Best football players of all time

Yeah, if you'd like Puck (I think you do like posting these things in general don't you) you could post a few interesting one. Thanks for the offer. Right now I probably don';t have specific requests but I'll let you know if I do of course.

 

Maybe it is a good idea to post the one of Ronaldo (who they placed 6th, perhaps a bit higher than usual)? The one on Cruijff is also a good one.
I will try the one of ronaldo in stages

 

Some parts of the Zidane one too I think now.

 

Yes, I agree those symbols are also meant as a bit of fun and a wink but I remember in their 'greatest club teams' list the higher ranked teams had more symbols applied. I don't remember those symbols but vaguely I remember they had one for "team included world's best player" and one for "groundbreaking tactics", "overdelivered", "set records" and one for "set the quality bar higher".

Think this is also a bit of a catch-22 situation. If they put Pelé at #1 then it is easy to think "oh, his three world titles already define the parameters of the discussion". If they 'downgrade' him to #3 or #4, thus deviate from the common wisdom, then Twitter explodes.

Also with team sports that are played with 5 instead of 11 (= more emphasis on the all-round individual) we see very often "rings are all that matter", which then becomes quickly shoved aside at another occasion when another star player has four more.

I think the VI list (FFT list) already looks a lot better when the players are placed in the correct timeframe, or viewed in adjacent timeframes (i.e. 2000 - 2010 + 2005 to 2015 taken together whereas comparing Zidane's time with Garrincha his time is very, very hard; the primary argument against Zidane is always his consistency but this really also applies to Garrincha imho).

Personally I really liked those Bortolatti articles as posted here.
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/best-football-players-of-all-time.2011432/page-35#post-35676767

 

Yeah, I could see how it could happen, particularly once a few prominent lists look quite similar. Interesting to compare the results based on a few 'experts' or journalists compiling something, as contrasted with a fan poll, but the latter might always tend to appear quite 'of the moment' with quite a lot of recently/currently active players included, even if occasionally some might be overlooked in favour of legends who are fully proven and with a full career to appreciate so maybe the ones playing great a few years before the poll as opposed to peaking around the time of the poll will do better.

 

The first stage would be a list of names. With pre-agreed allocation by country and by era. Also with a minimum number of goalkeepers and defenders.

Here is a first draft of what the allocation might look like, assuming 100 players. Numbers in brackets show FourFourTwo's allocation.

Brazil 14 (16)
Argentina 10 (10)
Germany 10 (10)
Italy 10 (13)
British Isles 9, including 3 pre-1914. (12, with none pre-1914)
Netherlands 7 (6)
France 5 (5)
Spain 5 (4)
Uruguay 5 (3)
Portugal 3 (3)
Eastern Europe 10 (10)
Other Western Europe 6 (6)
Other Latin America 5 (2)
Rest of World 1 (0)

16 Brazilians would mean one in six of the greatest players has been Brazilian, which seems too many.

Now by era:

1870-1914: 3 (0)
1915-49: 17 (8)
1950-69: 28 (36)
1970-89: 22 (27)
1990-2009: 22 (23)
2010-17: 8 (6)

Proposed minimum 9 goalkeepers and 17 defenders. (FFT had 6 goalkeepers and 14 defenders.)

200 players might be more interesting than 100, in which case all these numbers would be doubled.

Main criterion would be impact on own era. Building a credible international list would need input from as many posters as possible from around the world, with all opinions being respected and entering the mix. The views of posters concerning players from their own country would be especially encouraged.

The exercise would be managed by one of the moderators (comme?) to keep things on track and prevent old arguments from other threads slowing down the process. Marginal choices and the final order could be decided by voting.

Of course there will be disagreements along the way, but in the end it should be possible to come up with a comprehensive, credible list.

 

Yes, I actually think a lot of the jounalists (with some exceptions to a certain extent and perhaps including Marcotti especially for Serie A) would be much better on the current game than on history, understandably really. But nevertheless yes it does make sense what Smith says and that was probably always the case I guess.

Danny Taylor might justifiably feel he could make a comparably good all-time list for Nottingham Forest as I could though (he has written some books about ex Forest legends). But he might have a bout as much idea of an all-time 100 from football history as I'd have of a top 100 La Liga players 2016/17 (not enough to make a decent attempt).

Yeah, I think we made different lists really (in concept) as mine would have been more at home on a PES ladder thread or something maybe (though any attempt I have in my head of late might be slightly more geared to including consideration of consistency, bonuses for greatness on certain stages etc), wheras your list might at least be within range of what peterhrt is suggesting, if not structured so deliberately. But yes any two football history enthusiasts with decent knowledge and time spent looking into the subject using books, videos, online pieces etc etc, will likely have a number of differences in any attempt (which is why the FFT and VI lists strike us as very similar I think - along with the fact that blocks of players seemed clustered together in the same order as you alluded to) and IIRC the lists of you and Peru FC had a reasonable amount of different selections still, even if a good amount of the same names too (not 100% sure but maybe his very first attempts might have looked slightly more like mine, but he later might have had more of an even spread over eras etc - I know he always had some old players, possibly Leonidas and suchlike included, though).

 

So leaving out biographical elements it would become something like this;


Devilish genius

Wandering shrewdly through the lines of opposing troops, the technique verging on near-perfection by which there is all the time to search for openings, the acceleration and slowing down when the game demands it. Zinedine Zidane was interchangeably the best, on another moment the most beautiful and sometimes ugliest player of his generation.

"I derailed and regret what I did. I felt aggrieved, made as a fool and I reacted in a very bad fashion." He meant what he said, on 18 september 1993... Zinedine Yazid Zidane played for Girondins Bordeaux and collapsed under pressure in the top game against Olympique Marseille. So he admitted himself to his own collapse. Marcel Desailly, his later loyal and dependable team mate at the French national team, had taunted him to such a level that he paid the price with a fist blow in his face. With a blacked eye and two stitches as souvenir. But he had learned from the episode, knew Zidane with absolute certainty. "From now on I take my responsibility."
But another twelve red cards later - eventually he would collect more as for example the infamous horror defender Vinnie Jones - he showed to be on one of the most important moments in his career the same gunpowder keg as the 22-years old talent he formerly was.
[...]
Zidane harvested a lot of understanding with the explanation in France, and got the hands on each other again when he was (surprisingly) declared Player of the Tournament. But whether Enrico Chiesa (fistblow), Thorsten Fink (slap), Jochen Kientz (headbutt), Djalminha (dead shovel) and the others deserved the same treatment...

At the same time Zizou remains a player who lives on in the memory for his occasional moments that makes you think about a genius. The specific first touch with which he immediately wrong-footed world class players, the pirouette with the ball, the powerful headers with which he guided his country to the world title at home, his golden goal in the semi final of Euro 2000 against Portugal on the road to the career-defining European Championship, that characteristic head with that eternal drop of sweat under his chin, and especially for the socios the half bicycle kick in the Champions League final of 2002 that ended with deadly precision in the top left corner and brought Real Madrid the famed European Cup; how can an amateur fancier of football not love this player? Compared to this the spoiled comeback at the world championships in Germany falls in the nothing?
In Madrid the adoration becomes only bigger now Zidane also grabs as a coach trophy after trophy - nearly more successful than he was as a club player. Yet despite the presence of Cristiano Ronaldo, Luka Modric, Gareth Bale and the others the fans remain thinking the most about the player Zidane. Such as Mesut Ozil does nowadays, who between 2010 and 2013 donned himself in the white shirt and was sometimes compared with Zizou. For the German it was the highest honor: "Zidane was naturally the most perfect player I have seen. His technique, his shots and headers, the way he bent and brought matches to his hands; everything was fantastic about him."



@PDG1978

Maybe you have ideas? What consideration did they forget? Correct representation? Misrepresentation?

 

Seems reasonable, if arguably a bit too skewed towards the sendings off etc (proportionally - but if they had elaborated further I guess it would be to add other positive memories and observations which they already hinted at).

Vinny Jones was a midfielder, but of course that doesn't change the point they make.

 

If that's true then maybe it has also relevance for Zidane's often contested standing because he played/peaked on the breakline when the World Cup/euros took a step back, when it intersected with the Champions League. Likewise, his occasional fading became more jarring to the eye.

At the same time, also in older lists I notice a tendency where 40-50% of the top 25 did not show their best (or weren't even there, like Di Stefano, like Best) at the World Cup level.

That wisdom becomes wrongly/corrected entrenched is partly certainly true. From Keegan's/Rummenigge's low standing (as early as the 1984 FF list) to Cruijff already being mentioned up there with Pelé and Di Stefano at the write-up for the 1971 Ballon d'Or. I'll receive in the coming weeks the 1973 Ballon d'Or issue with comments by the way.

Yes I agree with this. At the lower regions there are some oddities that need to be cancelled out. FourFourTwo might have taken an additional look at that. At the higher regions (and I'm not meaning Carlos Alberto in the top 30 because there are reasonable arguments for this) I was most flabbergasted by some texts - such as the Che Guevara comparison (maybe I've a black hole in my brain here though, but some of those suggestions as giving extra points for 'flawed genius' would be contested). Sometimes it is also good though to highlight some of the more forgotten players or mention it's not exactly true Paolo Rossi was a one tournament wonder (and a poacher).

 

Hmmm yes. Also interesting idea that maybe not every period is as strong/deep.

Kempes was 48th in the VI list whereas Rossi was 29th. That is a small difference and following your own logic on Rummenigge vs Zico/Platini; Rossi had two superb tournaments and Kempes one. There are also some other small differences such as that Rossi was EC topscorer and EC winner (plus finalist) and Kempes was kind of done at the age of 25. Perhaps Rossi was also a bit more pleasing to the eye in his 1978 incarnation or non poacher incarnation.
At the same time some aspects have an influence on Rossi in these lists of which it is arguable whether that should count (i.e. his comeback story).

For Bettega the same counts. He had one good tournament whereas Rossi had two - with Rossi's most famous tournament as more iconic as Bettega in 1978. Bettega has the more consistent club career but Rossi the more artifacts to show for a higher peak (maybe not completely true). Those individual peaks suggest the innate quality. Rossi his first and last Ballon d'Or mention was 6 years apart whereas Bettega's was 3 years apart (with Rossi his best finish being better; his 2nd best finish being better as Bettega's 2nd best and the third best also better - with the voter dynamics of that time I look at this in this manner). Often @PDG1978 has also a good take on this. Also here I think Rossi had perhaps the more pleasing/elegant style, which also helped him to garner a world record fee.

Anyway, I hope it is appreciated that (in stages) I try to show a few of the considerations or awareness, gaps in awareness, that VI had.

 

The one on Ronaldo (#6) and Cruijff (#3) are three times as long as the piece on Zidane (#8) but I'll try and show some of the things. Cristiano Ronaldo (at #7) is also three times as long.

So let's start with Cruijff.

"He was a South American"

The footballer Johan Cruijff is an absolute highness in Amsterdam and Barcelona. But how does the rest of the world think about him? Foreign football connoisseurs provide the answer.

On thursday 24 march 2016, the day Johan Cruijff passes away, it rains salutes. "A legend has departed, this is very sad. A lot of what Barcelona has achieved in recent years is down to him", says no other than Lionel Messi against his own people. "We will never forget you, Flaco", reports Diego Maradona. Pelé speaks of "an enormous player with a very important legacy." Franz Beckenbauer of "for me without doubt the best footballer Europe has ever produced."
Maybe the most beautiful and meaningful tribute comes from Michel Platini, because it is so personal. As thirteen years old boy he saw on march 1969 for the first time a game of Ajax on television, the quarter final of the European Cup against Benfica. Ajax won with 3-0, Cruijff made such an overwhelming impression on him that he became instantly his youth idol. "I truly admire him," thus says Platini. "He was the very best player I have seen in my lifetime."
For Platini it is clear: Cruijff was and is his number one. Most probably he still is. We place him on number three, after Messi and Maradona, but ahead of Pelé and Di Stefano as the only European player in the otherwise South American colored top five. Still there is curiosity and skepticism among us. Would they abroad also allocate this exceptionally high position to him? Or are at other continents other players really that much greater, and troubles chauvinism our sight? We Hollanders have from time to time the tendency to overestimate ourselves; not too long ago 'we' sent the most dubious acts to the Eurovision Song Contest. There is only one solution: an acid test.

Australia

At the other side of the world, in Melbourne, Roy Hay puts immediately his work down when he's asked about the best footballers in history. "Otherwise all the puzzling would run away with me."
About Johan Cruijff the co-author of the book 'A History of Football in Australia' doesn't need to think that long. "Many Australians of the older generations, especially the immigrants from Europe, remember the Johan Cruijff from Ajax and the national team as an intelligent leader with the presence of a true superstar. In the appreciation he stands probably just a tiny tray lower than Pelé and Maradona. Say on equal level with Di Stefano and Puskas." Hay remembers he saw the Cruyff-turn happening in the game Netherlands-Sweden in 1974, the cutback behind the standing leg that is remarkably abroad more famous than in the Netherlands itself. "Unforgettable," he says on this, just as his attempts to master other effective moves. "Until it saw me bleeding, there were maybe five different Cruyff moves. People would just get confused to name them all 'Cruyff'."

.............

To be continued.

 

North America

The United States, another big land where football isn't the national sport. There the name Johan Cruijff is presumably known primarily among older Americans who saw him at the end of the 1970s, early 1980s at work in the North American Soccer League.
It turns out this isn't entirely true. Grant Wahl is 42 years old, senior writer of 'Sports Illustrated' and writer of the book 'the Beckham experiment', and likes to watch archival videos of Cruijff very often. "Those from him time in the United States are the most enjoyable, because he was that much better than all others who played there. He made extraordinary goals."
It is a period that has been largely passed by and ignored in the Netherlands, but clearly not in North America. "In the USA he is perceived as one of the very best players ever," says Wahl. "Most people would place him in their top five." Himself would put him at three, behind Pelé and Messi. "Cruijff has redefined football. Not only how we play it, on the field, but also how we watch it and along which lines we think about it. There are very few sports figures who can say this."

South America

It becomes time for real tests. South America, the football continent. We start in Chile, about which Cruijff was so praising during the World Cup of 2010, much more than Orange or Spain that reached the final. The charm is mutual. "He is one of the very greatest players ever," says dr. David Rodriguez of the Finis Terrea university, football connoisseur from Santiago. "Everyone has that opinion in our country, no brainer. Fast, technical, smart, goal-oriented; monstrously good. He deserved to win the 1974 World Cup and in 1978 too, if he had participated." Also he places Cruijff on number three in his top ten, ahead of Messi. Ahead of Messi?? "But of course! Cruijff was a genius player, with an aura and surrealistically intelligent, who allowed everyone around him to play much better. Messi misses this charisma and also the exceptional intelligence. He is technically extremely gifted, no doubt, but if the pressure on his shoulders becomes high, you don't see his biblical self. At his national team it never succeeded him to tow the team forward, and let them play above their usual self. Cruijff was that leader and saw the most dire circumstances."

"A complete player, in almost all aspects brilliant," adds the Argentine football historian Esteban Bekerman from Buenos Aires on Johan Cruijff. Rather than Diego Maradona, he prefers to compare him with José Manuel Moreno and Antonio Sastre, the Argentinean star players from the 1930s and 1940s. "Cruijff proceeded and moved forward a playing style that Sastre and Moreno had imposed on South America. He was so versatile that he was capable to grind through an attack in midfield, and then provide a finish as center forward." Bekerman puts Cruijff also on third place, as only European in his top ten. What is even more telling, the more so since it is an Argentine: one place above Messi.

For a moment we think nobody can surpass this bizarre stream of compliments. Until Andreas Campomar calls back. Historian, boss of a publisher in London and writer of 'Golazo! A history of Latin American Football'. His roots are in Uruguay; he is family of Enrique Buero, the vice-chairman of FIFA who stood in the 1920s with Jules Rimet at the foundation of the world championships in football. "Whether Cruijff is overrated, you ask me? What a ridiculous question. No, he is more often than not underrated! People forget how good he actually was. He did it his own way and stayed true to his beliefs." He drops a short silence, as if he wants to add extra force to his words. "Johan Cruijff embodied the spirit of South America. He played as a South American, in the way the people there wanted it to be played. With flair and superior control of the ball. In Cruijff the Uruguayans saw themselves reflected. That was quite strange; Northern Europeans weren't known at all for this type of play. Cruijff was different. If you saw him play, you could imagine a South American head on his body. He had sometimes also a South American passion inside him." He is the only European player in his top ten, but adds Best at 7th and Puskas at 10th when we notice.

Campomar speaks with astonishing bewilderment about 15 june 1974, the World Cup game Netherlands-Uruguay. "The Netherlands, a haphazard collection of eleven provinces, won with 2-0. It should have been 5-0. The old masters of football, Uruguay, olympic champion in 1924 and 1928, world champion in 1930 and 1950, against the new master: the Netherlands. Primarily because of Cruijff the Uruguayan team looked immediately hopelessly outdated. He was the conductor, as the writer Eduardo Galeano called him. He orchestrated the team, as is also true for the decades after."

In the country of the five times world champion (say this loud again) they recognize the benchmark. "Johan Cruijff is the demarcation line between the past and the future, between the football of the past and the football of today," says Paulo Vinicius Coelho from Brazil. He is commentator for ESPN and Radio Globo and presents a weekly television programme about football tactics. He has seen all World Cup matches from 1974 back. Not once, but very often. "Because it is knowledge, football knowledge. His liveliness, his leadership and capacity to play in starkly different roles." PVC, as his countrymen call him, is also specialized in lists. Once he redacted a book on the 100 best Brazilian players ever. "In Brazil we regard Cruijff as one of the five best players in history. For some of my countrymen it is tempting to place fifteen Brazilians in the top twenty, but that wouldn't do right justice towards Cruijff." He adds strength to his words with his personal top ten. Cruijff is on place four, after Pelé, Maradona and Messi, but way ahead of Romario and Garrincha. "It is difficult to rank, but as a complete football personality, from coach to designer there is no contest."

-------------

Part 3 (and final part) next. Will do the same for Ronaldo at #6.

 

I think lists are overdone at this point. It's fun to do, and for starting debates, but people tend to get too butthurt about them, partially because many of them aren't very well done.

I think a more interesting thing to do would be, without ranking, making profiles of the 200 greatest players of all time. I'm thinking like an Football Manager profile page. It'll not just be the achievements and a write up of the players, but numerical ratings and traits of the players.

This way, instead of ranking players as so many have done before, the profiles will be useful for depicting what the players were actually like. I think this is less common and possibly even more useful. When new fans ask, what type of player was Denis Law or Blokhin or Figueroa or Cafu or Neeskens, all they have going for them are some small descriptions and rare footage. A place where they can see study about how these players actually played on the field. What they were good at, what they were bad at. What tendencies did they have on the field? What position/role did they play/most comfortable at playing. etc.

 

Europe

A walk along Australia and the Americas has confirmed: Johan Cruijff is almost unanimously considered as the best European footballer ever, and in a plurality of cases as third overall. Are there in Europe maybe also countries where they think different? In Poland for example? That was in the time of Cruijff yet a different world, hidden behind the iron curtain.

Not really, it shows. “You can genuinely seperate the history of the sport in two parts,” says the Polish sport journalist Dariusz Kurowski. “Before Cruijff and after Cruijff, five decades long. He was the hero of a new age.”

That new age knows a pinnacle in the summer of 1974, the world championships where an impressive Polish team became third. It was one of the few times the Eastern Bloc was given a consistent glimpse of Cruijff on television. He left an indelible impression behind. “Cruijff posssessed an unique blend of incredible intelligence and fantastic technical capabilities. He was also more than just a world class player. A personality in the good sense of the word, the first real celebrity. Even his manner of celebrating a goal was different in style.”


Italy then maybe? “He has never played in our Serie A,” tags sport historian Marco Impiglia immediately, slightly admonitory. “Despite this he was always regarded as one of the very best players.”

Even on the football in Italy, not really a stronghold of the attacking play, he has had from time to time tangible influences. “A top manager as Fulvio Bernardini admired him a lot. When he got charge of the Italian national team, soon after the World Cup of 1974, he took Cruijff's understanding as example of the rebuilding of the Azzuri. His successor Enzo Bearzot was a disciple of him, and the fourth place of 1978 and the world title of 1982 are to a certain extent traced back to the lessons of Cruijff through the years. The changes of the league during the late 1980s subsequently showed this wasn't a one off.”

Impaglia remembers well how he and his team mates of the school football team were completely mad about him. “As soon as we arrived, we all fought for the shirt with number 14. Previously an unfancied substitute number.”

There is one doubtful instance left: Madrid. There they might react coolly on the hero of the often despised Barcelona? “Cruijff has never been a Madridista, but he is also greatly respected there,” knows writer and journalist Edwin Winkels, who has been living for over 30 years among the Spaniards in Madrid and Barcelona. “Certainly by people as homegrown icon Emilio Butragueno, and not the least chairman Fiorentino Perez himself. Previously Real Madrid dominated Spain in the way Bayern wins once in two years the domestic championship. As a player he made in the whole of Spain a strong impression, certainly a lot more as the great Maradona later ever did. He was the great foreign star on the warfields of the 1970s.”

[… below, in the Pelé article ...]

[Many ex-players find Pelé the best, some Di Stefano etc.] Cruijf himself was always reluctant to pinpoint 'the best player ever', and provide an all-time XI ever, but in the last years of his life it appeared as if he was leaning towards Pelé and Messi, if he was ever forced to make a defined choice.

-------

Ronaldo is as I said probably also interesting to show, because he was placed so high (at #6).

 

I was thinking a profile like the one below, but obviously far less bells and whistles, to go along with the usual list of achievements and write up. Also, more detailed ratings (eg. distinction between short and long passes, scoring and passing freekicks, shooting accuracy, power, and technique, finding space during buildup and finding space in final third, etc)

 

So I'll again leave out the biographical elements, also because not too long ago some other things have been placed and that would be superfluous.

The fragile phenomenon

History knows thankgod not one, but two Ronaldo's. Two fantastic footballers, where the class is trickling from their haircuts. Nonetheless the Brazilian is more popular than the Portuguese, because more pleasure and less mannerisms. According to the adepts there is only one real Ronaldo.

[...]

Ronaldo is on this evening in Rome 23 years old. Abundantly praised for his class, highly valued for his goals, known too for the individual accolades. Yet this evening, when he meets a second heavy knee injury in a few months time, turns out to be determinative for his career and the memory he leaves behind. Il Fenomeno shall be a different one after this evening.

[...]

So Ronaldo arrives as his [Romario] successor. And the comparison is made again and again by the international press. Boring Ronaldo himself, who remarks at his arrival in the Netherlands immediately on a press conference - seventeen years old - that he is someone else. Different in his game, different in his character. The often wayward Romario knows in Ronaldo his counterpart. Everywhere he comes they see the broad smile that reveals his trademark split between his teeth. He does simply what he likes the most: playing football.

[...]

His game is not typically Brazilian, sometimes his movements even looked edgy with those feet pointing outwards, but always it is snappy: pace combined with technique. His way of playing isn't founded on hours of training, not polished by repetition on repetition. The class of Ronaldo is the consequence of intuition, driven by joy, partially cultivated on the streets of Rio de Janeiro. "Football and scoring goals was for him making joy. At the various teams he played you had not the idea he necessarily wanted to win - always," says interpreter and team mate Valckx. "In this he was completely different from Romario. He always wanted to win, score 1000 goals, collect minor and big prizes, wanted to be the alpha male and take first round opportunities to grab the European Cup topscorer title."
His play is characterized by fast footwork and body feints. With the ball at his feet he has massive acceleration in his legs. And just then - on the limit of a movement, his body seemingly off balance - is he at his most dangerous. No defender dares to step in; Ronaldo can give his action and the ball at the maximum of the moment yet a different swerve. He has a hard shot on top. And with this - dangerous far away and close to goal - he becomes inimitable.

"After I had played for three months with Ronaldo, I had the idea he would become better than Romario if he wasn't already past this stage," says Valckx. "On this young age he was already so fast, so technically adequate, very goal oriented instead of dwelling in midfield, but also physically already very strong. That was a special sight. When Ronaldo was with the ball, he formed a danger from anywhere. Also on his own half. Then he had rushes from thirty, forty or fifty meters. From nothing he could create something tiny. Romario was capable of doing that too of course, but was generally dangerous a lot closer towards goal, was more dependable on the quality of the supply lines and quality of the passes towards him. Romario had in turn a bit more finesse in the small spaces, instead of the occasional rougher edges and soldering. At club level he is maybe the best footballer I have played with. Ronaldo the one with the most distinctive playing style."
[...]
"I follow the shortest route towards goal, I am thereto dominated by what my feet want. What happens, I don't know either. It is an interplay between the ball and me. If it is with a stepover, good, if it is just sprinting past a midfielder... works too." Just as so many professionals, it is a trait he maintained throughout his career.

------

This was part 1. To be continued with part 2 (the final part).