Platini Top Ten All-Time?

[lanman]

You obviously talk from the Brittish point of view but the world is not guilty if the Brits stupid & arrogantly chose to disappear from planet football from 1912 up to 1950 & hinder their great players from obtaining widespread recognition in the higher stage of international competition.

If this was the case, why did a GB team compete at the 1920, 1936 and 1948 World Cups (they only missed the 1924 and 28 tournaments)? And why did England regularly face off against non-British opposoition (59 matches in the time period)? And why did England play a game against a combined FIFA XI in 1938 if they had chosen to "disappear"?

[Tribune]

No I establish the 30 year period because that is the period since Gerd Muller effectively retired. He is the last striker who can genuinely rival Ronaldo as the greatest ever.




What about Romario or Van Basten ?

[comme]

What about Romario or Van Basten ?

Just my opinion, but Ronaldo ranks ahead of both. I didn't see Muller in his pomp, so don't feel I could say for sure that Ronaldo was better than him. Muller's numbers as well are truly phenomenal.

I rated both Van Basten and Romario very highly, but I didn't think either was a match for Ronaldo.

[JamesBH11]

Just my opinion, but Ronaldo ranks ahead of both. I didn't see Muller in his pomp, so don't feel I could say for sure that Ronaldo was better than him. Muller's numbers as well are truly phenomenal.

I rated both Van Basten and Romario very highly, but I didn't think either was a match for Ronaldo.

What about Kopa, Platini, and Zidane in your view (I guess you're a french?)

[TKORL]

What about Romario or Van Basten ?
I think Hugo Sanchez certainly challenges Ronaldo and Muller, I don't see how Romario or Van Basten can come ahead of Hugo Sanchez.

[Martininho]

I think Hugo Sanchez certainly challenges Ronaldo and Muller, I don't see how Romario or Van Basten can come ahead of Hugo Sanchez.

I think the world of Hugol, and am eternally grateful for the standard he (and the likely path he blazed) for other players coming out of CONCACAF.

That said, his international record is nothing special (and I acknowledge that he played for Mexico before Mexico established itself as a capable side in World Cups). Further, even when you take into account his phenomenal scoring record at Real Madrid, it didn't translate into championships. Each of the four above not only scored buckets of goals, but were leaders as well who took clubs and country to the pinnacles of success.

For all his goal-scoring prowess, that is not a part of the Sanchez legacy, and it keeps him (IMHO and with reluctance), from being included among the very best of the very best.

[comme]

What about Kopa, Platini, and Zidane in your view (I guess you're a french?)

No British actually, but I would put Platini first by a margin and then Zidane and Kopa close together.

I think Hugo Sanchez certainly challenges Ronaldo and Muller, I don't see how Romario or Van Basten can come ahead of Hugo Sanchez.

Sanchez? No way does he rival Ronaldo or Muller, or Romario or Van Basten. Sanchez was a very good player, but in his era I don't see him as being in a different class to Rush, Lineker, Careca, or Papin.

How on earth does he rival Muller?

[TKORL]

No British actually, but I would put Platini first by a margin and then Zidane and Kopa close together.



Sanchez? No way does he rival Ronaldo or Muller, or Romario or Van Basten. Sanchez was a very good player, but in his era I don't see him as being in a different class to Rush, Lineker, Careca, or Papin.

How on earth does he rival Muller?
He's a prolific goalscorer? About as prolific as Van Basten, Romario, and Ronaldo? But not Muller.

Never said he's better than Muller, but he's on the same level.

[TKORL]

I think the world of Hugol, and am eternally grateful for the standard he (and the likely path he blazed) for other players coming out of CONCACAF.

That said, his international record is nothing special (and I acknowledge that he played for Mexico before Mexico established itself as a capable side in World Cups). Further, even when you take into account his phenomenal scoring record at Real Madrid, it didn't translate into championships. Each of the four above not only scored buckets of goals, but were leaders as well who took clubs and country to the pinnacles of success.

For all his goal-scoring prowess, that is not a part of the Sanchez legacy, and it keeps him (IMHO and with reluctance), from being included among the very best of the very best.
I agree he doesn't have the international record, you answered your own question as well - the strength of his NT. I agree he doesn't have the accolades as the others. He may just not have performed too well at international standards, but its not necessary that it's a huge detraction either - eg, Messi and Ronaldo are in different modes for their NTs, but I'm not sure too many would use that against them.


As a goalscorer though, he's not better than Muller, but I think he challenges Van Basten and the others well.

[comme]

He's a prolific goalscorer? About as prolific as Van Basten, Romario, and Ronaldo? But not Muller.

Never said he's better than Muller, but he's on the same level.

Muller in league games scored 489 goals in 565 goals. At international level he scored 68 goals in 62 games. He scored 14 goals at the World Cup. He scored 66 goals in 74 games in European Competition.

Sanchez scored 397 goals in 694 games at club level (his wiki page says 488 goals but if you add up the club totals it comes to 397). He scored 29 goals in 75 games at international level. He scored 1 goal at the World Cup.

They are really leagues apart.

[JamesBH11]

No British actually, but I would put Platini first by a margin and then Zidane and Kopa close together.



Sanchez? No way does he rival Ronaldo or Muller, or Romario or Van Basten. Sanchez was a very good player, but in his era I don't see him as being in a different class to Rush, Lineker, Careca, or Papin.

How on earth does he rival Muller?
Like wise ... we share some common viewpoints of rating players ;)

For me, if we take Pele out of the contest of main striker, and if we disregard the "myth" of Leonidas (too old era), Ronaldo and Muller would be the leading names in that pool (include Puskas, Eusebio, Romario, Basten, ... blabla... )

Now, what you put in order for them: Puskas, Kocsis, Leonidas, Eusebio, Basten, Romario ?

===================================================
Like music industry, I think
the 60's (era) was the landmark of football (everything before that was just "myth and aspects of history").
The 70's was about formation and strategy evolution.
the 80's enlighten and confirmed defense also as important as attack
The 90's all about entertaining and perfection of overall football industry.

Therefore Pele (like the Beatles in music) would always be the best - nothing is absolute though! but they deserved so and its' SAFE to declare such.

===================================================

Back to topic, Platini and Zico were both genius but they were often overshadowed by Maradona's (same generation) combined with his successful WC86. Now, with the introduction of Zidane and Ronaldo who both had succeeded in WC and got full of adcolates and awards, it's made rating or ranking players becoming more subjective -

===================================================

[comme]

Like wise ... we share some common viewpoints of rating players ;)

For me, if we take Pele out of the contest of main striker, and if we disregard the "myth" of Leonidas (too old era), Ronaldo and Muller would be the leading names in that pool (include Puskas, Eusebio, Romario, Basten, ... blabla... )

Now, what you put in order for them: Puskas, Kocsis, Leonidas, Eusebio, Basten, Romario ?


Puskas, Ronaldo, Muller, Eusebio, Van Basten, Romario, Kocsis, Leonidas. Leonidas for me would be well back. There are lots of strikers I think that are ahead of him. Also I'd have Nordahl ahead of Kocsis.

[schwuppe]

Puskas, Ronaldo, Muller, Eusebio, Van Basten, Romario, Kocsis, Leonidas. Leonidas for me would be well back. There are lots of strikers I think that are ahead of him. Also I'd have Nordahl ahead of Kocsis.
Good list though Eusebio, Ronaldo and Müller are close and exchangeable.
(take a look at Eusebio's 67/68 league season - 1.75 GPG)
And I would rate Kocsis higher (maybe even ahead of Romario).

[JamesBH11]

Puskas, Ronaldo, Muller, Eusebio, Van Basten, Romario, Kocsis, Leonidas. Leonidas for me would be well back. There are lots of strikers I think that are ahead of him. Also I'd have Nordahl ahead of Kocsis.

Like I mentioned earlier, I did not really rate the 50's (and before) because :
1- lack of organization and depth
2- lack of proofs

So Leonidas, Puskas Nordahl, and Kocsis were apart, or If I have to make choices, I still rate Ronaldo and Muller higher than them all.

Ronaldo, Muller, Puskas, Leonidas, Eusebio, Romario, Van Basten, Nordahl,kocsis.

The reason I put Ronaldo ahead of Muller for his "Obvious skills in ball control + dribble". Muller was not even flashy as Eusebio, Romario and Basten, but his "THROROUGH" goal reacords (everywhere) was there to back him up!

For me, Romario was more skillful than Basten, and most of all his " COOLNESS" in big games and inside the box! I think Romario was abit underated (compared to Basten) for his return (too early) to Brazil league. However, he did at least FULFILLED his mission of scoring >1000goals career! I don;t think Basten could have score goals for "fun" like Romario did!

[schwuppe]

Like I mentioned earlier, I did not really rate the 50's becuase :
1- lack of organization and depth
2- lack of proofs

So Leonidas, Puskas Nordahl, and Kocsis were apart, or If I have to make choices, I still rate Ronaldo and Muller higher than them all.

Ronaldo, Muller, Puskas, Leonidas, Eusebio, Romario, Van Basten, Nordahl,kocsis.

The reason I put Ronaldo ahead of Muller for his "Obvious skills in ball control + dribble". Muller was not even flashy as Eusebio, Romario and Basten, but his "THROROUGH" goal reacords (everywhere) was there to back him up!
Eusebios scoring records are dead even (or even better) than Müller's though I can't tell how strong the Portugeuse league was in the 60s.

And remember: Kocsis scored 11 goals in 54 WC and 75g in 68a for the NT.
I'm pretty sure that's the best ratio EVER for someone with more than ~50 apps.

[JamesBH11]

Eusebios scoring records are dead even (or even better) than Müller's though I can't tell how strong the Portugeuse league was in the 60s.

And remember: Kocsis scored 11 goals in 54 WC and 75g in 68a for the NT.
I'm pretty sure that's the best ratio EVER for someone with more than ~50 apps.

Eusebio vs Muller:
- Eusebio topform at Benfica: 317goals/301games (16years: 1960-1975)
- Muller top form at Bayern: 398goals/453games (16years: 1964-1979)

Eusebio had better GPG, but Muller scored more goals in same number of years!
Now, Portugal league was best in #4,5 from 1960-1968 of TOP10 league in Europe, while Germany moved quick from #7,8 of TOP10 in to #1 from 1972 -1979 which coincide to Muller's top career. That's the DIFFERENCE!

Kocsis:
I mentioned in previous post, I did not rate football in the 50's highly (football in early days lacking of organization, support, technology, worldwide acceptance)! So Puskas and Kocsis was known for their legacy more than anything else.

Kocsis did amazing in WC54 with 11goals (and so did Juste Fontaine at WC58: 13goals) but Kocsis had a great team Hungary with many legends Ferenc Puskás, Zoltán Czibor, József Bozsik and Nándor Hidegkuti to support him (Hungary 54 was among greatest teams ever assembled in WC history along with Brazil70, Brazil58 and Holland74). Another deducted point for Kocsis was that he played for Hungary league (which we lacked of coordination in ranking and I am sure Hungary was not in the TOP5 best in Europe at thetime)

[schwuppe]

Eusebio vs Muller:
- Eusebio topform at Benfica: 317goals/301games (16years: 1960-1975)
- Muller top form at Bayern: 398goals/453games (16years: 1964-1979)

Eusebio had better GPG, but Muller scored more goals in same number of years!
Now, Portugal league was best in #4,5 from 1960-1968 of TOP10 league in Europe, while Germany moved quick from #7,8 of TOP10 in to #1 from 1972 -1979 which coincide to Muller's top career. That's the DIFFERENCE!
Ignoring the stats for a moment: I'd say Eusebio was more versatile than Müller who just scored goals and did far less for the game.

Müller might have been the better goal scorer, but Eusebio was the better football player overall (dribbling, speed etc).

Just read playing style describtions and watch some footage.
YouTube - Gerd Muller


Kocsis:
I mentioned in previous post, I did not rate football in the 50's highly (football in early days lacking of organization, support, technology, worldwide acceptance)! So Puskas and Kocsis was known for their legacy more than anything else.
Ok I'll accept that point of view. :)


Kocsis did amazing in WC54 with 11goals (and so did Juste Fontaine at WC58: 13goals) but Kocsis had a great team Hungary with many legends Ferenc Puskás, Zoltán Czibor, József Bozsik and Nándor Hidegkuti to support him (Hungary 54 was among greatest teams ever assembled in WC history along with Brazil70, Brazil58 and Holland74).
I don't think he should be punished for playing on one of the best teams of all-time. He played with a lot of all-time great and was arguably the 2nd best of them - that says a lot.

[comme]

I mentioned in previous post, I did not rate football in the 50's highly (football in early days lacking of organization, support, technology, worldwide acceptance)!


I don't disagree massively with your ordering but most of these arguments don't really hold up.

1. By the 50s football was well organised. UEFA was founded in 1954, the European Cup in 1955. There were many internationals to judge these players, and competitions like the Mitropa Cup as well at that stage.

2. Support certainly hasn't declined. There were over 100,000 at the 1960 European Cup final. If anything attendances have fallen since those days due to all-seater grounds, plus there were a lot less forms of entertainment).

3. Technology only supports those players. To have the technique of Puskas with the standard of balls, boots and pitches of the era is a phenomenal achievement.

4. The game was already massively popular and well played throughout Europe and S America. The changes in this respect against today are minimal.

Many highly respected pundits see the 50s as the golden age of the game.

[babaorum]

Ignoring the stats for a moment: I'd say Eusebio was more versatile than Müller who just scored goals and did far less for the game.

Müller might have been the better goal scorer, but Eusebio was the better football player overall (dribbling, speed etc).



I disagree with the way you describe Müller - he was actually much more than a goal-scorer as shown by the number of assists he made throughout his carreer. Gregoriak between some other posters could prove that point better than I do I think.
Eusebio certainly had a better dribbling and a superior speed however.

[621380]

Eusebios scoring records are dead even (or even better) than Müller's though I can't tell how strong the Portugeuse league was in the 60s.

And remember: Kocsis scored 11 goals in 54 WC and 75g in 68a for the NT.
I'm pretty sure that's the best ratio EVER for someone with more than ~50 apps.

kocsis goal per game rate is 1.10294 (75 goals in 68 games)
müller goal per game ratio is 1.09677 (68 goals in 62 games)

the difrence is minimal..

however if we put in perspective that müller wrongfully was recalled a legal goal in a worldcup final 1974 so we must take kocsis offiziel minimal advantage with a grain of salt..kocsis never has scored a goal in a wc final ..müller has scored 2 goals against netherland 1974, 1 goal count in his stats..

the portugeuse leaque no question was weaker than the german leaque....