5th Best player of all time

[Rozay]

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.

I’m not even using that argument. He was fit for long enough to be in the conversation of the best ever. The only time that matters is for the stats obsessed who say player x has scored his many more than him, in which case, if he had more healthy football, it is likely he’d have matched it.

I’d rather focus on the time he was fit. That level was, for me, only contested by Messi - and certainly not his namesake.

Ronaldo’s injuries are not an excuse for him not showing his greatness. He did show it. Let’s talk about it. It wasn’t so short anoeriod that it doesn’t count. He won 3 Balon D’ors.

 

[Righteous Steps]

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.


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).

Ronaldo wasn't really a poacher either, in fact Cristiano was more of a striker than him.

 

[altodevil]

I’m not even using that argument. He was fit for long enough to be in the conversation of the best ever. The only time that matters is for the stats obsessed who say player x has scored his many more than him, in which case, if he had more healthy football, it is likely he’d have matched it.

I’d rather focus on the time he was fit. That level was, for me, only contested by Messi - and certainly not his namesake.

Ronaldo’s injuries are not an excuse for him not showing his greatness. He did show it. Let’s talk about it. It wasn’t so short anoeriod that it doesn’t count. He won 3 Balon D’ors.

Couldn't agree more. I'm not convinced with this desire to judge players on the length of their respective careers. I think it's better to judge who was 'best' for lack of a better word, and for that you only need a run of games. Never mind the season Ronaldo has had.

 

[Righteous Steps]

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.

Exactly if we make this just about statistics, then Platini is better than Maradona.

 

[Revan]

Ronaldo wasn't really a poacher either, in fact Cristiano was more of a striker than him.

Nah, he was as a No. 9 as you can get. Not a poacher, but neither is Cristiano. I mean Cristiano, has not even been a striker and still plays mostly in the left. Just that he has incredible movement in counter attacks, but hardly is the second coming of Inzaghi.

 

[FujiVice]

Kleberson also won a WC

Good on him. Did he bang them in in the final? Fair enough, give a case for what you dont think he's the 5th best player of all time, but you're doing that very internet thing of being either black or white on an issue.

 

[Righteous Steps]

Nah, he was as a No. 9 as you can get. Not a poacher, but neither is Cristiano. I mean Cristiano, has not even been a striker and still plays mostly in the left. Just that he has incredible movement in counter attacks, but hardly is the second coming of Inzaghi.

No Cristiano in the last few years has been far more of a poacher, not exactly Inzaghi but for Madrid he has been pretty much an out and out number 9. Brazilian Ronaldo in his fat latter days was the same, but in his prime at Barcelona and Inter, he was as much of a number 9 as Messi was. Obviously hardly the playmaker Messi is/was, but i think he would probably better Cristiano in that regards, of course technically being on another level, he could drop deep and drive through players than a higher frequency than CR would even in his United days.

 

[Enigma_87]

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).

They also appointed Simoni when they signed Ronaldo, who couple of years later was managing Ancona. They've also changed 4 managers in 98/99 (must be some kind of a record for a top club). It wasn't really comparable IMO.

They had an excellent defence and usually enough to grind trough games without conceding but their attack was pretty awful if you discount Ronaldo.

 

[harms]

Kleberson also won a WC

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?

No offence but you're way better at hailing Cristiano than you are at belittling L. Ronaldo

 

[Revan]

I’m not even using that argument. He was fit for long enough to be in the conversation of the best ever. The only time that matters is for the stats obsessed who say player x has scored his many more than him, in which case, if he had more healthy football, it is likely he’d have matched it.

I’d rather focus on the time he was fit. That level was, for me, only contested by Messi - and certainly not his namesake.

Ronaldo’s injuries are not an excuse for him not showing his greatness. He did show it. Let’s talk about it. It wasn’t so short anoeriod that it doesn’t count. He won 3 Balon D’ors.

I think that there is an argument that 'we didn't see enough of him. He has two all time great seasons, another 3 very good seasons, and was really good on both WC 1998 and 2002. It is hardly a Duncan Ewards type of scenario of totally what could have been. At the same time it is quite far from Messi/Cristiano/Pele who essentially had more than a decade of all time greatness. Messi for example has 5 Ballon D'Ors, 5 time finished second, 1 third and this year will again be in top 3. Luis has 3 wins, a second and a third place. Cristiano has 5 wins (likely 6) and 5 second place finishes.

So, at the very least, Messi/Ronaldo's career as all time greats was in double of years of that of Luis.

 

[led_scholes]

So Iniesta and Xavi in front of Baggio, Pirlo and Scholes? If these 2 are in then Modric should be too. He is the best midfielder the last 5 years.

 

[Revan]

No offence but you're way better at hailing Cristiano than you are at belittling L. Ronaldo

Well, the two world cup argument is a bit of bullshit (even worse than Pele's 3 World Cup wins) considering that he didn't feature at all in 1994. His 1998 though, was quite better than any Cristiano performance on world cups though.

 

[harms]

Well, the two world cup argument is a bit of bullshit (even worse than Pele's 3 World Cup wins) considering that he didn't feature at all in 1994. His 1998 though, was quite better than any Cristiano performance on world cups though.

Yeah, I know —

I think it's a bit strange to count him as a 1994 winner seeing as he hadn't played even a minute there

It was not the phrase I've had a problem with.

 

[Sir Roi de Muppeterre]

I guess the question should be "Who is the greatest player ever if we exclude Pele, Maradona, Messi and C. Ronaldo from discussion". Personally, I'd go with Fenomino because I haven't really seen much of Cryuff, Eusebio etc. I don't rate Zidane, Xavi and Iniesta that high.

 

[Rozay]

I think that there is an argument that 'we didn't see enough of him. He has two all time great seasons, another 3 very good seasons, and was really good on both WC 1998 and 2002. It is hardly a Duncan Ewards type of scenario of totally what could have been. At the same time it is quite far from Messi/Cristiano/Pele who essentially had more than a decade of all time greatness. Messi for example has 5 Ballon D'Ors, 5 time finished second, 1 third and this year will again be in top 3. Luis has 3 wins, a second and a third place. Cristiano has 5 wins (likely 6) and 5 second place finishes.

So, at the very least, Messi/Ronaldo's career as all time greats was in double of years of that of Luis.

I agree with that, but that’s where the mitigation comes in. That point shouldn’t be made to imply that R9 simply became a bit rubbish as he matured. We know what happened.

If R9 doesn’t belong in such conversation, then Biggie doesn’t belong in the greatest rapper of all time argument. The fact is, Biggie is discussed because he was the best when he was alive, and we all know the reason why he didn’t have 10 albums. R9 was good enough for long enough before his ridiculous injuries set in. As you said, the longevity was robbed of him. But CR7 certainly wasn’t as good as R9 was for Barcelona and Inter for me. But if everyone wants to simplify that by saying ‘50 goals is more than 40’, then there is no point. I’d also like to see more votes for Gerd Müller in this thread in that case.

 

[KirkDuyt]

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.

He has had an all time great career playing for his national team, sure. The debate here is who is the greatest overall though and in that debate the level and consistency of Messi and Ronaldo are on a completely different level.

It's not a completely fair comparison of course, since the teams Ronaldo and Messi play for are absolutely stacked with world class talent. Not that Lima played for a pub team, but the difference between the top and the rest has increased significantly in the last decade. So goal / assist stats alone shouldn't be used as a be all end all decider, but Messi and Ronaldo have been fantastic for over a decade. That's unparalleled.

I will say that what Maradona did for Napoli, or Cruijff in his year at Feyenoord is impressive on another level. That's really taking a team by the hand, and for all they've done, Messi and Ronaldo are not one man teams like that.

 

[Peyroteo]

If Eusebio was born in Brazil and Pele was born in Portugal, I'm convinced Eusebio would be rated higher.

His peak didn't last as long as it should have and I think his style doesn't capture the imagination of as many people but he definitely deserves more love than what he gets in these discussions. He was literally everything one would want in a forward.

 

[Revan]

I agree with that, but that’s where the mitigation comes in. That point shouldn’t be made to imply that R9 simply became a bit rubbish as he matured. We know what happened.

If R9 doesn’t belong in such conversation, then Biggie doesn’t belong in the greatest rapper of all time argument. The fact is, Biggie is discussed because he was the best when he was alive, and we all know the reason why he didn’t have 10 albums. R9 was good enough for long enough before his ridiculous injuries set in. As you said, the longevity was robbed of him. But CR7 certainly wasn’t as good as R9 was for Barcelona and Inter for me. But if everyone wants to simplify that by saying ‘50 goals is more than 40’, then there is no point. I’d also like to see more votes for Gerd Müller in this thread in that case.

Sure, it all depends on how much weight you put on longevity argument. Cristiano and Messi are there right with Pele (a bit harder to compare with Di Stefano and Puskas considering that the majority of their career is a bit unknown), Luis is one of the all time greats with the shortest peak (and yes, not his fault for getting kicked that much, and not having the right genetics like Cristiano has). For a lot of people, longevity is an integral part of the equation.

 

[Revan]

If Eusebio was born in Brazil and Pele was born in Portugal, I'm convinced Eusebio would be rated higher.

His peak didn't last as long as it should have and I think his style doesn't capture the imagination of as many people but he definitely deserves more love than what he gets in these discussions. He was literally everything one would want in a forward.

Nowhere as flashy as Pele, and not as a good playmaker. He's more like Puskas in that aspect. Probably a better goalscorer (than Pele, not Puskas) though.

But true, if Eusebio played for Brazil and Pele for Portugal, Eusebio probably would have had 2 or 3 World cups, while Pele none, and that would have totally changed the perception over them. Life is unfair.

Of course, in another parallel world he stayed in Mozambique, and no one ever heard about him, so it is not that bad.

 

[KirkDuyt]

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.

That's not a fair comparison imo. I rate C. Ronaldo mcuh higher then Ronaldo Lima, but the Ronaldo (and Messi) play in teams stacked to the brim with the best players the world have to offer, supporter by a bench of almost equally great players. I think if you put Lima in the current Real, Barca, Psg teams, he'd score a lot more than he did in his time. The gap has become far bigger.

 

[Peyroteo]

Nowhere as flashy as Pele, and not as a good playmaker. He's more like Puskas in that aspect. Probably a better goalscorer (than Pele, not Puskas) though.

But true, if Eusebio played for Brazil and Pele for Portugal, Eusebio probably would have had 2 or 3 World cups, while Pele none, and that would have totally changed the perception over them. Life is unfair.

Of course, in another parallel world he stayed in Mozambique, and no one ever heard about him, so it is not that bad.

Yes, I think Pele was better mainly due to his longevity but it's weird to think that if they were born in different countries they'd most likely be rated the complete opposite of what they currently are.

 

[Rozay]

Sure, it all depends on how much weight you put on longevity argument. Cristiano and Messi are there right with Pele (a bit harder to compare with Di Stefano and Puskas considering that the majority of their career is a bit unknown), Luis is one of the all time greats with the shortest peak (and yes, not his fault for getting kicked that much, and not having the right genetics like Cristiano has). For a lot of people, longevity is an integral part of the equation.

I agree, and longevity had merit, but in the case of R9, there is mitigation to be applied. His lack of longevity is not to be likened to that of Anelka.

 

[Don Alfredo]

If Eusebio was born in Brazil and Pele was born in Portugal, I'm convinced Eusebio would be rated higher.

His peak didn't last as long as it should have and I think his style doesn't capture the imagination of as many people but he definitely deserves more love than what he gets in these discussions. He was literally everything one would want in a forward.

I take it is you didn't want to say Eusebio was better than Pele so how high do you want him to be rated? Better than Cristiano or Cruyff?

 

[Tomuś]

I think that most of people rate Best higher than Sir Bobby. Also, if you look the final in 1968, it was all about Best who was just 22 and was clearly the best player in the team.

Sir Bobby has the longevity argument, but his peak wasn't extremely high (in comparison with the likes of Best, Cruyff etc). A bit like a lite version of Di Stefano (or a better version of Giggs), and one of the most complete players of all time though. I also think that he tried to model his game on Di Stefano, and said that Di Stefano was the only player whom made him feel inferior. When I watched both play, the similarities were clear. He can easily be put on my tier 3 though. In fact, he should be. He has been every bit as good as someone like Zidane, and actually played football longer, winning everything bar an European Cup. He is also the only English player whom won a World Cup (where he was the best player of the tournament), an UCL and multiple league titles, being an integral part on all of them. A legend of a game!

Good take, feel similar with him being on the verge of 2/3 tier. My father's testimony of Charlton is hyper raving and he's seen him play live.

 

[Peyroteo]

I take it is you didn't want to say Eusebio was better than Pele so how high do you want him to be rated? Better than Cristiano or Cruyff?

I think he should be in the discussion with Cruyff, Beckenbauer and Di Stefano. It seems nearly everyone rates them higher.

 

[harms]

If Eusebio was born in Brazil and Pele was born in Portugal, I'm convinced Eusebio would be rated higher.

His peak didn't last as long as it should have and I think his style doesn't capture the imagination of as many people but he definitely deserves more love than what he gets in these discussions. He was literally everything one would want in a forward.

Interesting take — and highly likely true. Although there would've been purists who would say that Pele was more talented (as he was).

Another discussion is how highly would Garrincha be rated in that case. Today he's outshadowed by Pele, but I'd rate him and Eusebio around the same — is it possible that Garrincha would've been THE man of that Golden Brazilian generation?

Speaking of hypotheticals

 

[Don Alfredo]

I think he should be in the discussion with Cruyff, Beckenbauer and Di Stefano. It seems nearly everyone rates them higher.

I think the three of them are enigmas because they influenced all parts of the pitch like no one else did. If you have a look at how Messi strolls around in the opposition's half when his team defends, one can understand why many people value that sort of contribution to uplift their teams. Cruyff also did less defending than Beckenbauer and Di Stefano, but he was the best playmaker by far out of all the players mentioned in my opinion. He just seemed to get the game.

Don't get me wrong, I rate Eusebio higher than most and think he is one of the best strikers ever.

 

[Revan]

I think he should be in the discussion with Cruyff, Beckenbauer and Di Stefano. It seems nearly everyone rates them higher.

He was more like a striker, while the other 3 influenced all areas of the pitch. But then, same criticism can be attributed to Cristiano, though Cristiano has arguably been even more consistent than Eusebio, and both on individual and team achievements dwarfs Eusebio, so the criticism there is a bit weaker.

I have Eusebio right there with Puskas and Luis Ronaldo as the greatest pure No. 9 of all time, higher than Muller or Van Basten.

 

[Gio]

If Eusebio was born in Brazil and Pele was born in Portugal, I'm convinced Eusebio would be rated higher.

His peak didn't last as long as it should have and I think his style doesn't capture the imagination of as many people but he definitely deserves more love than what he gets in these discussions. He was literally everything one would want in a forward.

Deserves to be in the mix for sure. He had that Ronaldo/Henry-esque ability of being able to carry the ball and burn past 2-3 players from the half-way line. And he combined it with the sheer power and emphatic finishing ability that characterises Cristiano's attacking play. Unlike a few of the legends from yesteryear, there's a timelessness of those qualities that convince he would be able to shine today even where the overall athleticism of the game has improved. Matches up well in terms of goals (600 or so), club achievements (European Cup winner, 3-time EC top scorer), international achievements (has a seminal talismanic tournament - 9 goals in 1966). Arguably falls a little short in the volume of those achievements compared to Pele, but you can easily contextualise that with playing for a club and a country which weren't routinely the best in the world.

 

[Todd]

1. Pele
2. Maradona
3. Cristiano Ronaldo
4. Messi
5. Ronaldinho
6. Ronaldo
7. Zidane

 

[Peyroteo]

I think the three of them are enigmas because they influenced all parts of the pitch like no one else did. If you have a look at how Messi strolls around in the opposition's half when his team defends, one can understand why many people value that sort of contribution to uplift their teams. Cruyff also did less defending than Beckenbauer and Di Stefano, but he was the best playmaker by far out of all the players mentioned in my opinion. He just seemed to get the game.

Don't get me wrong, I rate Eusebio higher than most and think he is one of the best strikers ever.

Fair enough. For me the playmaking and ability to create chances for themselves will capture the imagination of the fans but how effective it is or how difficult to stop it is what really matters.

I'm probably biased towards players like Pele, Eusebio or Cristano rather than players like Maradona, Messi or Cruyff who I think have less dimensions to their game.

 

[Revan]

Fair enough. For me the playmaking and ability to create chances for themselves will capture the imagination of the fans but how effective it is or how difficult to stop it is what really matters.

I'm probably biased towards players like Pele, Eusebio or Cristano rather than players like Maradona, Messi or Cruyff who I think have less dimensions to their game.

Hmm, there is a pattern there. Which has not much to do with football.

 

[Peyroteo]

Hmm, there is a pattern there. Which has not much to do with football.

Not really, it goes for every player. Those were just examples.

As a general rule technically superior players get rated higher regardless of how effective they are imo. I prefer someone like Gonçalo Guedes a lot more than Bernardo Silva to give another example.

 

[Revan]

Not really, it goes for every player. Those were just examples.

As a general rule technically superior players get rated higher regardless of how effective they are imo. I prefer someone like Gonçalo Guedes a lot more than Bernardo Silva to give another example.

I was joking, with two of them being Portuguese and the other Brazilian. Found a lot of Portuguese people having Brazil as their second team when I was in Lisbon a week ago.

 

[Castia]

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.

Forget the rest of my post then?

Wasn’t great at Madrid either was he but hey it was only 4 years if his career.

 

[Brwned]

Fair enough. For me the playmaking and ability to create chances for themselves will capture the imagination of the fans but how effective it is or how difficult to stop it is what really matters.

I'm probably biased towards players like Pele, Eusebio or Cristano rather than players like Maradona, Messi or Cruyff who I think have less dimensions to their game.

That would be a reasonable point if it was only excitable fans that talked about playmaking as if it was one of the most important skills in the game. Elite coaches and players obviously think it's quite an effective and important thing to have in your arsenal too. Along with elite dribbling.

 

[Rozay]

Forget the rest of my post then?

Wasn’t great at Madrid either was he but hey it was only 4 years if his career.

Well the rest of your post was opinion, that was incorrect facts.

He obviously wasn’t as great at Madrid as he was at Barca (again, several knee injuries later), but I can’t allow you to just write it all off as some ‘poor’ stage of his career either. He still managed the Golden Boot there. This is a United forum, and I’m sure you will find many on here with quite vivid memories of his capabilities while at Real. Even at that ‘mediocre’ stage of his career, he still absolutely took us apart at Old Trafford.

 

[DCP]

How people are putting people. never mind 4+ people ahead of Cristiano Ronaldo is beyond me, he's quite simply the best player of all time ever. Not the most naturally gifted but he has simply worked harder than everyone else and put in more hours. Yes he had natural ability but not in the Messi, Zidane league, but he has the most incredible work ethic.

He can drag those around him to unprecedented levels, no one else can do that.

 

[Revan]

Well the rest of your post was opinion, that was incorrect facts.

He obviously wasn’t as great at Madrid as he was at Barca (again, several knee injuries later), but I can’t allow you to just write it all off as some ‘poor’ stage of his career either. He still managed the Golden Boot there. This is a United forum, and I’m sure you will find many on here with quite vivid memories of his capabilities while at Real. Even at that ‘mediocre’ stage of his career, he still absolutely took us apart at Old Trafford.

One game doesn't prove much though. And while he terrorised us, so did Pedersen. Raul in the inverse tie was almost as good against us.

He was more like Suarez/Neymar/Griezmann level in Madrid rather than an all time great.

 

[Peyroteo]

That would be a reasonable point if it was only excitable fans that talked about playmaking as if it was one of the most important skills in the game. Elite coaches and players obviously think it's quite an effective and important thing to have in your arsenal too. Along with elite dribbling.

Obviously it's an effective and important thing if used correctly but too many people treat it as if it was the most important thing for a team when it really isn't and most great teams don't need a player like that. Plenty of different ways to be effectively great and you don't need to be a great playmaker or passer to have more impact than all other players.