The Greatest Footballer of All Time

[Raees]

Tier 1 (GOAT - universally recognised): Pele, Maradona, Beckenbauer
Tier 1.5 (Arguably GOAT - but still some doubts i.e. World Cup): Messi
Tier 2 (Redefined the game, ahead of their time but somethings missing) : Di Stefano, Cruyff,
Tier 3 (Genius but not quite changing the rules of the game like the guys above) :Garrincha, Puskas
Tier 4 (best in their position to godlike levels but not quite total football enough): L. Ronaldo, M. Van Basten, F. Baresi
Tier 5 : Eusebio, Rijkaard, Platini, Zico, Maldini, G. Best


I'd have it along the lines of this (with certain names missing etc)... with Messi's spot being transitional. I think if he ended with one world cup medal, he'd be the all time greatest for me.

 

[Tarrou]

It was much harder to score back then, the ball was heavier, the shoes were worse, the pitches were worse, and defenders could get away with murder.

It can't have been harder to score as a lot more goals were being scored. The game was more attack-minded and less tactical back then.

 

[Stack]

It can't have been harder to score as a lot more goals were being scored. The game was more attack-minded and less tactical back then.

You sure? Lots of tactical innovations and variety back then.

 

[Vialli_92]

Cristiano Ronaldo. Messi would be a close second but I define greatness as more than just how good you are on the ball.

Hell, Adel Taraabt is probably better on the ball than Tom Cleverly but we know who the better footballer is.

Ronaldo's drive, determination and leadership is second to none. He is like a war general that rallies his troops. He kind of goes super saiyin at time and can turn the game around.

Couple all of that with his ability on the ball: can go past anyone, can shoot from anywhere, can be out muscle anyone. He does it all with consistency.

When the ball is at his feet you just know anything can happen right now and there's only one player that has the same ability, Messi.

I don't want to make this a comparison but I have Ronaldo and Messi equal overall on the ball but Ronaldo edges it for me because of his leadership, determination, drive and ability to turn around games. He just has that special something only few players have.

However, I respect and can see anyone that says Messi (or even Ronaldinho). They are more "magical" players. Messi is like this wizard who can pull up anything while Ronaldo is this badass monster who can rip you apart. I go for the monster!

He's just not as good as other attackers have been. Yes he scores a tonne of goals but in the biggest games when your team have their backs up against the wall he's not going to make something happen out of nothing.

Gerd Muller scored a freakish amount of goals just like him and he's not even any where close to being on this list.

It's not the greatest goalscorer debate we are having now it's the greatest player and Ronaldo falls short of many of the greats that have played the game before him imo.

His consistency and drive to keep on playing at such a high level will be what I will remember him for his work ethic is the best of any player I have seen.

 

[Kinsella]

Cristiano Ronaldo. Messi would be a close second but I define greatness as more than just how good you are on the ball.

Hell, Adel Taraabt is probably better on the ball than Tom Cleverly but we know who the better footballer is.

Ronaldo's drive, determination and leadership is second to none. He is like a war general that rallies his troops. He kind of goes super saiyin at time and can turn the game around.

Couple all of that with his ability on the ball: can go past anyone, can shoot from anywhere, can be out muscle anyone. He does it all with consistency.

When the ball is at his feet you just know anything can happen right now and there's only one player that has the same ability, Messi.

I don't want to make this a comparison but I have Ronaldo and Messi equal overall on the ball but Ronaldo edges it for me because of his leadership, determination, drive and ability to turn around games. He just has that special something only few players have.

However, I respect and can see anyone that says Messi (or even Ronaldinho). They are more "magical" players. Messi is like this wizard who can pull up anything while Ronaldo is this badass monster who can rip you apart. I go for the monster!

Soooo much wrong with this, but I do agree that greatness is more than just how good you are on the ball.

 

[shamans]

He's just not as good as other attackers have been. Yes he scores a tonne of goals but in the biggest games when your team have their backs up against the wall he's not going to make something happen out of nothing.

Gerd Muller scored a freakish amount of goals just like him and he's not even any where close to being on this list.

It's not the greatest goalscorer debate we are having now it's the greatest player and Ronaldo falls short of many of the greats that have played the game before him imo.

His consistency and drive to keep on playing at such a high level will be what I will remember him for his work ethic is the best of any player I have seen.

That may be your opinion but just to make it clear I am not saying he is great only because of his goal scoring. In fact, I think he does exactly what you think he doesn't: Ronaldo can make stuff happen from nothing. That's exactly why I have him as the greatest. It's not that he can just score goals but he can give you a goal from just nowhere.

 

[Stretford End Phil]

Pele is a moron so if he says Best was the greatest you can bet your house he isnt.

People in glass houses and all that...

 

[Tarrou]

You sure? Lots of tactical innovations and variety back then.

Not absolutely sure. There were more goals scored back then, though. So if not more 'tactical', it's at least more defensive.

 

[Vialli_92]

That may be your opinion but just to make it clear I am not saying he is great only because of his goal scoring. In fact, I think he does exactly what you think he doesn't: Ronaldo can make stuff happen from nothing. That's exactly why I have him as the greatest. It's not that he can just score goals but he can give you a goal from just nowhere.

I don't really agree with that. The only times I see him get that goal out of no where is with his heading as he's able to jump higher than almost any other player and it gives him a big advantage with his athleticism.

He has definitely regressed as well in the last couple of years. He was missing chances in the Euro's that he would normally put away with ease.

Mind you he will still win the Balon D'or this year though so it must not all be that bad for him

 

[Stack]

Not absolutely sure. There were more goals scored back then, though. So if not more 'tactical', it's at least more defensive.

Total football ring a bell? thats just one innovation

 

[Barca84]

Georgie Best for me. He was fecking magic.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

People in glass houses and all that...

sorry you are right and we should trust in Pele's judgment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/3533891.stm

 

[Nogbadthebad]

When I mentioned Best and Garrincha, I said they did things that no one else did.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2005/nov/20/sport.comment4

That is Best, in 1976, he was playing in the US in what was essentially a retirement league. He had long left us, and was considered done at the top level.

A journalist mentioned this to him, and that he playing cruyff's holland, considered the best in the world then. He promised the journalists he would nutmeg cruyff first chance he got. He did, the first time the ball came to him.

That is a true great, a man who could do absolutely anything with a football. We will never see anything like him again, its coached out of players today, too serious, too much at stake.

 

[Manchester Dan]

Tier 1 (GOAT - universally recognised): Pele, Maradona, Beckenbauer
Tier 1.5 (Arguably GOAT - but still some doubts i.e. World Cup): Messi
Tier 2 (Redefined the game, ahead of their time but somethings missing) : Di Stefano, Cruyff,
Tier 3 (Genius but not quite changing the rules of the game like the guys above) :Garrincha, Puskas
Tier 4 (best in their position to godlike levels but not quite total football enough): L. Ronaldo, M. Van Basten, F. Baresi
Tier 5 : Eusebio, Rijkaard, Platini, Zico, Maldini, G. Best


I'd have it along the lines of this (with certain names missing etc)... with Messi's spot being transitional. I think if he ended with one world cup medal, he'd be the all time greatest for me.

I really struggle to get my head around the feelings that success at international level is a must to be considered the next level up in personal ability. Take the final in 2014 for example, if Germany don't go on to score in extra time and Argentina instead win on penalties, with Messi not touching the ball for the final 8 minutes and missing his penalty kick, then he walks away with a medal. That's a fine line for you then to consider him the greatest of all time. It just doesn't really mean anything.

 

[shamans]

I don't really agree with that. The only times I see him get that goal out of no where is with his heading as he's able to jump higher than almost any other player and it gives him a big advantage with his athleticism.

He has definitely regressed as well in the last couple of years. He was missing chances in the Euro's that he would normally put away with ease.

Mind you he will still win the Balon D'or this year though so it must not all be that bad for him

I guess we disagree on that. I can understand it as it is not by any means outlandish to not consider a player a "great" it is all just so subjective.

The only thing I get kinda pissed about or don't understand is when people say Ronaldo is a good level bellow any of the greats and wouldn't even make it in the top 10. That is just ridiculous to me but then again people just think in different ways I guess.

 

[shamans]

I really struggle to get my head around the feelings that success at international level is a must to be considered the next level up in personal ability. Take the final in 2014 for example, if Germany don't go on to score in extra time and Argentina instead win on penalties, with Messi not touching the ball for the final 8 minutes and missing his penalty kick, then he walks away with a medal. That's a fine line for you then to consider him the greatest of all time. It just doesn't really mean anything.

That's just how it is. For me anyway. See the thing is you can argue all you want about x player being better than y but trophies and personal honors give you a solid case to argue. Greats have this thing for winning their teams trophies. They can get very close but the actual win is what matters. If Messi was not in Barca they'd still be an amazing team but would they actually win that many trophies? Who knows. Point is winning trophies matter and the International is another trophy for competition. (the world cup to be precise)

 

[pacifictheme]

Do most people really rate him up there with the likes of Pele? I suspect that number drops once you move beyond United fans and even more so once you move beyond fans from UK/Ireland.

Again though is that due to a lack of playing for a big nation? Would anyone really care about maradona if he played for ecuador and got to no world cup finals? Arguably not.

 

[Kinsella]

The only thing I get kinda pissed about or don't understand is when people say Ronaldo is a good level bellow any of the greats and wouldn't even make it in the top 10. That is just ridiculous to me but then again people just think in different ways I guess.

I think that's because of all the greats of the game he's probably the hardest to place. His goalscoring and consistency across his career elevates him above players like Ronaldinho and Best in my view, despite not possessing the same level of ability.

For many it's talent (backed up with some measure of success of course) that trumps everything else. See the many mentions of Best in this thread as an example.

 

[sullydnl]

That's just how it is. For me anyway. See the thing is you can argue all you want about x player being better than y but trophies and personal honors give you a solid case to argue. Greats have this thing for winning their teams trophies. They can get very close but the actual win is what matters. If Messi was not in Barca they'd still be an amazing team but would they actually win that many trophies? Who knows. Point is winning trophies matter and the International is another trophy for competition. (the world cup to be precise)

But if you follow that line of thought you end up with the ridiculous "Portugal winning the Euro final proves that Ronaldo is better than Messi" type arguments.

Trophies are important but not the be all and end all. Otherwise a lot of pretty average players who happened to feature in winning sides would have their reputation artificially inflated. You have to actually consider the role a player had in obtaining the trophy for his side. If Messi had an awful world cup but Argentina still somehow won it would tell us absolutely nothing about Messi.

 

[harms]

By the way why are only attacking players the best in the world? Why can't a Maldini or a Lev Yashin be the best?

Yashin and all the other goalkeepers shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as Pele or Maradona, they play a different game. Defenders still have to use their feet, they can contribute defensively and offensively - the keeper and the field player play different sport, really. So I genuinely think that we should keep GOAT footballers and GOAT keepers separated - and not because keepers are less important, take a look at De Gea for example, just that really don't have any possibility of comparing them.

Beckenbauer is usually mentioned is one of the top 5-6 players in history, and rightly so. Baresi, Rijkaard, Figueroa, Scirea, Maldini are also considered as one of the elite group of players to have played the game - and a few others. But, again, this is a nature of football - you don't win games by not conceding goals, you win them by scoring more than your opponent, so, naturally, goalscorers (or creators of goalscoring opportunities) count for more.

 

[sullydnl]

Again though is that due to a lack of playing for a big nation? Would anyone really care about maradona if he played for ecuador and got to no world cup finals? Arguably not.

Could well be. I wasn't saying he shouldn't be rated higher outside UK/Ireland, just that he isn't.

 

[harms]

He kind of goes super saiyin at time and can turn the game around.

More so than Maradona? Or even Messi, Pele or Di Stefano, who played in a more dominant teams? I think the lack of character performances at the biggest stage is one of the main criticisms of Ronaldo, actually

 

[Manchester Dan]

But if you follow that line of thought you end up with the ridiculous "Portugal winning the Euro final proves that Ronaldo is better than Messi" type arguments.

Trophies are important but not the be all and end all. Otherwise a lot of pretty average players who happened to feature in winning sides would have their reputation artificially inflated. You have to actually consider the role a player had in obtaining the trophy for his side. If Messi had an awful world cup but Argentina still somehow won it would tell us absolutely nothing about Messi.

Perfectly put. I do understand the logic of the argument, and trophies will always factor in to these discussions, but it can't be the definitive factor because it's not a one on one sport. If Messi was suddenly in the Norwich team this season, he couldn't possibly win a major trophy next season, but that doesn't make him a lesser player.

 

[harms]

Again though is that due to a lack of playing for a big nation? Would anyone really care about maradona if he played for ecuador and got to no world cup finals? Arguably not.

He'd probably be considered as an equal to Platini and Zico. Maybe even inferior to Platini, given that he was up until 1985 or 1986 and his WC performance sealed the change. Not that he's a bad player to be compared with, definitely an all-time top-10 material

 

[shamans]

But if you follow that line of thought you end up with the ridiculous "Portugal winning the Euro final proves that Ronaldo is better than Messi" type arguments.

Trophies are important but not the be all and end all. Otherwise a lot of pretty average players who happened to feature in winning sides would have their reputation artificially inflated. You have to actually consider the role a player had in obtaining the trophy for his side. If Messi had an awful world cup but Argentina still somehow won it would tell us absolutely nothing about Messi.

The euros don't prove anything but imo the international scene is one where Ronaldo beats Messi. That is my opinion and how I judge footballers even though it may be ridiculous to you.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Cristiano Ronaldo

 

[Revan]

Tier 1: Pele, Maradona, Messi
Tier 2: Cruyff, Di Stefano, C. Ronaldo, Beckenbauer, Platini, Best
Tier 3: Puskas, Garrincha, Eusebio, Zidane, Xavi, Matthaus, Baresi, Yashin, L. Ronaldo, Charlton, Van Basten, Zico, Ronaldinho

Tier 1 and 2 in order.

 

[shamans]

More so than Maradona? Or even Messi, Pele or Di Stefano, who played in a more dominant teams? I think the lack of character performances at the biggest stage is one of the main criticisms of Ronaldo, actually

I haven't seen the one's in bold so I just cannot compare it with them no matter how much I would want to. As for Messi, I think he's a magician who is always in cruise control but when things go tits up he vanishes more often for my liking.

I don't know why that is his main criticism (ronaldo's) to me it has been the most exciting part of his game. Not only his team but even when he himself is having a stinker he can still produce goals from nowhere.

I know you probably think my opinion is ridiculous but just to explain my point think of it this way: if I was manager of a low morale/crappy team like say Sunderland and I had to pick between Messi or Ronaldo I'd be inclined to pick Ronaldo but if I was managing an all star team like Barcelona I'd pick Messi.

Ronaldo's whole life has been about turning the dynamics around. His drive and hard work has seen him come through the toughest spots. Messi is more of a natural born to me.

 

[sullydnl]

The euros don't prove anything but imo the international scene is one where Ronaldo beats Messi. That is my opinion and how I judge footballers even though it may be ridiculous to you.

Judging them based on their international achievements is fine. Judging them based on their team's international achievements is illogical. Those aren't one and the same.

For example, Maradona gets a lot of praise for leading Argentina to the world cup. The key point there is the level of performance he put in in order to do that. Those quality performances are what tell us how great Maradona was, not the fact that his team happened to collect the world cup. Whereas if you only focused on the trophy (as opposed to what he contributed to get it) then it would have made no difference to his legacy if he had been awful in that tournament but Argentina still won regardless.

 

[Prodigal7]

Titus Bramble.

 

[harms]

The euros don't prove anything but imo the international scene is one where Ronaldo beats Messi. That is my opinion and how I judge footballers even though it may be ridiculous to you.

Messi was much better at the last Copa than Ronaldo was at the Euros and it's been the case for the last 6 years or so. Ronaldo has very few really outstanding international performances (the game vs Sweden was amazing though) - especially when you compare him to, say, the original Ronaldo or even Zidane (who is nowhere near the GOAT level), who were a consistent game-changers on an international level

 

[Revan]

I really struggle to get my head around the feelings that success at international level is a must to be considered the next level up in personal ability. Take the final in 2014 for example, if Germany don't go on to score in extra time and Argentina instead win on penalties, with Messi not touching the ball for the final 8 minutes and missing his penalty kick, then he walks away with a medal. That's a fine line for you then to consider him the greatest of all time. It just doesn't really mean anything.

I think that the point is that a true GOAT is able to help him team when they need him most and so win the most important competition. Yep, if the team was that good to win without him helping in the end, that's fine, but if you lose (and Messi lost 5 times, never being able to score or assist on those 5 finals) then surely being unable to make the difference should count against him.

It is the main reason why I would put Pele (and probably Maradona) ahead of him. Pele ticks every box that Messi does, in addition to winning 3 World Cups (being integral in 2 of them).

 

[shamans]

Judging them based on their international achievements is fine. Judging them based on their team's international achievements is illogical. Those aren't one and the same.

For example, Maradona gets a lot of praise for leading Argentina to the world cup. The key point there is the level of performance he put in in order to do that. Those quality performances are what tell us how great Maradona was, not the fact that his team happened to collect the world cup. Whereas if you only focused on the trophy (as opposed to what he contributed to get it) then it would have made no difference to his legacy if he had been awful in that tournament but Argentina still won regardless.

Well that is how it is. Doesn't matter how well you perform or don't but if you're the main man of a part of a winning team you won it for them. Such is the way history books will remember it and I tend to judge it in a similar way.

 

[Moby]

Pele ticks every box that Messi does, in addition to winning 3 World Cups (being integral in 2 of them).

And a better athlete, more gifted physically, way stronger in the air and quicker across the turf. Basically as complete as forward can get, world class in all attributes be it technical, physical or mental.

 

[Lay]

Garrincha is definitely the goat

 

[Handré1990]

Pelé good, Maradona better, George Best..

No but seriously, Messi for me. I'm still a young man, but Messi is just so damn good, and have been since he was about 20 years old. I'm picking him while holding an irrational grudging hatred towards him because I just about shat myself before both CL finals we lost to them. I just knew we had no chance. Never felt like that before or after.

 

[Revan]

And a better athlete, more gifted physically, way stronger in the air and quicker across the turf. Basically as complete as forward can get, world class in all attributes be it technical, physical or mental.

Messi is a very good athlete, he rarely gets injured despite that people try to kill him (like Pele in the past) and is very very strong for his size. I also think that Messi is a way better passer of the ball and a better dribbler.

By all boxes I meant that they have been both the undisputed best players of their generations, winning multiple trophies and breaking countless records, and being the focal point of the best team in Earth. The main difference is that Pele replicated that for his country, while Messi fall short. If we consider their individual game I think that Messi was 'better' at some things and Pele at some others, but all things considered, they are pretty equal. The difference is made in World Cups.

 

[sullydnl]

Well that is how it is. Doesn't matter how well you perform or don't but if you're the main man of a part of a winning team you won it for them. Such is the way history books will remember it and I tend to judge it in a similar way.

That's a poor way of judging players though (imo).

The bit in bold in particular simply doesn't hold up logically. It's literally an untrue statement.

 

[Revan]

Well that is how it is. Doesn't matter how well you perform or don't but if you're the main man of a part of a winning team you won it for them. Such is the way history books will remember it and I tend to judge it in a similar way.

Not necessarily. Cruyff never won a world cup but his performance there is right there with those of Garrincha in '62, Pele in '70 and Maradona in '86. For comparison, Meazza was the main player when Italy won it on '38 but you cannot put it right there with those others. Or Neuer in '14, Cannavaro in '06 and so on.

The problem is that both Messi and Ronaldo never played in the level of best player in the world in a World Cup/Euros (although Messi was granted a best player in the tournament, completely stupid decision btw), let alone, greatest of all time player level. Ronaldo won one and Messi didn't, that is fine, but lets not pretend that it counts that much considering that Ronaldo was just 'good' on the tournament and didn't even play on the final.

 

[shamans]

That's a poor way of judging players though (imo).

The bit in bold in particular simply doesn't hold up logically. It's literally an untrue statement.

Maybe I said it the wrong way. What I'm trying to say is you can only use trophies to have a solid argument. Performances will always be subjective.