Where does Cristiano Ronaldo rank amongst the pantheon of greats?

[harms]

It's really tiers, and he's probably in the top one. Hard to place Beckenbauer in the list of predominantly attacking players.
Tier 1: Pele, Maradona, Messi, C. Ronaldo and Di Stefano

Pele's got the best career — he matches Messi/Ronaldo's numbers and ridiculous consistency (more than a decade at the very top) and his international record is better, so for me he is still the GOAT, all things considered.
Maradona's club career is the least impressive of all 5, even though he achieved incredible things with very average Napoli. Yet when we talk about the highest individual peak, I'd probably stick with him in the 1986 World Cup form.
Di Stefano is the one that we don't have that much footage of. Enough to understand what kind of a player he was and his European Cup record is simply ridiculous — with only Cristiano being comparable in the whole EC/CL history. His international career is probably the worst of all.

A lot have been said about Messi/Ronaldo already. Their non-human consistency is only matched by Pele (when France Football reevaluated old Ballon D'Or awards to include non-Europeans he ended up with something like 8 or 9 Ballon D'Ors). Their international career isn't as good as Pele's or Maradona's, although overall Messi's performances in Copa and World Cup were great without being absolutely top class; same for Cristiano, who somehow won the international title but was nowhere near Platini/van Basten's level in that run. The difference in ability between the two is almost compensated by Cristiano's last few year heroics in the CL — without a doubt the biggest and most competitive contemporary tournament.

I think that Messi's and Ronaldo's body of work on the club level is already bigger than Cruyff's and Beckenbauer's. The latter had a greater international career, but, to be fair, he was lucky to play alongside Müller, Maier, Vogts, Seeler, Netzer etc. — and while he was the best (and the most consistent) of the lot, the difference between them weren't that big. If Messi had Müller in place of Higuain, he would've been a World Cup and multiple Copa America's winner already.

 

[Ludens the Red]

Yup.

I've never fully understood people who have firm opinions about footballers who plied their trade before they were born. All I know about Pele is a few clips of his best goals. I've not come close to being as familiar with his body of work as I am with Messi/Ronaldo. And I'm kind of suspicious of anyone my age or younger who talks with confidence about how players like him or Di Stefano rank on lists like this.

I'm old enough to have watched a fair bit of Maradonna (although, again, nowhere near as many games as Messi/Ronaldo - mainly on the basis his games weren't televised as much) and I'd put him right up there with the two latest GOAT nominees. Didn't come close to their sustained excellence over such a long period, though. So he would be my number three.

Yeah agree with that, it's a redcafe pet peeve of mine. Brwned used to do it a lot, I just can't take seriously anyone under the age of 40 making such bold statements, especially when it comes to someone like Beckenbauer who unlike Pele and Maradona doesnt have a video clip Arsenal of great goals, skills etc. Of course that's not the only way to judge a player but I refuse to believe there's people out there digging through video archives of Franz Beckenbauer to watch his riveting 'defensive midfield' play.

As a 30 year old myself I feel our pool of choice for Goat should be centred around The likes of Zidane, Ronaldo, Cristiano, Henry, Xavi, Iniesta, Ronaldinho, Messi etc.

 

[James Peril]

It's really tiers, and he's probably in the top one. Hard to place Beckenbauer in the list of predominantly attacking players.
Tier 1: Pele, Maradona, Messi, C. Ronaldo and Di Stefano

Pele's got the best career — he matches Messi/Ronaldo's numbers and ridiculous consistency (more than a decade at the very top) and his international record is better, so for me he is still the GOAT, all things considered.

Not even sure how people can say things like this. Pele played for Santos and New York Cosmos, not even close to being comparable to what Messi and Ronaldo are doing in 2018 - when football is 100% professional and physical condition is at its peak. He never played in a professional league, he never played in Europe, he played in a time where football was a game for amateurs working day-time jobs if they were lucky. He was head and shoulders above the rest at the time, so his talent is undisputed - but don't bring numbers from bloody Santos and New York Cosmos, they count for exactly nothing. Same with the International goals, what was the opposition like? Probably insanely bad in most of the games - like Belgium/France/Germany constantly playing against Gibraltar in this day and age. Just look at the videos, these defenders wouldn't get into my local Division 8 team - hence it was very easy to score a lot of goals against them.

The only fair thing would be to imagine how Pele's talent would work today - with him in peak physical condition and accustomed to today's standards. Would he deliver on the same track as Messi and Ronaldo? I wouldn't know, but I wouldn't bet on it, not a single cent. Pele and Maradona are lucky that they were first, hence every one else is judged based on ridiculous and unrealistic standards. Just wait 30 years and see what people are saying about Messi and Ronaldo, the tune will be different.

 

[Lord SInister]

Pele still the GOAT imo, key player in 3 world cup wins is unheard of, backed by a robust domestic career and the overall package just in terms of nearly all attributes as a footballer.

Ronaldo is top 5-10 for me.

2world cups, he was as useful in 1962 as Messi in 2005-06 CL win.

plus let us not call his club career just robust, it was one of the greatest club career.
And as a player, he was as complete attacker ever born.
Ambi-dextorous, one of the GOATs in air, outstanding technique, excellent dribbler/trickster, great creator/passer/play-maker, phenomenal goal scorer and brilliant tactical awareness, all in one.
On top of that he won everything there is to be won, while being the best player in the team.

 

[Tincanalley]

When you compare players of different historic time frames, you have to factor in the climate of the respective eras, in order to make anything like a fair comparison. Best, Pele, Eusebio, etc were around in a period when pitches were terrible (mudswamp to dustbowl, to overgrown field, bare patches hollowed out around the goal area), training was sometimes haphazard, tactics more rudimentary and physical conditioning/nutrition lagging far behind today's scientifically-designed levels. It was a time of improvisation and sometimes of more free-flowing play (though the idea of defending in depth goes back to before then). Players recieved scant protection from referees, and there was always a hatchet man within range with leg-breaking as opposed to ball winning on his mind. To be a GOAT in that world required amazing courage as well as great skill. You could make a film about say, Messi and Ronaldo being sent back to 1964 and Best and Pele reaching maturity in the current era. The ones going back would be shocked to find out that substitution of players was not allowed, even after someone was deliberately injured (that would come in 1965/6, but at first only one sub was allowed). The ball would weigh a ton. The fans would stand during the game and mill around the pitch afterwards, but there would be little enough attention to celebrity culture; Ronaldo (transported to Manchester) would be shocked to find himself the only foreigner apart from Scots and Irishmen. Money would be miniscule. He might encounter on and off-field bullying and even intimidation. If you complained you would be laughed at and told to man up.

My feeling is Messi, after a bit of adjustment, would flourish in the mid twentieth century (let's transport him to Spain) and overcome everything. The little fecker would still be unplayable. Not entirely sure about our Ronnie. I can see him, hands on hips with a lost expression, after his attempts to berate other players is ignored and his step-overs become the subject of derision. The self obsession, earrings and jewellery laden figure of today would simply not survive. A different, more chastened player might emerge, possibly unrecognisable. Pele would be immense in the current era; more powerful, more dangerous, better protected. His immense football intelligence would thrive. George Best - well maybe if you had foresight and got him young you could work on his psychology, you could change the course of his destiny. But would that be cheating? I suspect the character flaws that truncated his career, drove managers (and loved ones) to distraction, and brought his glittering talent to an untimely end, would still be in play. Big question is; how much is nature and how much is nurture? Would better emotional support for a young lad, and perhaps better advice when he acieves fame and fortune, make a difference? The key to GB is he was the first superstar, the first nightclub hero. Personality flaws aside, on the field of play there is no question but Best would have made a mark in any era, including our own. Even though Bestie was a willow, he had the strength of an ox. Again with better protection, he would be a sheer horror to mark for opposition players. Against that, you must factor in better organised defences, and more European style ways of playing in England. How would he get on in a possession oriented team? George Best, like Ronnie sometimes, could be a bit selfish. I remember Bobby Charlton talking about trying to persuade him to pass the ball to a better-placed teammate. In short, Pele and Messi translate into all eras. Best and Ronnie are still brilliant too, but to a slight degree perhaps - in the form in which we recognise them - more the creation of a particular football era. One ending could be Bestie overcoming his demons. What though, is the fate of sixties era Ronaldo? Perhaps his youthful medical issues (a racing heart, apparently) would not be fixed, and perhaps he never leaves the island of Madeira.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

This thread will definitely stay free of comparisons to Messi. Absolutely.

 

[Zehner]

Depends on your criteria, really. I think peak-wise there are quite a bunch of players ranking higher than him due to his lack of playmaking ability. But in terms of longevity and consistency, he is among the best ever. Exemplarily, I think Maradona, Ronaldo Fenomeno, Zidane and Ronaldinho had higher peaks and much, much more ability/talent but Cristiano outclasses them in longevity and drive. Those players had unbelievable games and moments that in my opinion surpass Cristiano's best by quite a margin but Ronaldo does it game in, game out year after year.

However, it is generally hard to do such lists because I always feel like treating some of these players unfairly because I never really saw them play. I think the prime example is Zico. Most people regard him as a brillant player but he is rarely mentioned in these discussions. Yet, Zico scored 456 goals in 664 club appearances and 48 in 71 for Brazil while playing as a number 10 and being among the best dribblers to ever grace a football pitch. He never gets the attention he possibly deserves, but was he really so much worse than Ronaldo or even Messi? What would his legacy be if he got a little more lucky and would have won a WC? Probably he would be ranked in the same tier as Maradona with stats and a playing style like this.

Overall, I would rank Cristiano in the same category as someone like Cruyff, Beckenbauer or Platini, I think. Not sure where to put someone like Di Stefano, though.

 

[2mufc0]

2world cups, he was as useful in 1962 as Messi in 2005-06 CL win.

plus let us not call his club career, it was one of the greatest club career.
And as a player, he was as complete attacker ever born.
Ambi-dextorous, one of the GOATs in air, outstanding technique, excellent dribbler/trickster, great creator/passer/play-maker, phenomenal goal scorer and brilliant tactical awareness, all in one.
On top of that he won everything there is to be won, while being the best player in the team.

Don't disagree with any of that mate, preach to the guy above who thinks Pele played with pub standard players

 

[amolbhatia50k]

2nd best I've seen.

Can't conclusively comment on others but from what I've read/heard Pele and Maradona are ahead of him.

 

[harms]

Not even sure how people can say things like this. Pele played for Santos and New York Cosmos, not even close to being comparable to what Messi and Ronaldo are doing in 2018 - when football is 100% professional and physical condition is at its peak. He never played in a professional league, he never played in Europe, he played in a time where football was a game for amateurs working day-time jobs if they were lucky. He was head and shoulders above the rest at the time, so his talent is undisputed - but don't bring numbers from bloody Santos and New York Cosmos, they count for exactly nothing. Same with the International goals, what was the opposition like? Probably insanely bad in most of the games - like Belgium/France/Germany constantly playing against Gibraltar in this day and age. Just look at the videos, these defenders wouldn't get into my local Division 8 team - hence it was very easy to score a lot of goals against them.

I'm sorry, but the problem is mostly your ignorance — it has been discussed to death and Pele performed against, quite literally, anyone, including the best European teams of the era, outshining the likes of Beckenbauer, Eusebio etc. All the best Brazilian players played in Brazil at that time, including a Botafogo side with Garrincha, Didi and Nilton Santos in their ranks — and Brazil dominated the World Cups in that era.

Messi's and Ronaldo's stats against the Osasunas of today (performing for Madrid and Barca, full of world class players) have equally boosted their overall goalscoring stats.

 

[JB08]

For me he is in the top 4, alongside Messi, Pele and Maradona. I'd be tempted to say 3rd.

 

[Henrik Larsson]

He is in the highest tier, the problem with rankings is that they are kind with goalscorers and very harsh on the rest.

Exactly!

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Although they're the two best I've seen (1. Messi 2. Ronaldo) I do think the calls for them being 'out on their own' are a bit strange. I refuse to believe that the game has been around for so long, and that these two are supposed aliens who stand alone. What's more likely is that their stats and consistently is hugely aided by being part of 'superteams'. I can't fathom anyone being better than Messi, but I'm sure the previous greats stack up well.

 

[Lord SInister]

Don't disagree with any of that mate, preach to the guy above who thinks Pele played with pub standard players

Yes the Santos which demolished and ridiculed the best European teams of those era, and mind you, friendlies in those era, where not just friendlies, they became so important because of money involved that.
but it is useless to tell the people who start moaning during international break.

 

[Massive Spanner]

i'm only in my early thirties so I'd never call him the GOAT.

I wouldn't anyway, he's #2 I've seen after Messi.

I'd also say I enjoyed watching Ronaldinho playing more too, and he was more talented, but obviously he comes nowhere close to Ronaldo's overall career and longevity.

 

[Danny Roberts]

feck me, how many times? He's up there, there is no definitive answer, just pointless debate.

 

[JPRouve]

Although they're the two best I've seen (1. Messi 2. Ronaldo) I do think the calls for them being 'out on their own' are a bit strange. I refuse to believe that the game has been around for so long, and that these two are supposed aliens who stand alone. What's more likely is that their stats and consistently is hugely aided by being part of 'superteams'. I can't fathom anyone being better than Messi, but I'm sure the previous greats stack up well.

One big difference is that up until the 80s defenders were free to smash the living hell out of attackers, that will have a consequence on the amount of goals scored and what type of goals can happen only happen today.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

On peak performances (3 year) I'd have Cristiano around 11th or 12th probably. His peak just doesn't impress me as much as many players I've seen.

On career achievement he is probably around 6th for me atm still behind Di Stefano, Cruyff and Beckenbauer along with Diego and Pele.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

One big difference is that up until the 80s defenders were free to smash the living hell out of attackers, that will have a consequence on the amount of goals scored and what type of goals can happen only happen today.

Agree. And sports science helps too. Not to mention the team given it's a team sport. Real and Barca are year on year among the top 2 teams on the planet scoring 100 goals in the league and often thrashing the likes of Juve, Arsenal, Chelsea and even Bayern in the CL. I don't think Maradona had that luxury at club level. Of course that doesn't mean Maradona is better. Just that lets stop pointing to goals, assists etc and pretending no-one else ever came close.

 

[Theonas]

It's just such a difficult one with Cristiano Ronaldo because the way he plays is simply very different to what we generally consider the best of all time. It is ingrained that the players generally thought of in that category possess a certain level of flair and aesthetic beauty on top of their achievements and stats. That's not to say Ronaldo does not have that but compared to the likes of Cruyff, Best, Zidane let alone Messi or Maradona, he quite clearly is not on the same level. Those players create their legend around moments that just makes you shake your head in disbelief whereas Ronaldo's legend is based more on an entire body of work. What this means to me is that on the one hand, his style makes him a bit of an anomaly in those discussions but on the other hand, it is impossible to ignore his numbers and list of achievements, not to mention consistency when it is so obviously better than all those before him. The man simply scores a perfect 10 in all those areas which forces us to change the criteria and makes as the OP writes, not including him sound bitter.

 

[Gopher Brown]

It’s extremely hard to compare players from different eras directly because of advances in diet, sports science and opponents having these advantages too.

My way of looking at it is that the modern era players are so far ahead of their counterparts from 40 years ago that Messi and Ronaldo are the two greatest players of all time, but won’t be regarded as such due to people’s nostalgic vision of the past.

 

[SwSw]

Numerical rankings are too subjective. I prefer tiers.

This was made in 2013. With regards to Ronaldo I agree with him being a level below the likes of Pele, Beckenbauer, Cryuff... I'd move Messi up one tier as well.

How can Xavi be God tier and Scholes be only Great?

 

[Lord SInister]

How can Xavi be God tier and Scholes be only Great?

Well Xavi has achieved more, while being a very key part of the team.
As a player, there is ofcourse not much difference but these lists are not just about being better player but also about over all achievements and contributions.

 

[simplyared]

He's a unique player imo constantly developing his own game by finding new techniques. Get the impression he's worked on the training ground a lot more than the other great players have done. Just looking at his goal production puts him on the no 1 spot imo.

 

[BlackShark_80]

Messi = Top 5, Cristiano = Top 10

Top 15:
1. Pele
2. Maradona
3. Messi
4. Cruyff
5. Di Stefano
6. Beckenbauer
7. Cristiano
8. Puskas
9. Garrincha
10. Best
11. Ronaldo
12. Zico
13. Platini
14. Eusebio
15. Charlton

 

[Raees]

Messi = Top 5, Cristiano = Top 10

Top 15:
1. Pele
2. Maradona
3. Messi
4. Cruyff
5. Di Stefano
6. Beckenbauer
7. Cristiano
8. Puskas
9. Garrincha
10. Best
11. Ronaldo
12. Zico
13. Platini
14. Eusebio
15. Charlton

George Best was not better than Fat Ronaldo.

 

[Sarni]

Of all players I've seen he's second behind only Messi. Pele and Maradona are two obvious ones from the past who also make it into top 4 but it's really hard to judge them after only seeing highlights.

Pele never played in Europe and football was much different back then, same goes for Maradona's times. It's hard to compare them, and also a bit pointless.

 

[adexkola]

How can Xavi be God tier and Scholes be only Great?

Disclaimer: I didn't make that.

However I'd place Xavi above the likes of Scholes and Pirlo, because of the way he dominated affairs in midfield, for both club and country. At a level the latter 2, for all their excellence, didn't reach.

 

[James Peril]

Don't disagree with any of that mate, preach to the guy above who thinks Pele played with pub standard players

Watch the videos, watch the highlights.. the level is like watching women's football. People standing around not making contact, one after one defender making himself known, no tactical awareness between lines/players, standing still, clumsy challenges, incredibly slow pace. I can see that Pele is head and shoulders above everyone that is playing on that pitch, and you can only play what's in front of you, but it's just hard to rate a player when the level is so incredibly low. Who knows if these skills could be adapted to 2018 when football is at its pinnacle, both tactically and physically? That's what I'm finding hard to prove - football was not professional (enough) when Pele was active. And someone over here mentions friendlies against European teams like it was the biggest deal in the world. Again, how do you know? People are obviously trying to big up historical events they have never seen, except for a few highlights on YouTube or old VHS-cassettes, or stories written by journalists 50 years ago. I'm not playing Pele down, not his fault that he was playing football in the 50's and 60's when the level was so bad - all I am saying is that it's difficult to prove how he would stack up against Messi and Ronaldo - whom are playing against players that cannot be fitter, faster or more enduring.

 

[redmeister]

I'd love to know how many people have ever seen Pele play a game of football at the highest level. Did they even show non England group games in the WC's in 50's, 60's and 70's? He wasn't playing in top level European competition that is broadcast weekly that's for sure and the games of his we can see on youtube etc make him look nowhere near the level of Maradona, Messi and Ronaldo. Yet in virtually every list he appears at the top or near the top. I have strong doubts that even those over 50 have seen enough of Pele to make a judgement on him.

 

[2mufc0]

Watch the videos, watch the highlights.. the level is like watching women's football. People standing around not making contact, one after one defender making himself known, no tactical awareness between lines/players, standing still, clumsy challenges, incredibly slow pace. I can see that Pele is head and shoulders above everyone that is playing on that pitch, and you can only play what's in front of you, but it's just hard to rate a player when the level is so incredibly low. Who knows if these skills could be adapted to 2018 when football is at its pinnacle, both tactically and physically? That's what I'm finding hard to prove - football was not professional (enough) when Pele was active. And someone over here mentions friendlies against European teams like it was the biggest deal in the world. Again, how do you know? People are obviously trying to big up historical events they have never seen, except for a few highlights on YouTube or old VHS-cassettes, or stories written by journalists 50 years ago. I'm not playing Pele down, not his fault that he was playing football in the 50's and 60's when the level was so bad - all I am saying is that it's difficult to prove how he would stack up against Messi and Ronaldo - whom are playing against players that cannot be fitter, faster or more enduring.

I have watched full games of the King and no the standard is nothing like women's football. In some aspects it was a lot tougher for attackers in those days with the pitches, footballs and not to mention the rough (and that's putting it lightly) 'tackles' they had to put up with. Just look at what the likes of Zico and Diego had to put up with and that was the 80's. Yes the game has changed but like Sir Alex said talents like Pele would be successful in any era.

 

[Pink Moon]

He's one of the all time greats. Not better than Messi, Maradona or Pele, IMO, but has claim to be better than anyone else that's ever played.

Cruyff wasn’t as good as Best or Eusebio.

Come on

 

[Eckers99]

Post-Pep's Barca, I don't think that this has been a great period for individual talents - feel like the game has become much more focused on the function of the team, as opposed to having a decent team with a couple of stars to elevate the level. Ronaldo and Messi have looked even better in that context.

After Ronaldo and Messi, there's a steep drop-off to the next tier and it's felt like a stagnant mini-club for quite some time, with nobody seriously breaking into that elite bracket apart from Neymar (who still hasn't). Compared to the mid-late 90s and early noughts, the general level of the top players seems lower to me, with those two being the exception. I mean, the likes of Suarez, Lewandowski and Aguero are nowhere near the level or Rivaldo, Figo, Nedved, Batistuta etc in my eyes. And that's without the likes of the Brazilian Ronaldo, Zidane, Baggio and, earlier, Romario and van Basten.

In short, I feel like Ronaldo's quality is exaggerated by the stagnation in the tiers below him so, for that reason, I don't have him in the top-top bracket of the GOATs.

 

[Pink Moon]

People do him a complete disservice by dismissing the mental side of his game and placing someone like Maradona ahead of him because of his technical ability.

There's so much more to being a footballer than technique and vision. Ronaldo's mental side of the game is off the charts and it's why I have him competing with Messi for the top spot and Maradona in third.

The problem I have with that is that you would then need to consider guys like Roy Keane as being as good as Iniesta, Laudrup, et al. Because what he lacked in technique compared to his peers he more than made up for with his drive and will to win.

 

[SirAF]

The problem I have with that is that you would then need to consider guys like Roy Keane as being as good as Iniesta, Laudrup, et al. Because what he lacked in technique compared to his peers he more than made up for with his drive and will to win.

Not really.

Ronaldo is already very accomplished in terms of technique and skills - his mentality only enhance him as a player. Keane is obviously not on the same level as Iniesta and Laudrup because he was mentally superior to them.

Reduce Ronaldo’s mental powers and he’d still be world class - but not a GOAT like he is today.

 

[2mufc0]

George Best was not better than Fat Ronaldo.

Zico neither, he was better than CR7 too.

 

[harms]

I'd love to know how many people have ever seen Pele play a game of football at the highest level. Did they even show non England group games in the WC's in 50's, 60's and 70's? He wasn't playing in top level European competition that is broadcast weekly that's for sure and the games of his we can see on youtube etc make him look nowhere near the level of Maradona, Messi and Ronaldo. Yet in virtually every list he appears at the top or near the top. I have strong doubts that even those over 50 have seen enough of Pele to make a judgement on him.

Here are 30 full games with him featuring for a start:
http://footballia.net/players/edson-arantes-do-nascimento

 

[Raees]

The problem I have with that is that you would then need to consider guys like Roy Keane as being as good as Iniesta, Laudrup, et al. Because what he lacked in technique compared to his peers he more than made up for with his drive and will to win.

And why should that be a problem? (not that I think he was) but for me it is about 'impact on the football field'.. whether that is through being a beautiful playmaker, or being a goalscorer or a hard man midfield general...

Which players could produce the most impact on any given football game and impact can be described in many different ways. Like Keane had his Juve moment, but Iniesta has had more impactful moments at the highest level for me and hence I would rate Iniesta higher a tad on the pantheon of greats than Keane despite their impacts being so different in nature. Keane's leadership was far superior to Iniesta (another form of impact).. but then again Iniesta can lead games through his control of them, even without Messi he has shown this for Spain albeit in conjunction with Xavi.

Laudrup on the other hand, arguably more gifted than Iniesta for that matter.. but was he has impactful at the highest level as Iniesta? no.. Iniesta for me is proven to impact world cup and CL finals, he has a stronger resume.

 

[Smores]

Yeah agree with that, it's a redcafe pet peeve of mine. Brwned used to do it a lot, I just can't take seriously anyone under the age of 40 making such bold statements, especially when it comes to someone like Beckenbauer who unlike Pele and Maradona doesnt have a video clip Arsenal of great goals, skills etc. Of course that's not the only way to judge a player but I refuse to believe there's people out there digging through video archives of Franz Beckenbauer to watch his riveting 'defensive midfield' play.

As a 30 year old myself I feel our pool of choice for Goat should be centred around The likes of Zidane, Ronaldo, Cristiano, Henry, Xavi, Iniesta, Ronaldinho, Messi etc.

Even then the attackers on the list have the benefit of people only seeing their highlight reels or documentaries that idolize. You don't see their career end to end and the lows.

Basically everyone is talking shite and its obvious.

 

[Invictus]

As things stand:

Tier 0: Pelé, Maradona, Messi ▲
Tier ½: Beckenbauer, Ronaldo ▲, Di Stéfano
Tier 1: Cruyff, Platini, Fenômeno, Puskás

Followed by the likes of Eusébio, Best, Müller, Maldini, Mané Garrincha, Xavi, Baresi, Matthäus and co. in slightly broader tiers.

▲ signifies that Ronaldo and Messi are the only variables on that list - and the only direction their profile could go in the future is up — with the current position on the tier-list being the minimum bar for what they've achieved, thus far.

The reason why I hesitate to put him in Tier 0 is that Cristiano just doesn't really have the air of magic of those three, and he hasn't had that since the early parts of his Madrid career. That isn't some damning criticism because he's pretty freaking imperious in his own right and terrorizes defenses like few others, but there's no getting around the argument that he doesn't quite share their ability to make an impact from seemingly anywhere on the pitch and carry his team outside of his goals with greatest-of-all-time caliber play-making and passing nous and technical flair. In fact, you'd hesitate to put him above Cruyff, Platini and co. as regards his general play as well. In terms of pure wow factor, he's a bit like the Jerome Bettis to their Barry Sanders - which is probably the most consistent criticism of him as a player as regards his historic profile, and he stands out as a glitch in the matrix in the pantheon of greats — almost like Müller on crack.

But his goal contributions are too overwhelming to sweep under the rug at this point, and you'd have to be a bit tone-deaf have to not rank him as probably the greatest European player with Kaizer Beckenbauer. Equally ridiculous is the consistency of performance in terms of tangible impact — one that is matched by only Pelé and Messi, and Puskás - who's oftentimes marginalized in a lot of discussions - even though he started performing at an excellent level for Kispest at a young age, then Honvéd — followed by 4 Piccichi titles and 3 European Cup titles for Madrid after joining the club at age 31, and that's aside from his record for Hungary, and European scorers - which Ronaldo will likely break in the immediate future. On a general note, it's pretty amazing that Cristiano's managed to shamelessly insert himself in the these discussions because for the longest time, it seemed like he would definitely play second fiddle to Messi and Barcelona's dominance across the era and languish on the edge of Top 10 of all time. Speaks volumes about his relentless drive to win, sheer strength of will, and superhuman focus. He's probably THE greatest of all time in that department with Pelé for football, and the likes of Jordan and Brady for sports at large.