The Ultimate Soccer Player to Walk the Earth

[TKORL]

I don't understand. Seedorf is one of the world's best players, and Holland's most succesful player.
Let me clarify, by most succesfull, I meant out of the Dutch players playing today, Seedorf is the most succesful.

[Pecho Frio]

for once i agree with Paul NL :eek::p

Pecho Frio, you just said in your previous point:

I think International cups are overrated. I do not want to repeat myself over and over again.

yet your whole basis is that Seedorf did well on teams and won 4 CL titles

can you see the contradiction??

By International cup I mean World Cup- Euro Cup- Copa America etc..

International = ethimologically: inter (between) national (nations)

But Its ok if you found a contradiction che. Después de todo, Sos bostero ..

in order to be the best player, the following have to apply:


Who wrote these rules? Antonio Barijho or Apache Tevez? Both primary school rejects I presume..

[Pecho Frio]

You do realise that both Maldini and Costacurta won their last CL title a week ago?

For Gods sake please DO read what I wrote just after I wrote the lines you quoted from me. + Read my first post in this topic. My argument is NOT based on his CLs solely. People, please read. Start with Agatha Christie if you are new to reading. And crime fiction is fun, you wil love it.

Let me clarify, by most succesfull, I meant out of the Dutch players playing today, Seedorf is the most succesful.

Thank God , atleast not everybody is a boring repeater of what their dad have been telling them..

[Tribune]

I agree that Milan-Liverpool's pace was horribly slow. Its wrong and childish to state the differences between the pace of the modern and the old game by only one game tough.


Care to enlighten us then on what specific games have you drawn your conclusions besides youtube videoclips ?

Your childish insults show that you havent not received a good education from your attended schools or your parents

Is not an insult, just stating the obvious truth.

Keeping on giving one example?

Nilton Santos versus Austria in 1958. He scored a goal after dribbling past several players from his own half towards the goal. Care to give me a modern equivalent of a defender scoring a maradonian type of goal ?

Slow defending, SLOW attacking, slow football, more passing, less goals. Sorry I had to teach you that..


Since I seriously doubt someone appointed you as the football Jehova on BigSoccer and you scornfully dismiss any opposite examples as "exceptions", care to enlighten us what corpus of classic games have you seen in order to reach such a definitive conclusion ? Or maybe you rely exclusively on your ignorant opinions (+ the obvious youtube clips, although even based on them it's hard to conclude that football 30-40 years ago was slow and weak).

Learn some manners

Learn some football history.

[Pecho Frio]

Care to enlighten us then on what specific games have you drawn your conclusions besides youtube videoclips ?

Any game. Not one example. ALL EXAMPLES prove my point. All Modern football games with top players (with some exceptions of course due to weather, pitch conditions, team psychology etc ) are pacier and more tiring and more physique demanding than any old game with top players. That is what the EYE can see. Its basic knowledge.




Is not an insult, just stating the obvious truth.

A cliché. Is this your best? Uncreative education system I presume..



Nilton Santos versus Austria in 1958. He scored a goal after dribbling past several players from his own half towards the goal. Care to give me a modern equivalent of a defender scoring a maradonian type of goal ?

What is the point of this example? Where do you want to go? What is a defender scoring a Maradoma goal got to do with Seedorf being worlds TOP player ever? Are you confused?

Since I seriously doubt someone appointed you as the football Jehova on BigSoccer and you scornfully dismiss any opposite examples as "exceptions", care to enlighten us what corpus of classic games have you seen in order to reach such a definitive conclusion ? Or maybe you rely exclusively on your ignorant opinions (+ the obvious youtube clips, although even based on them it's hard to conclude that football 30-40 years ago was slow and weak).

No it is not. The old games I watch are from an unknown TV station in my country and Eurosport . I do not use Youtube, for your information; but Youtube is a good source to see the s*hitty defending Im telling all you about. Just type in "Cruyff" "Maradona" etc. to see them. Youtube isnt the bible of the sources but its utility can not be ignored.

Learn some football history.

Learn some tactical knowledge and game reading.



Pecho "SEEDORF" Frio

[United Pumps]

The rest of my post (up until the line) contains Pecho Frio's knowledge about football:





















:confused:
--------------------------
Has Seedorf even been the best player in any of his professional clubs?

[brassmonkey]

Has Seedorf even been the best player in any of his professional clubs?

Ajax: Overmars and van der Sar were there the entire time Seedorf was, with Bergkamp there for one year, Kluivert there for several years, and Rijkaard finishing off his career there. Whether Frank de Boer was better is debatable.

Sampdoria: Yeah he probably was

Real Madrid: Redondo, Hierro, Morientes, Raul, Roberto Carlos, Sanchis, and McManaman at least.

Inter: Zanetti, Blanc, Pirlo, and Vieri. Ronaldo was injured and therefore wasnt in as good a form as Seedorf, but he was still a better player

AC Milan: I believe Maldini, Sheva, Pirlo, Rui Costa, Nesta, Crespo briefly, Rivaldo, and Gattuso have all been better at different times, with Seedorf being the best at no point really.

[Bucky-O'Hare]

George Best for me is the best. He was something else with the ball at his feet!

[United Pumps]

Would anybody say he is Sampdoria's best ever player?

[Bucky-O'Hare]

He's deffinitly not their best ever player. Off the top of my head I think of Gullit and Vialli. However, I don't know who was in the team that he played in but I doubt very much that he would have been their best player.

[Tribune]

Any game. Not one example. ALL EXAMPLES prove my point. All Modern football games with top players (with some exceptions of course due to weather, pitch conditions, team psychology etc ) are pacier and more tiring and more physique demanding than any old game with top players. That is what the EYE can see. Its basic knowledge.


How about you name those "examples" and let's analyze them ?

First and foremost, the difference isn't big and it's variable (you can find out many games in the past who were played at an extremely fast pace).

Second, even if we assume you are right, your point does not stand. Let's say that games are pacier and more phisique demanding. So what ?

Post-injury Ronaldo was overweight, so lazy that even the fans of his team started to dislike him, and, fitness-wise, he was at a level inferior to the likes of Di Stefano or Pele. He was below the standard of fitness even for the 50s and 60s (considerably less fit than Di Stefano, Pele, Eusebio or Cruyff).

You may say it's one example. Well, there is no need for more.
But if you insist, here is another one : Romario was not exactly the most hard working boy in the park. More fit than Ronaldo, but quite lazy. Very far from a Roy Keane's standards.
Yet both Romario and Ronaldo managed to dominate in the modern era. Ronaldo is not even half the athlete Pele was. Not even in his younger days, before he got fat, he was not the athlete Pele was. Yet he had no problems dominating his age based on skill alone.

Second, it's quite correct that there were many games played at a slower pace. But do you know the schedule of those players ?
In 1959, Pele played no less than 104 professional games. Tell a pro today he has to play 100 games per year and he will hang his boots. And all those 104 games were with no substitutions allowed, BTW, many played at great distances, with a lot of exhausting traveling between them, during Santos' foreign tournaments.
Pele and his teammates simply HAD TO play a part of those games at a slower pace in order to save their efforts.
Figo in 2003/2004 played 62 professional games.

Let's assume Figo was never substituted. This makes 62 x 90 = 5580 minutes played.
Pele was never substituted. This makes 104 x 90 = 9360 minutes played. That was Pele's physical apex.
Let's do a little math : using hix maximum physical potential, Pele was capable to play aprox 60% more time than Figo.
Include also the time when Figo was substituted, while Pele never was. Include also the fact that Figo played most of his games in Europe with the exception of four games in China during their asian tournament. While Pele played first in the Mexican Pentagonal Tournament, then back to Brazil for the Rio-Sao Paulo tournament, then off to Chile for Copa America, then off to Europe for another friendly tournament, then back to Brazil again for the paulista championship.

Zidane was crying like a baby that such traveling is exhausting. In 2003. Imagine this route Brazil - Mexico - Brazil - Chile - Brazil - Europe - Brazil in 1959. What a toll does it take on the player's bodies and how physical demanding they were and you have the nerve to bitch that Pele&Co played some of their games at a slower pace. When players knew very well that, if one got injured, they had to cope with only 10 men on the pitch.
And besides the point that, among those games, there were enough of them played at a very high tempo.
Unless you can prove that all Figo's games were played at a pace 60% faster than all of Pele's games, your point is bollocks.
And, BTW, if Figo played his games 60% faster, in this case we would have only a tie. For Figo to be superior, you need to have an improvement in pace of at least 80%. Again in ALL THE GAMES.

PS : And unfit players can cut it in modern game, physical demanding as you claim to be. We are not talking about Pele, since he was one of the most fit and athletical players ever, but even a guy like Ferenc Puskas, not very fit either, would have no problems. Both post-injury Ronaldo and Puskas are pretty similar in terms of physical conditioning and Puskas' fitness was below the standard of his age (english players before the infamous 3-6 from 1953 even made jokes about him being fat).

What is the point of this example? Where do you want to go? What is a defender scoring a Maradoma goal got to do with Seedorf being worlds TOP player ever? Are you confused?

Since you speak about confusion, do you recognize this quote : "with liberos defences could not push up as much as they do in modern football".
That was what I was answering to with the Carlos Alberto. When I gave you the first example, you acted as if it did not matter and used the usual tactic of all the ignorant kids on this matter "one example does not prove anything". I gave you a second example of "defenders who could push up", point where it seems you have caught a sudden amnesia.

No it is not. The old games I watch are from an unknown TV station in my country and Eurosport . I do not use Youtube, for your information; but Youtube is a good source to see the s*hitty defending Im telling all you about. Just type in "Cruyff" "Maradona" etc. to see them. Youtube isnt the bible of the sources but its utility can not be ignored.

Great. Just great. That shows us you really are genius brain here. Youtube, dude, is a piece of shit if you want to judge the competence of defenses. Because all the compilations there about old players illustrate the strength of the attack not the prowess of the defenders. You will find lots of compilations of Cruyff and Maradona, but pretty nothing on Djalma Santos, Bobby Moore, Ruud Krol or Daniel Passarella.
Second, those compilations display moments when the likes of Pele, Cruyff, Maradona obliterated those defenses. You have seen Maradona dribbling four guys and you claim defenses were shit ? But what did you expect those defenses to do ? Stop Maradona ? But if they had stopped him, he would not have been a legend anymore. That's what makes an offensive player great : to make defenders look like a bunch of idiots. If Maradona lives up to the expectation and does great things, then defenses are shit, if defenses had managed to anihilate him, then you would have asked "what's so great about him" and called him overrated.

And btw the "s*hitty defending you are telling me about", you say ? Really ? How about Ronaldinho's goals versus Madrid in 2005 ? Top-class defending no doubt, since Ronaldinho used the easiest feint in the book to score those goals. What about Henry's goal versus Liverpool in 2004 ? The best goal in Premiership that season and Liverpool practically rolled the carpet for Henry. How about Ronaldo's goals versus Spartak Moscova in the UEFA cup in 1998 ? Ronaldo almost walked through Spartak's defense. How about Henry's goal versus Madrid in 2006 ? Or Beckham's goal against Madrid in 2000 ? Both players used a very simple feint to score them. Several changes of direction (and Beckham's goal was scored at walking pace, BTW) and that was all. What about Barcelona's defense this whole season, with Oleguer and Marquez competing for the award of the "the most poor defender of the season". What about Kaka's goal versus Man Utd ? Or Roma's defense against the same United ? A lot of defensive blunders. What about Real's defense against Juventus in 2003 at Delle Alpi ? Or, in general, Real defense over the last 8 years. The pair Raul Bravo - Pavon surely epitomizes the superiority of modern defenders. Pavon may be a fine human specimen able to compete with this demanding game, but he simply sucks. And he played in the defense of a team who wanted to win titles, not a mid-table team from Primera. How about Ronaldo's goals at Old Trafford ? The last one was a fine long strike, but the first two had a lot to do with poor marking.
When a guy like Oleguer can start for the european champions, don't even suggest that old defenses were shit.
Make a compilation of Ronaldo's best dribbling actions and, in 30 years from now on, another new wannabe fan, equally illiterate about football history, would conclude from that that defenses in the last decade were total shit.

[jpick]

the only thing I disagree with some of you about is when you say that players in the past had to be much better cause the rules have changed in favor of the offensive player (put it this way, materazzi is nowhere near gentile, materazzi is considered overagressive and prone to mistakes as his weakness, his fouls are nothing compared to some of gentile's fouls), and i agree with this. conditions were much tougher on offensive players back then, but then at the same time you knock modern day defedners for not being able to stop lesser-skilled opponents, it seems like a case of having your cake and eating it too. if defenders today cold use the same tactics of yesteryear, maybe they would hardly ever get beat.

as far as the other stuff, technical ability, grueling schedule, argentinian league and brazilian leagues beng much stronger, the greatness of pele, maradona, etc. I agree with that. just thought you were being unfair on modern day defenders, who if they cough on an opponent get a booking.

you use this fact to slate offensive players, but then after slating the offensive players because of rules, you then go back and slate defenders because of getting beat by offensive players that have been slated.

in other words, it's circular reasoning, in my book.

[Pecho Frio]

How about you name those "examples" and let's analyze them ?

Shall I name you all finals

First and foremost, the difference isn't big and it's variable (you can find out many games in the past who were played at an extremely fast pace).

Second, even if we assume you are right, your point does not stand. Let's say that games are pacier and more phisique demanding. So what ?

Post-injury Ronaldo was overweight, so lazy that even the fans of his team started to dislike him, and, fitness-wise, he was at a level inferior to the likes of Di Stefano or Pele. He was below the standard of fitness even for the 50s and 60s (considerably less fit than Di Stefano, Pele, Eusebio or Cruyff).

You may say it's one example. Well, there is no need for more.
But if you insist, here is another one : Romario was not exactly the most hard working boy in the park. More fit than Ronaldo, but quite lazy. Very far from a Roy Keane's standards.
Yet both Romario and Ronaldo managed to dominate in the modern era. Ronaldo is not even half the athlete Pele was. Not even in his younger days, before he got fat, he was not the athlete Pele was. Yet he had no problems dominating his age based on skill alone.

Second, it's quite correct that there were many games played at a slower pace. But do you know the schedule of those players ?
In 1959, Pele played no less than 104 professional games. Tell a pro today he has to play 100 games per year and he will hang his boots. And all those 104 games were with no substitutions allowed, BTW, many played at great distances, with a lot of exhausting traveling between them, during Santos' foreign tournaments.
Pele and his teammates simply HAD TO play a part of those games at a slower pace in order to save their efforts.
Figo in 2003/2004 played 62 professional games.

Let's assume Figo was never substituted. This makes 62 x 90 = 5580 minutes played.
Pele was never substituted. This makes 104 x 90 = 9360 minutes played. That was Pele's physical apex.
Let's do a little math : using hix maximum physical potential, Pele was capable to play aprox 60% more time than Figo.
Include also the time when Figo was substituted, while Pele never was. Include also the fact that Figo played most of his games in Europe with the exception of four games in China during their asian tournament. While Pele played first in the Mexican Pentagonal Tournament, then back to Brazil for the Rio-Sao Paulo tournament, then off to Chile for Copa America, then off to Europe for another friendly tournament, then back to Brazil again for the paulista championship.

Zidane was crying like a baby that such traveling is exhausting. In 2003. Imagine this route Brazil - Mexico - Brazil - Chile - Brazil - Europe - Brazil in 1959. What a toll does it take on the player's bodies and how physical demanding they were and you have the nerve to bitch that Pele&Co played some of their games at a slower pace. When players knew very well that, if one got injured, they had to cope with only 10 men on the pitch.
And besides the point that, among those games, there were enough of them played at a very high tempo.
Unless you can prove that all Figo's games were played at a pace 60% faster than all of Pele's games, your point is bollocks.
And, BTW, if Figo played his games 60% faster, in this case we would have only a tie. For Figo to be superior, you need to have an improvement in pace of at least 80%. Again in ALL THE GAMES.

PS : And unfit players can cut it in modern game, physical demanding as you claim to be. We are not talking about Pele, since he was one of the most fit and athletical players ever, but even a guy like Ferenc Puskas, not very fit either, would have no problems. Both post-injury Ronaldo and Puskas are pretty similar in terms of physical conditioning and Puskas' fitness was below the standard of his age (english players before the infamous 3-6 from 1953 even made jokes about him being fat).



Since you speak about confusion, do you recognize this quote : "with liberos defences could not push up as much as they do in modern football".
That was what I was answering to with the Carlos Alberto. When I gave you the first example, you acted as if it did not matter and used the usual tactic of all the ignorant kids on this matter "one example does not prove anything". I gave you a second example of "defenders who could push up", point where it seems you have caught a sudden amnesia.



Great. Just great. That shows us you really are genius brain here. Youtube, dude, is a piece of shit if you want to judge the competence of defenses. Because all the compilations there about old players illustrate the strength of the attack not the prowess of the defenders. You will find lots of compilations of Cruyff and Maradona, but pretty nothing on Djalma Santos, Bobby Moore, Ruud Krol or Daniel Passarella.
Second, those compilations display moments when the likes of Pele, Cruyff, Maradona obliterated those defenses. You have seen Maradona dribbling four guys and you claim defenses were shit ? But what did you expect those defenses to do ? Stop Maradona ? But if they had stopped him, he would not have been a legend anymore. That's what makes an offensive player great : to make defenders look like a bunch of idiots. If Maradona lives up to the expectation and does great things, then defenses are shit, if defenses had managed to anihilate him, then you would have asked "what's so great about him" and called him overrated.

And btw the "s*hitty defending you are telling me about", you say ? Really ? How about Ronaldinho's goals versus Madrid in 2005 ? Top-class defending no doubt, since Ronaldinho used the easiest feint in the book to score those goals. What about Henry's goal versus Liverpool in 2004 ? The best goal in Premiership that season and Liverpool practically rolled the carpet for Henry. How about Ronaldo's goals versus Spartak Moscova in the UEFA cup in 1998 ? Ronaldo almost walked through Spartak's defense. How about Henry's goal versus Madrid in 2006 ? Or Beckham's goal against Madrid in 2000 ? Both players used a very simple feint to score them. Several changes of direction (and Beckham's goal was scored at walking pace, BTW) and that was all. What about Barcelona's defense this whole season, with Oleguer and Marquez competing for the award of the "the most poor defender of the season". What about Kaka's goal versus Man Utd ? Or Roma's defense against the same United ? A lot of defensive blunders. What about Real's defense against Juventus in 2003 at Delle Alpi ? Or, in general, Real defense over the last 8 years. The pair Raul Bravo - Pavon surely epitomizes the superiority of modern defenders. Pavon may be a fine human specimen able to compete with this demanding game, but he simply sucks. And he played in the defense of a team who wanted to win titles, not a mid-table team from Primera. How about Ronaldo's goals at Old Trafford ? The last one was a fine long strike, but the first two had a lot to do with poor marking.
When a guy like Oleguer can start for the european champions, don't even suggest that old defenses were shit.
Make a compilation of Ronaldo's best dribbling actions and, in 30 years from now on, another new wannabe fan, equally illiterate about football history, would conclude from that that defenses in the last decade were total shit.

1-There will always be succesful players with bad physique or low stamina. But they wont be the best ever

2-There will always be bad defending in football, otherwise it wd be boring. But it is getting better with the strenghtining of the midfields.

3- Youtube is a nice source. The one of the best video sources on the internet. Seeing it as a FANTASTIC source or a LOUSY one is plain stupid. It has an utility, thats it.

4- Minutes played do not matter. Distance covered and the sudden forward runs by the player during a game matters. Easy for a striker to play against a libero system. No need to get out of offside trap. I'm a referee and I know what tires the forwards most: (and the lines man as well) : Offside :)

5- Sorry I had forgetten about your primary example; defences sometimes push up also, with the libero going forward or playing as defensive midfielder in the past; but this was not the main idea of this tactic. Of course there were rare moments where teams who must score go well front and did what I just told.

6- U want examples, I say any top game .. What part of this dont you understand?

[chapulin]

pele and maradona are forever the top candidates because they were the most successful.

they made a name for themselves where it matters most - the world cup.

[Paul_NL]

the only thing I disagree with some of you about is when you say that players in the past had to be much better cause the rules have changed in favor of the offensive player (put it this way, materazzi is nowhere near gentile, materazzi is considered overagressive and prone to mistakes as his weakness, his fouls are nothing compared to some of gentile's fouls), and i agree with this. conditions were much tougher on offensive players back then, but then at the same time you knock modern day defedners for not being able to stop lesser-skilled opponents, it seems like a case of having your cake and eating it too. if defenders today cold use the same tactics of yesteryear, maybe they would hardly ever get beat.

as far as the other stuff, technical ability, grueling schedule, argentinian league and brazilian leagues beng much stronger, the greatness of pele, maradona, etc. I agree with that. just thought you were being unfair on modern day defenders, who if they cough on an opponent get a booking.

you use this fact to slate offensive players, but then after slating the offensive players because of rules, you then go back and slate defenders because of getting beat by offensive players that have been slated.

in other words, it's circular reasoning, in my book.

No way the 3 top leagues are not a lot better then the Brazilian or Argentinian league pre-Bosman.

Nowadays the top 3 have atleast 6 or 7 internationals in there starting eleven. Pre-Bosman South America never got more then an average of 2 or 3 international players

[dor02]

Ajax: Overmars and van der Sar were there the entire time Seedorf was, with Bergkamp there for one year, Kluivert there for several years, and Rijkaard finishing off his career there. Whether Frank de Boer was better is debatable.

Sampdoria: Yeah he probably was

Real Madrid: Redondo, Hierro, Morientes, Raul, Roberto Carlos, Sanchis, and McManaman at least.

Inter: Zanetti, Blanc, Pirlo, and Vieri. Ronaldo was injured and therefore wasnt in as good a form as Seedorf, but he was still a better player

AC Milan: I believe Maldini, Sheva, Pirlo, Rui Costa, Nesta, Crespo briefly, Rivaldo, and Gattuso have all been better at different times, with Seedorf being the best at no point really.

Would anybody say he is Sampdoria's best ever player?No way in the world is Seedorf amongst Sampdoria's greatest ever players. He only played one season with Sampdoria, in 1995-96. At that time, i doriani still had Mihajlovic, Montella and Mancini. The most gifted player to have played with Sampdoria was Ruud Gullit but he only played a season and a half with Sampdoria. He had a very good stint though, scoring 15 goals in the 1993-94 season and nine in the second half of the 1994-95 season.) If we consider achievements with the club as well, most people would rate either Roberto Mancini or Gianluca Vialli as Sampdoria's best player. Mancini played for 15 years there and Vialli played for about eight.

[United Pumps]

So in conclusion: Seedorf has no place near this thread. GG.

[bosterosoy]

So in conclusion: Seedorf has no place near this thread. GG.

this

[Pecho Frio]

So in conclusion: Seedorf has no place near this thread. GG.

this


These are your ideas. Silly childish ones but I still respect them. Maybe one day you will see what I mean and tell your grandsons about the wonderful football ability and wholeness of Clarence.

[bosterosoy]

These are your ideas. Silly childish ones but I still respect them. Maybe one day you will see what I mean and tell your grandsons about the wonderful football ability and wholeness of Clarence.

no i'll be telling them of bigger, better players from my generation such as Maldini, Messi, Tevez, Riquelme, Ronaldo, C Ronaldo, Kaka etc etc