Ridiculous list. Everybody is yelling about Messi being at 51 but nobody minds Ronaldo is at 33..
Guardian's World Cup top 100 Footballers of all time
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Yeah I know. They basically nullified each other in '66, but it hurt Germany more than England in my opinion
. We played better football in '66 and in '70 than in '74 when we were mostly horrible to watch but finally won it again. From what I've seen of the worldcup in '66 it was an excellent tournament. Argentina had a quality team with a brilliant defense, Hungary had an excellent team around Florian Albert, Portugal with Eusebio and Coluna.Lineker at 47? Should be higher. Had two very good tournaments in 1986 and 1990 winning the golden boot in the first.
And the North Koreans who surprised everyone. The Soviets had a good side as well, getting to the semi-final. The Italians were disappointing as were the French who promised much but failed to shine. The only memory of Argentina I have is the quarter-final at Wembley when Rattin was sent off. It was a pretty dour game as I recall won by a Geoff Hurst header.Yeah I know. They basically nullified each other in '66, but it hurt Germany more than England in my opinion
The 1974 West German side wasn't that bad. Maybe a little short on flair when compared to the Dutch, but they made up for that with some wonderful team performances. Then, of course, you had Gerd Muller who could make a goal out of nothing, and the prototype of the modern wing back in Breitner.
We got our act together in time for the 2nd group round, but still got lucky in the final game against Poland that heavy rain made the pitch pretty much unplayable. Poland was the better team throughout the tournament, not sure if we had won the game under fair conditions. The final then has its own story. In comparison to what we played in the years before, especially at the Euro in '72, we were a boring team that fought their way to the title. Nothing wrong with that of course
.Legend #5 is definitely Zico. He had:
1. Pele
2. Maradona
3. Garrincha
4. Ronaldo
5. Zidane
6. Jairzinho
7. Rivelino
8. Cruyff
9. Beckenbauer
10. Tostao
1. Pele
2. Maradona
3. Garrincha
4. Ronaldo
5. Zidane
6. Jairzinho
7. Rivelino
8. Cruyff
9. Beckenbauer
10. Tostao
Exactly. Add on top adjusting the points so the weighting is equal across the three areas just makes it all the more worse. Basically a 'legends' vote is worth 3.6 times more than a Guardian journalist.
Poland were a decent team in 1974, much to the chagrin of the English press. England were outplayed in Poland losing 0-2 with Alan Ball sent off. Bobby Moore had a nightmare and made a daft mistake leading to Lubanski's goal. It was the end of the great man's England career and he was replaced by Norman Hunter for the return at Wembley. Of course it was Hunter's cock-up that led to the opening goal for Poland and England's failure to qualify. Mind you, we really should have beaten Wales at Wembley (there were only three teams in the qualifying group). But Wales, perennial cannon fodder, managed to beat the Poles 2-0 in Cardiff.We got our act together in time for the 2nd group round, but still got lucky in the final game against Poland that heavy rain made the pitch pretty much unplayable. Poland was the better team throughout the tournament, not sure if we had won the game under fair conditions. The final then has its own story. In comparison to what we played in the years before, especially at the Euro in '72, we were a boring team that fought their way to the title. Nothing wrong with that of course
They tolled the passing bell for English football the next day and it was grim. Ramsey, the hero of 1966, was unceremoniously sacked and Moore's international career was over. The next time we played in the finals was 1982 in Spain. International glory is a pipe dream for most English supporters. Apart from a brief taste of glory in 1990, we just do not seem able to muster a side that can compete with the likes of Germany, Italy, Brazil, and just about anyone else you care to mention. We look enviously at Spain who, after decades in the wilderness, put together a side that may well lift the World Cup again this year. It used to be said that individually, the Spaniards had talent in spades and people wondered why they couldn't do it on the world stage. Once they figured that out, they won the lot. But English football lurches from one fiasco to the next. Can you honestly see any of the current crop of English players making it into a world XI? Neither can I and until the FA is radically overhauled and starts structuring the game better at the youth level instead of looking for ways to cash in, we're screwed. I doubt the German public would stand for the monkey business that our FA gets up to from their governing body, but we just bend over and take it.
Sorry for the long post but it's a bit of a sore point.
Klose is close? No. Ronaldo is by a large margin the greater striker in World Cup competition.The term "best striker in WC history" was used for the number of goals by me.
And btw; Klose is close in term of big game goals against big teams. The first rounds are tough too. Ask England.
"Not close to Ronaldo" if Klose reaches 16 is a bit much imo.
Ronaldo has played 19 World Cup matches — he has 15 goals and 5 assists. Klose has played 19 World Cup matches — he has 14 goals and 4 assists. Ronaldo has played 10 World Cup knockout matches — he has 8 goals and 2 assists. Klose has played 11 World Cup knockout matches — he has 4 goals and 2 assists. Not even close. Ronaldo was the best player of 2 World Cups, Klose was never the best player of a World Cup.
Klose can reach 16 goals if he wants, 17 or even 18. He does not come close to Ronaldo. Why? Because he has no idea how to play in big matches. There is a reason why the record of Klose drops severely from the group stage [10 goals, 2 assists] to the knockout stage [4 goals, 2 assists]. Compare that to Ronaldo, who shares his goals equally in the group stage [7 goals, 3 assists] and the knockout stage [8 goals, 2 assists]. Klose is nothing more than a flat-track bully.
Maybe when the Germans win a semifinal, you can bring that up.
Ever heard of a certain Gerd Müller, who only needed 2 WC to score 14? That was when WC end rounds consisted of 16 teams and games were fewer.
Klose, Klinsmann, Voller. These guys should wear Germany NT shirt when playing for their clubs.
Ronaldo at #33 and Iniesta at #65, hmmm....
Last edited:
He wrote 'greater', not greatest. And I don't think his comment is wrong in comparison to Klose. I don't really understand the whole "Klose = world cup legend" discussion. He wouldn't make my top 3 of the greatest German worldcup strikers (Müller, Klinsmann and Seeler were clearly better and had a bigger impact on the team), let alone be anywhere near the greatest in general. He probably deserved a place in this top 100 for his overall contribution, but I can't really blame any of the voters for not including him in their top40 of the top worldcup players ever, he wouldn't make mine either.
Never argued that some players werent as good before 66 or 70 then latter ones. But the overall quality is just better.
More players, better educated, better infrastructure(the Bundesliga came in 63!) and so on.
No one can argue, that the depth and overall quality is better today then in 66.
The same thing with 58/62 and 66/70.
The game became much more professional.
To the Beckenbauer/Charlton point:
Charlton was 8! years older then Franz both times they met. He had to be better, specially in 66, when Franz was 21!
But in most reviews of that final you read that they neutralized each other. So Franz had the better game cause he handled the better player(because of age/experience).
Franz had a very good game in 1970, scored a vital goal and so on. Never watched the full thing. Charlton could have had a better game but again; he was 32, Franz 24. 32 was old in that time but in one game your experience can and should give you the upper hand. So no, sorry.
Franz is a top 3 world cup player for me. The list agrees here. Sir Charlton is a world cup great but Franz is another level.
Everyone his own opinion. But I never heard that before. And the list(with many votes/the legends didnt got the point, but that the Guardians fault
) isnt there either.But again: You have your point I have mine. Thats fair.
Although there are a few high-performing strikers far down the list such as Kocsis and Leonidas, Klinsmann does also look too low considering how good he was in 1990 - that lonely furrow he ploughed against Holland
- and seemed to be one of the only Germans who looked the part in 1994.
Last edited:
Stupid list in many ways.
In regards to the world cup then Ronaldo or Messi shouldn't even be above Tomas Brolin.
In regards to the world cup then Ronaldo or Messi shouldn't even be above Tomas Brolin.
I kinda agree with that. Brolin had a massive WC in '94, Messi and Ronaldo has done feck all compared to that.
I also think Klinsmann should be higher on the list.
I can't help but think Miroslav Klose should be in the 50-100 range at least. Doesn't he nearly hold a record for most world cup goals?
I don't know how old you are but I'm guessing that you never saw Bobby Charlton play. I found a short compilation of some of his 49 goals for England. It's a very inferior substitute for watching the great man in the flesh but it gives you an idea of what he could do. I'm not going to try and sway you from your opinion but for my money, and for many of my generation, Charlton was one of the greatest players ever to play for United and England. A true giant of the world game.Everyone his own opinion. But I never heard that before. And the list(with many votes/the legends didnt got the point, but that the Guardians fault
But again: You have your point I have mine. Thats fair.
I will never understand why Garrincha is criminally underrated by football fans. He's miles ahead of Pele......this guy won a World Cup single-handedly like Maradona did in 86.
I won't even have Pele in my top 3.
I won't even have Pele in my top 3.
Garrincha destroyed England in the QF in 1962. I don't think that WC was televised around the world and only some short footage of the game remains, but the only time I saw him was at the fag-end of his career when Brazil played Hungary at Goodison Park in 1966. Brazil lost 1-3. I hoped he'd play against Portugal in the next game but, as I remember, he was injured for that match, which Brazil also lost. Maybe someone a bit longer in the tooth than me can shed a bit more light on his career but I don't feel qualified to do so having seen him play but once.
One thing to remember when you see his goals is that the ball weighed an effing tonne back in those days.
Fontaine scored 13 in 1958, no problem. The difference here is the goal-scoring of both eras.
Ronaldo scored his 15 goals in a period [1998, 2002, 2006] where on average 2.49 goals were scored in every World Cup match.
Müller scored his 14 goals in a period [1970, 1974] where on average 2.74 goals were scored in every World Cup match.
Ronaldo scored 8 of his 15 goals [53%] in the final phases.
Müller scored 6 of his 14 goals [42%] in the final phases.
Ronaldo was the best player of two World Cups.
Müller was never the best player of the World Cup.
Ronaldo is by a large margin the greater striker than Klose, although Müller is closer to Ronaldo — but the Brasilian is still the best.
Ronaldo is of course greater striker than Klose, but soon won't be greater World Cup scorer than him.
True, misread that. Apologies!
Agree about the rating of Klose, but on the other hand, Klose is very underrated. A brilliant footballer with an amazing record, but too modest and unselfish for his own good.That could be disputed. Müller played in an era when a top striker usually had two bloodhounds on his heels for 90 minutes who would have followed him to the bathroom if he decided to take a piss in min 60
And fat Ronaldo played in an era when Nike's billion-$ marketing machine would hammer it into everyones head that one was witnessing the greatest player of all time. But even taking that into account, the gap between Müller and Ronaldo is narrower than between any other striker and one of the two.Could you please stop calling him 'fat'. I mean, call him Brazilian Ronaldo, or original Ronaldo or R9 or Ronaldo Luiz or Ronaldo de Lima. So many options, there's really no need to insult one of the greatest footballers of all time consistently .
.Ronaldo should always be Ronaldo. It's the other one that should be Portuguese Ronaldo, Greasy Ronaldo, or Not as good as Messi Ronaldo.
Please wash your mouth out with soap.
People are mixing Iniesta's 2012 Euros' performance with WC 2010. Xavi was much better than Ineista in 2010. Infact if not for that final goal, I am not sure Iniesta would have been counted among the best players of the tournament. As it is, he could not even manage a top 3 finish in golden ball voting. Spanish team has better in both the Euros than they were at the WC as well
You think Spain, who won two consecutive euro cups and the world cup in between are not *arguably* the best international team ever?
Yes.
Well I don't agree. I think there certainly is an argument to be made for or against them, but they've done extremely well, and could win another world cup this month.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that definitely isn't going to happen.
IMHO, Rivaldo had a better WC than Ronaldo in 02.
It's also a bit harsh on Müller if you use that he never was the best player of a world cup. He was up against Pele in '70 and Cruyff, Beckenbauer in '74. He scored 10 goals in '70 and twice in extratime in a semifinal. In any 'normal' worldcup that would mean you get to play in the final and win the Golden Ball. Müller's competition was significantly stronger than Ronaldo's.
You could have attached a ball and chain to Gerd Muller's ankle and he'd still find a way of scoring past you.True, misread that. Apologies!
That could be disputed. Müller played in an era when a top striker usually had two bloodhounds on his heels for 90 minutes who would have followed him to the bathroom if he decided to take a piss in min 60
It's also debateable whether Ronaldo was the standout of 1998, or maybe just one of three or four who were the stars of the tournament.
I think it depends on how you rate performances. If you I'd put a lot of emphasis on the performances of the players in the final I'd go with Zidane (1998) and Ronaldo (2002) as the standout players.
On the other hand if I'd rate the players performances more equally over the course of a tournament I'd rather go with Ronaldo in 1998 and Rivaldo in 2002.
Rivaldo's reputation and performance in 2002 was also bit dimished by this:
Even emphasising the performance of players in the final, I don't think Zidane was sparkling enough throughout '98 to deserve that kind of title (I wouldn't even have him in a team of the tournament, despite his final show). The stamp against Saudi Arabia didn't really help matters. Euro 2000 was his great tournament.
This must be a joke. Garrincha was the standout player of the tournament in a way Pelé wasn't in either '58 or '70 but Garrincha's supporting cast was miles above Maradona's. The two best fullbacks in the world, arguably the best midfielder in Brazil's history, Brazil's best keeper of all time, perhaps Brazil's best centre back in the last 50 years ably supported by two extremely capable players in Zagallo and Vava. Argentina's next best player was probably a level below Zagallo.
It's entirely possible that without Pelé Brazil would have went out of the World Cup against a very strong France side in the semis and before that who knows who would have stepped up in the quarter final against Wales? And it can't be underestimated how important and influential that win in '58 was - redemption following the failure in 1950 and the beginning of unparalleled success with 3 wins in 4 years, with Pelé the crown jewel in both the first and the last. In 1970 Pelé was the player that knitted things together in a team containing two other #10's and a playmaker and he was consistently the best player on the pitch (save for the final when Gérson outshone him but Pelé got the crucial opening goal). Despite all the talk about the strength of Brazil, it's hard to imagine anyone replacing him in that team and leading them to success. He was the focus of every attack but did it without attempting to monopolise the attack unlike practically any other #10.
It's entirely possible that of the 14 games he played he was the best player on the pitch in half of them and one of the three best in every one other than when he was kicked off the pitch. Garrincha had one outstanding tournament and was influential in '58 but he didn't have the same lasting impact across so many games. Pelé's productivity - 12 goals and 10 assists in 14 games - combined with his superior influence in the build-up clearly puts him ahead of Garrincha and anyone else really.