Who's the next big thing aftet Maradona and Pele?

[Riker]

Share your thoughts.

[TarheelJTK]

My vote goes to Der Kaiser on this one. He was a dominant player that led club and country to victories on the biggest stages. 3 straight European Cups with Bayern Munchen, a World Cup with West Germany in 1974, a European Championship with West Germany in 1972 and 3 soccer bowls with the Cosmos. I think he gets underrated due to the fact that he was a defender or defensive mid.

[SirManchester]

Yup,totally agree ^, I don't even think Maradona and Pele are in their own class.

You can't tell me they are superior to players like Cruyff, Mueller or Beckenbauer. They're just not. They are all in the same league if anything.

[rossoneri_22]

Yup,totally agree ^, I don't even think Maradona and Pele are in their own class.

You can't tell me they are superior to players like Cruyff, Mueller or Beckenbauer. They're just not. They are all in the same league if anything.

I agree I think they are pure class and the two greatest but not far superior to other greats i.e. Zidane, Maldini, and Cruyff.

In my honest opinion if Ronaldo had concentrated on football and only football he would have been no question the greatest player ever. I also think that when he hangs up his boots he should be looked at as one of if not the greatest striker who ever lived. For the past 3 years his form may have not been amazing. But from 1996-2002 he displayed skill and speed never before seen.

[Riker]

My vote goes to Garrincha because he owned every single player who tried to defend him.

[Excape Goat]

I voted di Stefano because he showed he was better of two when compared to Puskus, and Puskus was among the greatest. besides, he achieved everything when he was old. he must be better when he is younger.

[SirManchester]

I voted di Stefano because he showed he was better of two when compared to Puskus, and Puskus was among the greatest. besides, he achieved everything when he was old. he must be better when he is younger.

That's not neccessarily true, some players get better with age, look at Zidane.

[Adidas343]

I would say Zidane. He is what made France winners in the world cup 1998 and the euro 2000. I think he has the most influence in the past decade in football. Nobody matches his elegant style of play and his presence. He is still, depite his age, one of the best players in the world.

If Ronaldo didn't get injured, I would have rated him higher than Zidane.
Pre-injury Ronaldo is definitely up there with Pele and Maradona or higher.

[Excape Goat]

That's not neccessarily true, some players get better with age, look at Zidane.


Alfredo di Stefano was 34 when Real Madrid beat Frankfrut in 1960. Some considered that was his height. Zidane is now 33. He has begun to lose some of his magic. Alfredo di Stefano was an all-around player. he can pop up at one end of the field defending liked a true defender and ended up in the other end as the most dangerous striker the game had ever seen. He was also one of the greatest playmaker of all-time. Besides his beautiful ovement, he was known for his stamina. He was beckenbauer-Keane-Gerd Muller-Platini all in one.

[GhostInTheShell]

My vote goes to Garrincha because he owned every single player who tried to defend him.
Yeah, he was unstopable. IMHO,he played better than Pele sometimes

[LordR]

Sorry, but you can't put Maradona on one level with Pele and Beckenbauer. Maradona was great, but no all-time great, in my opinion he isn't even the best player from Argentina, Di Stefano did much more to the game than just crazy tricks with the ball.

[Kaushik]

Sorry, but you can't put Maradona on one level with Pele and Beckenbauer. Maradona was great, but no all-time great :eek: :eek: :eek:

in my opinion he isn't even the best player from Argentina, Di Stefano did much more to the game than just crazy tricks with the ball.I'm pretty sure all Maradona did was perform crazy tricks with the ball. :rolleyes:

[Bertje]

Sorry, but you can't put Maradona on one level with Pele and Beckenbauer. Maradona was great, but no all-time great, in my opinion he isn't even the best player from Argentina, Di Stefano did much more to the game than just crazy tricks with the ball.

If that is a good reason not to call him an all-time great then neither is Pele.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

I disagree with the entire pemise of the thread. For starters I would argue that both Beckenbauer and Di Stefano should be rated above Pele and Maradona.

[tpmazembe]

I disagree with the entire pemise of the thread. For starters I would argue that both Beckenbauer and Di Stefano should be rated above Pele and Maradona.That's a statement, not an arguement.

Please make the persuasive arguement.

[tpmazembe]

If that is a good reason not to call him an all-time great then neither is Pele.Agreed Bertje; its actually an absurd reason not to call Maradona an all-time great. Now one of his greatest assets - in addition to his drive - is being used to marginalize him?

I also don't understand the Pele analogy. In which games was he doing "tricks"? Its well documented that its his mastery of all the fundamentals - as well as his ability for improvisation and winning on every setting - that makes him well regarded by any student of the game.

Everyone has their preferences, and that's more than okay, but ....in a general comment, I've noticed how it has now become fashionable on the Beautiful Game - thanks in large part to SirManchester, and now it seems a sizeable following - to dismiss players with immense technical and improvisational abilities as "trick"-sters. Sad.

[Bertje]

While I will always prefer a player who can be both leader and follower at once, like Cruijff or Di Stefano, every great team has atleast one player who can do something not expected, improvise against the tighter defenses.

[Sempre]

He doesn't have an argument, I'm afraid.

What it's come to is that Teso and SirManchester have
perceived some kind of pervasive 'Brazilian bias' on BS
and have now become reactionaries declaring at every
opportunity the superiority of non-Brazilian teams and
players. Thus, Bayern Munich '74 over Brazil '70, Gerd
Muller over Ronaldo, Beckenbauer over Pele, etc. etc. . .
And now Maradona has been included in their rebellion.

Of course there are arguments for all of these things,
and they might be good ones, but one senses they are
made out of perversity, a perceived need to 'correct'
excesses in thought. In short, we're seeing a crusade
against 'phantom votes', 'fanboys', 'glory-hunters', and
the like, all of which apparently over-hype Brazlian soccer
in the minds of SirM and Teso.

Can't one just ignore the fanboys and simply vote according
to what's sensible? Apparently not.

[tpmazembe]

While I will always prefer a player who can be both leader and follower at once, like Cruijff or Di Stefano, every great team has atleast one player who can do something not expected, improvise against the tighter defenses.What if they can do that in spades, and improvise?

I think Sempre is closest to the truth.

[nowayjose]

I disagree with the entire pemise of the thread. For starters I would argue that both Beckenbauer and Di Stefano should be rated above Pele and Maradona.

Beckenbauer should be rated above Tiger Woods.