Maradona was a great player, but a difficult personality.This needs to be in CAPITAL LETTERS:
MARADONA DIDN'T HAD JUST 7 YEARS FOR CHRIST SAKE YOU FECKING EURO CVNTS (yeah you lot deserve it).
Even just in Argentinos Jrs he had 5 years the majority of players, now, then and in the future can only dream of.
PD: Also PUSKAS, EUSEBIO, VAN BASTEN, PLATINI, ZICO; GARRINCHA, BEST, BAGGIO deserve to the very least being mentioned (I have even a soft spot for SIVORI and some real revisionism of MORENO, LEONIDAS, MATHEWS)
Who in your opinion is the Greatest player of all time
- Thread starter FriedClams
- Start date
-
The World Cup 2026 Forum is now open.
Most of these fellas are difficult personalities, in any case I was just pointing that FACT.
And another fact, it's that kiddo I've mentioned, was still Pelusa or Diego, "Maradona" in thrid person started in Europe, mostly Italy.
PD: BTW man I'll seek and find you and force in a A Clockwork Orange manner to see every fecking Maradona vid till you have no excuse to called him genius instead of great. That comitted I am.
No not many have but neither did Ronaldo Nazario. Ie win the WC twice. But he had 2 brilliant WC's in terms of individual performance.
Haha! Thought he did. Memory does strange things to you.
R9 did win the WC twice, didn't he? Didn't play much in 94, but it still counts?
Eh La liga was very strong even before the Ronaldo/Messi era. Valencia, Athletico and Deportivo were all quite strong teams back then. When the La liga started to become weaker was when PL clubs started buying all the great la liga talents they could like David Silva, Toure, Aguero, Mata etc. Which meant that apart from Barcelona and Madrid many of the strong la liga clubs slowly became feeder clubs to the richest PL clubs. Still even at the height of the Messi/Ronaldo rivalry it still had the highest Uefa coefficient most of the time.
It was not a farmers league, but Barcelona and Madrid were still stacked against the opposition. Atletico Madrid was still a genuinely strong team that could go to toe with any PL side.
Okay cup competitions can be a lottery but Spain dominated European competitions for ages. Sevilla in the EL for instance.
My bad. You're right
First time ever.
He was only 17 years old at the time of that first win. I don't recall if he got any minutes at all, but I remember seeing him on the pitch after the final against Italy.
First time ever.
He was only 17 years old at the time of that first win. I don't recall if he got any minutes at all, but I remember seeing him on the pitch after the final against Italy.
He didn't play, but he was there. I trully vouch for such stuff. I think it's very important with special talents to take them, no matter if later they do not even play a minute
I don't know this deep down at all. I was fortunate enough to see Maradona play at his best, and therefore I know that such certainty is for the birds. In my view, Maradona was slightly more gifted technically. Messi has had a much longer and much more garlanded career, though.
I did not see Pele, but I've watched a lot of his matches and a lot of footage, and I picked him as number one because I think he had the least weaknesses and just generally ticked the most boxes.
I think Messi is a better player than Ronaldo, but I've stopped that whole charade of acting like someone who feels differently is insane or lobotomized. People appreciate different things in footballers.
so if he didn't play a minute, does it actually mean he won it though? not trying to be difficult, just genuinely curious how that works?
You are in the squad, you won it. Passarella for instance also is a 2 times champion.
The game desperately misses artists like him, football at it's core was always about entertainment.
fecking Pep has had everyone developing automatons over the past decade or so
How does one manager get blamed for the disappearance of flair players in world football? He’s managed 3 clubs in total. What about the hundreds of other clubs and managers around Europe who are all making football a chess match and prioritising athleticism over flair and technically ability.
I think Sky pumping the money they did into the Premier League was terrible for football in general. As you said it instantly weakened other leagues whose best players were suddenly off elsewhere for more money, and it wasn’t always to bigger or more prestigious clubs either. When Hull City and the like started financially bullying bigger clubs around Europe just because of Premier League money you knew the damage was done. I think Chelsea putting out blank chicks in the early to mid 2000’s marked a serious paradigm shift in football transfers too.
I’d really only give him one though. He was a teenager in 94 and as far as I remember never even got off the bench. But the one he did win was really his tournament, and another one of those that will forever be iconic because of him, what he achieved after a horrific injury and also that haircut. Just based purely on talent he’s definitely in the top 3 or 4 players I’ve ever seen play football.
George Best without doubt, watched him play with Law and Charlton so much individual skill
R9 is my favourite player ever but it just has to be Messi.
No one has blended scoring, dribbling and creating chances for others with such frightening consistency as he did. Some of his stats are just ridiculous. Here's one for example.
The is only 1 player in history to have scored at least 25+ goals and created 25 big chances for teammates in 1 season, Messi. He's done it for 3 times Who's the next closest player? Messi, who had I think 2 or 3 seasons with 25+ goals and 24 big chances created.
No one has blended scoring, dribbling and creating chances for others with such frightening consistency as he did. Some of his stats are just ridiculous. Here's one for example.
The is only 1 player in history to have scored at least 25+ goals and created 25 big chances for teammates in 1 season, Messi. He's done it for 3 times Who's the next closest player? Messi, who had I think 2 or 3 seasons with 25+ goals and 24 big chances created.
Pele did that. We don't have his stats for chances created, but he was clearly a great scorer, a great dribbler and a great playmaker. I don't even think people realise that he was an AM or a 10, I think a lot of people assume he was a 9 because of the goal record.
Followed by
Doesn’t really compute does it. Unless you were in Brazil 50-60 years ago watching him consistently and taking notes.
For me Pele actually was not strictly sense a number 10 or AM, he had the atributes (included bringing others to play more than for instance someone like R9, that BTW without being a 10, was quite great with his passing and specially tavelas (Romario too)). Yet he was a Ponta Do Lanza, that like the role required, used to drop deeper than a typical striker/forward and in other places are called mediapunta, at times playing as support strikers.
These type of roles, are different to what normally a more clasic organizative type 10/AM tend to be and it's logical, because mediapuntas, Ponta do Lanza tend to be more dinamic, more pace, with lots of goals in the bag.
Similar thing happened with Messi and happened with Diego at first a forward, then more of a mediapunta and lastely a classic 10, yet keeping as much as he could his dinamism and pace to go forward from very deep areas, Diego became a more organizative type of player the further he went into his carreer, at times I think not only due to loosing his peak form, but also because of the need of his teams to take such tasks.
Zico on the other hand, perhaps because of his lesser pace, lesser athletism, was since day one, more midfield oriented, more of an organizer without loosing his ability to score galore
Indeed Pele had quite a lot of issues with coaches trying to use him as a pure striker, the more famous prior to the 1970 WC with Saldanha that to make it worse, treated Pele almost as finished (plus some political extras that Saldanha had against the Brazilian govermentand this one pushing for Pele), both things obviosuly costed his head, Zagallo took the job and we all know how it ended.
I wasn't, but you can extrapolate a lot from the available evidence. He has a similar number of goals (depending on what games you count) and a similar number of assists (even though Pele's total assist numbers are very hard to quantify exactly, because it wasn't a recorded stat until the 90s).
I know chance creation is not just about assists, but it points to his creativity. Add to that the fact that he was demonstrably a great dribbler, and he has the same combination of traits as Messi. But he was also 2 footed and good in the air.
Last edited:
I rewatched some of those matches and thought he was excellent tbh, not sure what you expected.
It was about the least stats tournament around, (and he had good stats) it was all about moments for Pele in 1970.
https://thesefootballtimes.co/2023/01/02/pele-at-the-1970-world-cup-the-memories-beyond-the-goals/
I feel the same. I watched all those games from 1970 very recently, and the thing that stood out for me is what an intelligent player he was, the way he would anticipate things before they happened. And he was way past his physical best in 1970, by all accounts.
Don't forget all the cigarettes.
I think that there are two candidates: Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi.
Of the two, Ronaldo has performed in a wider range of teams, often ones whose sums were less than that of the opposition. His national team is Portugal, always the underdogs on the big stage. He started at Sporting and was so impressive there that the greatest manager in the history of football saw the imminent need to sign him. Then he excelled in the Premier League, the toughest place of all. Then he went to Real Madrid and did better than anybody else has done there. Obviously, afterwards, he was a little bit past his peak, but he still tore it up in Seria A. Returned to the PL and, setting aside club politics, did well at an age that far surpasses the norms for retirement. Then he went to Arabia for the money, because why not. I don't give two shits about how he has done there because it counts for nothing. We'll afford Messi the same when it comes to the MSL.
Messi was fostered into a Barcelona team where everything was already set up for him to excel. There can certainly be no denying that he is/was amazing, but he didn't exactly have to buck the trend. It would have been the best team in the world without him, and it was even better with him. His unbelievable talent is not in question; but he didn't exactly put that team on his shoulders and carry them to success that they couldn't have achieved without him. Then he went to PSG; a club that always wins the league by default unless there's a once-a-generation upset. Wahey.
Then there's his national team; he often underperformed and was not really known to do well for Argentina until they finally won the WC. That seems to have wiped away all the many years before in which he didn't do very much for them. And it was a team that should have been amongst the giants, with or without him, and he only just got there at the last WC. This largely rewrote history, but the fact of the matter is that until they finally won it, Messi was known as a chronic underperformer for Argentina. They only won it when he was at the last gasp of his late peak. A stopped clock.
Compare that to Ronaldo who was, for all intents and purposes, Mr. Portugal. More than anyone, he has personified his national team. The only ones who can be said to have done him equal in that regard is Cruyff, and he had better teammates at his sides. When Portugal was in the European final and the opposition injuried him, Ronaldo took to the sidelines and animatedly guided his team to victory. Alright, it looked a little goofy at the time, but it clearly inspired their team to win. It wasn't just theatrics. You could tell that his aura was there even when he was limited to the technical area.
I posit that if Ronaldo had been Argentinean and Messi had been Portuguese; and if Ronaldo had been fostered from infancy at Barcelona while Messi had to make his bones through numerous difficult leagues, the tables would have been turned entirely. One is not better than the other; they are equal. However, one had to fight through difficulties and learn new leagues while the other was basically born into a team that was waiting for him all along.
We should also not forget that Messi was given permission to take growth hormones because he was a person of short stature. Not a dwarf, just commonly small. Barcelona negotiated permission for him to take substances that are, for other players, forbidden susbtances that constitute doping. This was justified by his small stature, but he wasn't physically handicapped. He was simply a bit small. He then had the advantage of using the same substance that other athletes use illegally to enhance their physiques in training, allowing them to spend many more hours on it. This is the reason it's a banned substance.
Through a medical loophole, Barcelona manage to concoct a situation where Lionel Messi qualified because he was 1,3 centimeters shorter than the average for his age when they signed him in his early teens. Then he was simply allowed to use doping. He doped, there isn't any debate about it. They just managed to acquire permission because he was marginally smaller than the norm for a 14 year old boy when they first tapped him up. This isn't some kind of conspiracy theory. It's in the public record. He fell slightly below some vague medical metric for age-based height, and they made some unknown Spanish doctor interpret that as approval to use what is very literally a doping subtance. The Barcelona way.
Nobody in their right mind can deny that Messi is an astonishing player, but he is a player whose talent was honed to this extent because they were able to get Spanish doctors (who? I don't know) to approve the application of a substance that is not normally allowed in sports. Let's entirely disregard the long and storied history that FC Bracelona has with doping and just look at the accomplishments of the two players. I think that had Ronaldo spent all his prime years at the golden age of Barcelona, and played for a national team that was an automatic favorite for the World Cup, he'd have done every bit as well; and had Messi been required to fight his way up through a third-rate league system, and make his bones in the PL, and then excel in Italy and all that, he would not have made the numbers that he did. That is my assessment. Take it or leave it.
Of the two, Ronaldo has performed in a wider range of teams, often ones whose sums were less than that of the opposition. His national team is Portugal, always the underdogs on the big stage. He started at Sporting and was so impressive there that the greatest manager in the history of football saw the imminent need to sign him. Then he excelled in the Premier League, the toughest place of all. Then he went to Real Madrid and did better than anybody else has done there. Obviously, afterwards, he was a little bit past his peak, but he still tore it up in Seria A. Returned to the PL and, setting aside club politics, did well at an age that far surpasses the norms for retirement. Then he went to Arabia for the money, because why not. I don't give two shits about how he has done there because it counts for nothing. We'll afford Messi the same when it comes to the MSL.
Messi was fostered into a Barcelona team where everything was already set up for him to excel. There can certainly be no denying that he is/was amazing, but he didn't exactly have to buck the trend. It would have been the best team in the world without him, and it was even better with him. His unbelievable talent is not in question; but he didn't exactly put that team on his shoulders and carry them to success that they couldn't have achieved without him. Then he went to PSG; a club that always wins the league by default unless there's a once-a-generation upset. Wahey.
Then there's his national team; he often underperformed and was not really known to do well for Argentina until they finally won the WC. That seems to have wiped away all the many years before in which he didn't do very much for them. And it was a team that should have been amongst the giants, with or without him, and he only just got there at the last WC. This largely rewrote history, but the fact of the matter is that until they finally won it, Messi was known as a chronic underperformer for Argentina. They only won it when he was at the last gasp of his late peak. A stopped clock.
Compare that to Ronaldo who was, for all intents and purposes, Mr. Portugal. More than anyone, he has personified his national team. The only ones who can be said to have done him equal in that regard is Cruyff, and he had better teammates at his sides. When Portugal was in the European final and the opposition injuried him, Ronaldo took to the sidelines and animatedly guided his team to victory. Alright, it looked a little goofy at the time, but it clearly inspired their team to win. It wasn't just theatrics. You could tell that his aura was there even when he was limited to the technical area.
I posit that if Ronaldo had been Argentinean and Messi had been Portuguese; and if Ronaldo had been fostered from infancy at Barcelona while Messi had to make his bones through numerous difficult leagues, the tables would have been turned entirely. One is not better than the other; they are equal. However, one had to fight through difficulties and learn new leagues while the other was basically born into a team that was waiting for him all along.
We should also not forget that Messi was given permission to take growth hormones because he was a person of short stature. Not a dwarf, just commonly small. Barcelona negotiated permission for him to take substances that are, for other players, forbidden susbtances that constitute doping. This was justified by his small stature, but he wasn't physically handicapped. He was simply a bit small. He then had the advantage of using the same substance that other athletes use illegally to enhance their physiques in training, allowing them to spend many more hours on it. This is the reason it's a banned substance.
Through a medical loophole, Barcelona manage to concoct a situation where Lionel Messi qualified because he was 1,3 centimeters shorter than the average for his age when they signed him in his early teens. Then he was simply allowed to use doping. He doped, there isn't any debate about it. They just managed to acquire permission because he was marginally smaller than the norm for a 14 year old boy when they first tapped him up. This isn't some kind of conspiracy theory. It's in the public record. He fell slightly below some vague medical metric for age-based height, and they made some unknown Spanish doctor interpret that as approval to use what is very literally a doping subtance. The Barcelona way.
Nobody in their right mind can deny that Messi is an astonishing player, but he is a player whose talent was honed to this extent because they were able to get Spanish doctors (who? I don't know) to approve the application of a substance that is not normally allowed in sports. Let's entirely disregard the long and storied history that FC Bracelona has with doping and just look at the accomplishments of the two players. I think that had Ronaldo spent all his prime years at the golden age of Barcelona, and played for a national team that was an automatic favorite for the World Cup, he'd have done every bit as well; and had Messi been required to fight his way up through a third-rate league system, and make his bones in the PL, and then excel in Italy and all that, he would not have made the numbers that he did. That is my assessment. Take it or leave it.
Last edited:
This is my biggest reason why i'd have Lionel Messi 5th. He should've won a lot more CLs with the team he was playing with. CR7 won the 3peat and for me that takes him above Messi. I also rate Neymar/Luis Suarez higher than Benzema and Bale too. I rate Busquets, Iniesta and Xavi better than Caemiro, Modric and Kroos. Marcelo and Jordi Alba hard to pick, but I rate Dani Alves more than Carvajal.
Honestly, Messi should've won a lot more CLs.
CR7> Lionel Messi for me.
And R9 peak better than those two.
Let's leave it
Agreed, it's just that his peak lasted maybe three years and then he found a Burger King.
In fairness, I am really drunk. All of my viewpoints should be regarded through that lens. Even when I'm right.
1. C.Ronaldo's game simply lacks that magic. He is miles behind in dribbling and playmaking.
2. C.Ronaldo has not been good for Portugal. Even in the one tournament Portugal won, he did not really play well. His goal record with Portugal is due to match3s vs minnows but in tournaments, he has not been good.
On the flip side, Messi is kinda underrated for Argentina. He has been player of the tournament 7 times no less. Argentina simply couldn't get over the line until Copa 2021 where he was player of the tournament
3. This thing of different leagues is overplayed by Ronaldo fans. It is not like l
Ronaldo played for some mid table or perenially underacgieving teams.
Nostalgia. Even R9 will tell you Messi is better but not Cristiano. Infact there is a video of this
Real Madrid's CL wins had alot of luck. Plus the teams were often evenly matched.
I have not seen a single elclasico in which C.Ronaldo was the best player on the pitch. Conversely, Messi has been the best on the pitch several times even without scoring.
Maradona, if playing in this era of protection and overall more attacking football, he'd no doubt have Messi/Ronaldo type numbers. This is also assuming he'd have towed the line a bit more of course.
I also think playing in Serie A during the 80s minimized Maradona's numbers. It was very much a defender's league in those days - you didn't get excessive numbers with regards to goals scored, assists, etc.
Glad to see it mentioned. Ronaldo's 1998 run often gets forgotten because of what happened in the final, but previously he had 4 goals and 3 assists in 6 games. Including a brace in 2nd round, two assists in QF and his teams' only goal in the SF (plus his teams' first penalty in the shootout). Had he won that WC he would probably be up there with the Big 3, even with all the injuries.
Eye test. I get it. Personally I watched Messi live at the stadium three times between 2015-2016 and would use the same adjective. Which is the problem with eye test.
Last edited:
Maradona is the best player I have ever seen.
For me, he's certainly the best on the eye test in terms of presence/aura, sheer talent, versatility, excitement
I think a lot of details tend to fly under the radar because they follow a narrative. You can be the best performer in a tournament even if you don't win anything.
I don't think it is about skills and tricks in general but rather how natural they come to you. Ronaldinho pulled his skill moves off in an instant, they were second nature to him. He didn't need to set them up or think about what he was going to do, he could just improvise and adapt midway if needed. There are lots of players who try similar moves to dribble but they are nowhere near as effective because they need to "plan" them. But dribbling is a highly reactive skill. You need to be able to shift and change directions without losing balance depending on how your opponent reacts to your feints.
I don't think anybody was quite as good at that as Ronaldinho was but to a lesser extent, the same applies to R9, Zidane, Neymar, Isco, Iniesta or Thiago Alcantara and so forth. On the contrary, young CR7's tricks seemed almost telegraphed. As if he had learned a certain sequence of moves by heart and then waited for situations in which he had enough space/time to show them but to no actual advantage on the pitch, just entertainment.
Current top 5 best players of all time according to the poll
1) Lionel Messi
2) Diego Maradona
3) Pele
4) Cristiano Ronaldo
5) Ronaldo Nazario
Lots of votes and great interaction here. Cheers!
1) Lionel Messi
2) Diego Maradona
3) Pele
4) Cristiano Ronaldo
5) Ronaldo Nazario
Lots of votes and great interaction here. Cheers!
Messi gets my vote, him and Pele are 1A and 1B. Both were the best player of their generation while dominating both club and international football. I put Messi higher than Pele simply cause football now is of much higher quality than in Pele's time.
Cristiano and Maradona for me are 2A and 2B. Absolutely brilliant, but their success was mostly in club football (for Cristiano) and international football (for Maradona). Maradona obviously being the best player of his generation, the same cannot be said for Cristiano for obvious reasons. Again, I put Cristiano slightly ahead of Maradona for the same reasons I have Messi ahead of Pele.
5, 6, 7 in any order Cruyff, Di Stefano and Beckenbauer, maybe Platini 8. Then for the remaining positions in top 10, I guess there are a dozen of footballers who have a very good claim (Puskas, Garrincha, Eusebio, Best, Charlton, Muller, Zico, Van Basten, Luis Ronaldo, Zidane, Xavi, Baresi etc).
Cristiano and Maradona for me are 2A and 2B. Absolutely brilliant, but their success was mostly in club football (for Cristiano) and international football (for Maradona). Maradona obviously being the best player of his generation, the same cannot be said for Cristiano for obvious reasons. Again, I put Cristiano slightly ahead of Maradona for the same reasons I have Messi ahead of Pele.
5, 6, 7 in any order Cruyff, Di Stefano and Beckenbauer, maybe Platini 8. Then for the remaining positions in top 10, I guess there are a dozen of footballers who have a very good claim (Puskas, Garrincha, Eusebio, Best, Charlton, Muller, Zico, Van Basten, Luis Ronaldo, Zidane, Xavi, Baresi etc).