone would say that Ronaldo had a better year. However, does anyone think that Messi or Cristiano (playing for that strong Inter) would have been outscored from Bierhoff playing for Udinese? I just cannot see that. He also didn't have assists in double digits and wasn't in top 10 at it, something that Cristiano and Messi do it all the time.

Yes, it is easy to say 'stats are irrelevant' etc etc, but even comparing Luis Ronaldo with his respective peers, he doesn't go near Messi/Cristiano compared with their peers. So, unless football was much better back then, I just cannot see how Luis Ronaldo should be put in the discussion with Messi/Cristiano.

So, as I said before, when people talk about him there is a part of 'what could have been if not for injuries' added with nostalgia, and him being such a wonderful player to watch.

Maradona rarely made it to double figures if you discount penalties in the 80's and Aldo Serena outscored van Basten at his peak. That doesn't really change much tho. It happens from time to time :)
 
On his one fantastic season at Inter, he was outscored in the league from Oliver Bierhoff who was playing for Udinese. Now there is no shame to be outscored from Bierhoff - he was an excellent striker - and anyone would say that Ronaldo had a better year. However, does anyone think that Messi or Cristiano (playing for that strong Inter) would have been outscored from Bierhoff playing for Udinese? I just cannot see that. He also didn't have assists in double digits and wasn't in top 10 at it, something that Cristiano and Messi do it all the time.

Yes, it is easy to say 'stats are irrelevant' etc etc, but even comparing Luis Ronaldo with his respective peers, he doesn't go near Messi/Cristiano compared with their peers. So, unless football was much better back then, I just cannot see how Luis Ronaldo should be put in the discussion with Messi/Cristiano.

So, as I said before, when people talk about him there is a part of 'what could have been if not for injuries' added with nostalgia, and him being such a wonderful player to watch.
You have to count that Bierhoff usually faced one or two center backs and Ronaldo was man-marked from the game by 2 or even 3 players at once, who kicked him for 90 minutes. You see how Messi featured for Argentina in the same role — a leader in a talented, but broken team who constantly has 2 or 3 people on him at all time... and Ronaldo looked better. I mean Messi got outscored by not only Kane and Lukaku, but also by the likes of Cheryshev and Son, if we're continuing with that comparison
 
Jimmy Greaves: the highest goalscorer in the history of English top-flight football (357 goals)
 
Maradona rarely made it to double figures if you discount penalties in the 80's and Aldo Serena outscored van Basten at his peak. That doesn't really change much tho. It happens from time to time :)
Maradona was not a striker though. And for Luis, it didn't happen from time to time. It happened most of the time. He won the golden shoe of the country he was playing on, only 3 times. He was always in top 2 (or at worst top 3 when in Inter) team in the country.

You have to count that Bierhoff usually faced one or two center backs and Ronaldo was man-marked from the game by 2 or even 3 players at once, who kicked him for 90 minutes. You see how Messi featured for Argentina in the same role — a leader in a talented, but broken team who constantly has 2 or 3 people on him at all time... and Ronaldo looked better. I mean Messi got outscored by not only Kane and Lukaku, but also by the likes of Cheryshev and Son, if we're continuing with that comparison
Ronaldo and Messi are doubled and tripled too, and gets kicked all the time.

I think that a world cup sample (4-8 matches) is less accurate than a league-wise sample (38 matches).
 
Goal-wise his season at Barca is the only season which puts him in GOAT discussion. In the last 20 years or so, I think only Messi in 2012 had a better year.

His longevity is a problem though, as is his relative lack of club trophies (1 league title, 0 UCL in more than a decade playing for the top teams in his country). I also don't look fondly on his Real Madrid years, when Real had won 3 on 5 years, added him and weren't able to go close to winning UCL. They even got eliminated from Fernando Morientes whom he had just replaced. And in Italy, he was consistently outscored.

I think that when he was in song, he was as good as anyone has ever been, but he was nowhere as consistent as the other Ronaldo or Messi. So career wise, I think that he is a couple of levels below them. On absolute peak (season-wise), he is below Messi IMO, and probably around Cristiano's level. If you look at their best ever games, then, he is better than anyone. Essentially, a more powerful and faster version of Messi (without the GOAT passing).
The problem is only assessing it on goals. Ronaldo was arguably even better in 1997/98 at Inter than he was at Barcelona, despite scoring many fewer. It's not just the numbers of goals that were scored, it is the quality of them. They were more challenging to score because the supporting cast was so much weaker, the opposition so much stronger, and the environment much less attacker friendly. It's the same challenge that faced Van Basten a few years earlier. I suspect if you threw Messi or Cristiano into that environment, they would have the same struggles for consistency of impact that they have in international football and major tournaments.
 
The problem is only assessing it on goals. Ronaldo was arguably even better in 1997/98 at Inter than he was at Barcelona, despite scoring many fewer. It's not just the numbers of goals that were scored, it is the quality of them. They were more challenging to score because the supporting cast was so much weaker, the opposition so much stronger, and the environment much less attacker friendly. It's the same challenge that faced Van Basten a few years earlier. I suspect if you threw Messi or Cristiano into that environment, they would have the same struggles for consistency of impact that they have in international football and major tournaments.
Let's be fair, they were Inter. They were hardly a nothing team. Yep, Inter was mismanaged and Moratti was a moron, but still it was quite a good team.

I mean, was there much difference in quality between Inter when Luis joined, and United when Ronaldo came at age?

Of course, it is possible that Messi or Cristiano would have had the same fate, we just don't know it. Both of them spent essentially their entire careers in teams optimized for them. But even leaving that argument aside, we have essentially two top years of him in strong leagues (I haven't watched him playing for PSV so cannot comment in the quality), which is a bit too short for my liking.

On Real, he was great, but not all time great.
 
Argument isn't greatest or 'GOAT', it's best. Cristiano is not one of the 4 best players ever. Ronaldo (Brazil) is, at least for many people who got to see him in his pomp. I also wouldn't sleep on Romario on a pure talent basis. This is based entirely on what I've seen, not heard. Opinions are better formed that way. There's no point in me or others here ranking Di Stefano or Puskas or many of the players pre-80s, an opinion formulated on word of mouth and some dodgy videos on youtube doesn't cut it in my book. The only one it's worth doing it for is Pele, purely because his stature in the game must have been vindicated by performance.
:lol: Luiz Ronaldo's best ever season is about on par with Cristiano's worst in the last 10 years.

I guess that already makes him an elite player.
 
:lol: Luiz Ronaldo's best ever season is about on par with Cristiano's worst in the last 10 years.

I guess that already makes him an elite player.
Not really. His best ever season (or best two ever seasons) are at least comparable with Cristiano's best seasons.
 
:lol: Luiz Ronaldo's best ever season is about on par with Cristiano's worst in the last 10 years.

I guess that already makes him an elite player.
Do you ever stop for air? Or are your lips surgically attached to Cristiano's ass on a permanent basis?
 
Not really. His best ever season (or best two ever seasons) are at least comparable with Cristiano's best seasons.
I've had this argument too many times, what did Luiz win in this supposed best season? How many did he score?
 
Do you ever stop for air? Or are your lips surgically attached to Cristiano's ass on a permanent basis?
Out with the logic and in with the playground insults. It's the anti-Cristiano brigade again. :wenger:
 
I don't get the Ronaldo Lima argument, the what if he stayed fit he would've been better than all of them one. That's the thing though, he didn't stay fit, so it's irrelevant. Longevity is a vital part of the GOAT discussion. If you don't have it, you're not the one.
2 world cups and became the all time leading scorer of the tournament is good going. It isnt an argument where you go "if he'd have stayed fit he could have won THIS." He had a all-time great career. The argument is imagine what he'd have done on top of that.
 
I've had this argument too many times, what did Luiz win in this supposed best season? How many did he score?
But you cannot base the entire argument on that, right? If the player who scores most is the better player, then you have to accept that Salah this season was better than Ronaldo in 2008.
 
I'm not sure they've done enough to outclass the likes of Di Stéfano, Beckenbauer and Cruyff for the Top 5 — though if push came to shove, I'd probably rank Messi a wee bit higher because in addition to his goals — he is/was one of the absolute greatest playmakers in football history, and round up the Top 5 with Beckenbauer — just ahead of Cristiano and Cruyff. Di Stéfano is oftentimes undermined, but what he did was truly special, and even though almost all of them belong in the same broad tier, he gets an elevated standing because even with 5 European Cups and a Super Ballon D'Or and an individual and collective game that was almost superhuman in terms of his skill set and involvement in proceedings, you get a sense that his legacy would've been much grander had he not lost almost a decade on the international front. Even in terms of his Madrid career, he joined the club at the ripe age of 27, so there's an overarching what-if feeling.

Stealing antohan's template from @Gio's post:

Untitled.png
 
2 world cups and became the all time leading scorer of the tournament is good going. It isnt an argument where you go "if he'd have stayed fit he could have won THIS." He had a all-time great career. The argument is imagine what he'd have done on top of that.
2 World cup, one where he features for a grand ZERO minute. *round of applause, David May CL winner*

Klose is THE all time WC topscorer, should we bring him into the discussion?
 
But you cannot base the entire argument on that, right? If the player who scores most is the better player, then you have to accept that Salah this season was better than Ronaldo in 2008.
You've conveniently ignored my other question. :rolleyes:
 
Maradona was not a striker though. And for Luis, it didn't happen from time to time. It happened most of the time. He won the golden shoe of the country he was playing on, only 3 times. He was always in top 2 (or at worst top 3 when in Inter) team in the country.

Neither were Zico or Platini, but they scored 19/20, yet Maradona managed only 15 in terms of highest number whilst at Napoli.

Platini for example scored more than 15 goals in 3 consecutive seasons.

Inter's team was really disjointed at the time. They've kicked the ball to Ronaldo and expected him to create something out of nothing.

I mean they were playing 5 at the back, two box to box midfielders on the defensive side(Cauet and Simeone), one playmaker in Djorkaeff and partnered Ronaldo with Moriero of all people, who scored 6 times in three seasons at Inter.

Remove Ronaldo and their attack is the definition of a shit on a stick.
 
Out with the logic and in with the playground insults. It's the anti-Cristiano brigade again. :wenger:
Ah, yes, because you've responded so well to logic in the past.
 
On his one fantastic season at Inter, he was outscored in the league from Oliver Bierhoff who was playing for Udinese. Now there is no shame to be outscored from Bierhoff - he was an excellent striker - and anyone would say that Ronaldo had a better year. However, does anyone think that Messi or Cristiano (playing for that strong Inter) would have been outscored from Bierhoff playing for Udinese? I just cannot see that. He also didn't have assists in double digits and wasn't in top 10 at it, something that Cristiano and Messi do it all the time.

Yes, it is easy to say 'stats are irrelevant' etc etc, but even comparing Luis Ronaldo with his respective peers, he doesn't go near Messi/Cristiano compared with their peers. So, unless football was much better back then, I just cannot see how Luis Ronaldo should be put in the discussion with Messi/Cristiano.

So, as I said before, when people talk about him there is a part of 'what could have been if not for injuries' added with nostalgia, and him being such a wonderful player to watch.
You also have to remember Seria A / defending in general was much better back then also. Teams were happy winning 1-0, these days it wouldn't be accepted.

It's impossible to compare players from different era's, but he was the most exciting player of his time IMO
 
Kleberson also won a WC
Di Stefano has also won 5 CL's, plus he actually played a part in all his finals. What's your point? Trophies are an awful way to judge a player in an 11-a-side sport.
 
You've conveniently ignored my other question. :rolleyes:
Ronaldo won nothing in 2012-2013 and scored less goals than Messi, but won Ballon D'Or. Should by your logic remove that Ballon D'Or from him and give to Messi, because you know, he won trophies and scored more.

Fine with me, it is 6-4 in favor of Messi.
Inter's team was really disjointed at the time. They've kicked the ball to Ronaldo and expected him to create something out of nothing.

I mean they were playing 5 at the back, two box to box midfielders on the defensive side(Cauet and Simeone), one playmaker in Djorkaeff and partnered Ronaldo with Moriero of all people, who scored 6 times in three seasons at Inter.

Remove Ronaldo and their attack is the definition of a shit on a stick.
The previous season (without him) they finished 6 points off the top. The season with him they finished 5 points off the top. So, they were hardly dogshit.

Of course, a large part of the team was changed and was built centered around him, but there is some revisionism on how bad Inter were (same as now with Messi, on how bad Argentina is).