Cristiano ronaldo vs alfredo di stefano who is the greatest Real Madrid player of all time

Don’t mind at all. And yes, I stand by my convictions and believe there were superior Argentinian footballers in previous years. With the passing of time, Alfredo became the greatest Argentinian because his name resonated across two continents and that brought prestige to Argentinian football across the globe.

Once South American reporters of Jose Manuel Moreno’s or Antonio Sastre’s epoch had retired or moved on, newer generation journalists focused their attention to what was being proclaimed across the globe. For many Argentinians that boasted that Moreno was the greatest Argentinian of his generation, it was only fitting to compare him to the upcoming Brazilian ace of the 1960s (Pelé). But by the 1970s and 1980s that narrative had shifted to Di Stefano vs Pelé, aided by the younger generation of journalists and Europe’s influence in history books and polls. With Moreno almost forgotten, it was only fitting for Argentinians to harp onto Di Stefano’s image as their main representative in world football that could compete with Pelé as the title holder of “the greatest”.

Truth be told, ADS was never a prodigious talent, he made his way up the ranks, and frankly in the eyes of many that witnessed him and others in Argentinian football, he’d probably rank down the barrel when measured up to the former greats.

I’ve not give it a thorough thought and I’m undecided but the comparisons seem quite valid based on impact and legacy. But what are your reasons ?

 

ADS would have been rated higher by Argentinians if he had continued playing for Argentina like he did initially and not switch nationalities and end up playing with the Spanish NT

 

Di Stefano never competed against a competitive team like 2008-12 Barca(one of the greatest football squad ever) did he? Nor did Di Stefano have a rival like Messi. I have barely watched his games so I’m not gonna argue against Ronaldo this time. In terms of abilties, that’s a different case and I did say Di Stefano is probably more complete.

 

But there is no conclusive evidence that he would have been a starter for the NT or even would have continued to be given a spot. In 1947 at the age of 21 he alternated from bench player to starter for the squad because there was so much depth in the frontline.

And had he stayed in Argentina he wouldn’t have made the headlines in Europe and his historical world standing would have been non-existent, like so many Argentinian stars that have been overlooked.

 

“The most complete footballer in history”
I ain’t buying this statement. I doubt that ADS was more complete than players like Johan Cruijff, Frank Beckenbauer or even Pele.

 

Watch clips of Garrincha. That is some of the slowest movement you will ever see. He literally walks with the ball and stands still over top of it. He has all the time in the world. Defenders look ridiculous in those videos. He makes the slightest movement and they slide towards him then he jogs by... It's pathetic watching the majority of his highlights.

Having said that, it's impossible to compare across eras. In 50 years today's players will appear slow and less skilled. Evolution will always repeat this trend.

 

I couldn't disagree more. How bout instead of clips you go watch games. Garrinchas movements are incredibly quick even by today's standards. At the end of the day, dribbling like gatrincha is element of surprise. And I have seen players far less quick getting past defenders regularly. Look at zinedine Zidane. No agility at all! I have literally seen iniesta walking past defenders that are twice as fast as he is.
I don't know what the hell you are looking at. You need to go back and watch the videos. His fakes and element of surprise would beat defenders of today. And it's also important that you keep in mind that garrincha was regularly doubled team. Regularly! And he still succeeded. There aren't too many players in history who can say that. And don't act like there aren't limitations to the human body. You talk as if in 1000 years athletes will be functioning like 'the hulk'! When in reality over the last 2000 years humans haven't changed that much physically. Excluding substance use that is used in body building (so I'm talking all natural).
And what are you talking about less skilled??! Skills is a function of performing the same moves over and over. If anything skills and creativity will deteriorate (which I don't believe will happen) as kids are spending more time in doors with more distractions compared to kids back then who would play football from the time school was over until sun down! In addition, the introduction of more systems decreases creativity. There is a reason Brazilians are not as creative as they were in the 50s and 60s!
It's 2018 and we still categorize players as old as soon as they go past 30.

 

I think you missed my point. He could have played for Argentina while in Europe or during his Millonarios stint..
I heard the reasons he didn’t were political but I could be wrong..
He did win a copa America before he became famous and Balon D’or winner.

 

data on the performance of each player???

I would say tie at first look though.

 

How about some paragraph spacing in your posts? The wall of text is dizzying.

Anyways, the game will absolutely evolve as everything does. Player's will continue to improve in areas of athleticism and intelligence will evolve as well. Players will read the game quicker, more fluently, more direct. New skills will develop as well as techniques that will lead to styles of play that make today's players look pedestrian by comparison. Quickness is relative, when the game is that slow, if Garrincha even makes a half effort, it will appear to be a burst of speed. 18/24 year old Cristiano is light years quicker and more agile than Di Stefano and Garrincha....

Just think, future generations will have a Cristiano Ronaldo to inspire to be and imagine his level of athleticism and dedication becoming the norm rather than an outlier. That alone would do wonders for advancement in the speed and complexity of play. Just look at the evolution in athleticism from Di Stefano to Ronaldo. Di Stefano wan't executing a bicycle with his foot 8' 6" off the ground, or running 96 meters in 10 seconds etc. I highly doubt players in the 1950's were capable of 25 mph runs in the 80th minute of games as another example.

How many skill maneuvers or shooting, dribbling and passing techniques have been introduced between 1950 and 2018? You don't think this trend will continue? There will always be greats and the greats of every era will push the limitations of yesterdays generation to new boundaries previously unthinkable. The game will become more complex with more systems and new tactics will be employed and players will invent and reinvent movements that creates a unique modern style while the speed of play and intelligence continues to mature which will lead to looking back on today's play and it will appear elementary.

Messi is the best example of how modern advancements helped create a legend who in the 1950's would have never played a game due to lack of his necessary medical treatments. How can you possibly predict all the ways the game will or will not improve or how players will benefit over another 5 decades of progression? You need to stop reading into evolution in the literal scientific sense as if I am strictly speaking about advancements in capabilities of humans as a species. Just look at the evolution of the ball from the 50's to today. The material, weight, aerodynamics and on and on have helped to create trajectories and speeds impossible with the old leather balls. As players adapted they created new possibilities. This will always continue to manifest in many varieties that effect the game.

To simplify this, basically with every generation as the game becomes more and more statistics dominated, the baseline athleticism, skill and intelligence of the average player will increase which will in turn raise the bar for greatness. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. This is commonplace in life, I see you are very nostalgic though so it explains your argument.

 

The usual by then, was, only local based footballers played in the National Team, even for European teams. A non-written rule.

Since the 80s, NT started to used players from foreign leagues.

 

As msioux75 pointed out, he would not have been called up playing abroad, Argentina only used local based players.

The 1947 CA was a stacked team, argued as one of the greatest Albiceleste teams assembled, they had the luxury of bringing him off the bench.

 

I didnt know that was the case.. Cubillas played in Basel and Porto while playing for Peru and winning the Copa America in 75.
Non-written rule means more like you had the option to choose

 

Wow.. he was bench?
Impressive to score 6 goals coming off the bench in the, the most by any Argentinian player in the tournament.

 

Some reasons behind non-written rules to "repatriate players", were:
- Long-time travels (no supersonic Jets, Train, etc)
- Better understanding between local based players (training, friendlies, etc).
- Many superstars still playing in their own countries.

 

He alternated, sometimes starter, sometimes bench. It was a team that scored 28 goals in 7 games. He and Méndez combined to score 6 a piece.

 

I agreed that Ronaldo had an actual and better rival in Messi.

However, Di stefano did not play in an era without good team. Somebody already mentioned the famous Barcelona side of the 1950's that consisted of Luis Suarez, Kubala, etc. This team was just overshadowed by Di Stefano. Real Madrid also played an ageing Gre-No-Li of AC Milan. In 1957, Real madrid played a young Busby Babes in the semifinal. Sivori and John Charles also joined force at the peak of Di Stefano's Real Madrid

 

Yeah it is very difficult to compare 60-70 years apart, very different dynamics etc. I'll return to this question later. Just to let you know I don't ignore or forget it.

 

What the hell are you talking about????
Football is a simple game. There is nothing that Barcelona 08-12 did in terms of skills or complication of moves that couldn't be done in 1955. As a matter of fact the reason Barcelona was so good is because they kept the game so simple. No longer where the doing outrageous tricks like those from Ronaldinho and deco. Xavi, iniesta, Messi, busquets and etcetera kept it so simple that even the Brazil teams of the 1950s and 60s were doing more elaborate things on the field.

There are no skills, passes, or techniques used by the Barcelona or Spain of modern day that dominated everybody that were not replicated in the 50s and 60s.

If players and the game are becoming so much better than please explain to me the downfall of countries like holland and Brazil????

I really don't think you have watched games of the 50s and 60s. I would rather watch the France and Sweden of the 1958 WC than the modern day teams BECAUSE of their skills and technique and decision making that wasn't on display in a World Cup over 50 years later (2018)!!!

You don't seem like a someone that grasps the true essence of football. You sound like Colin Cowherd from the American sports radio show who says he will always choose the more athletic player in any sport. A typical American who only watches football every 4 years during the World Cup and makes such conclusions because he has no comprehension of the game. I don't give a damn how fast players like Theo welcott, bale, and other extremely fast players run. I don't give a damn how fast players run the 40 meter. In a game of soccer anticipation beats speed. Because as johan cruyff said speed of thought is a result of how fast you think not how fast you run.

And it's a joke about how you say that I AM reading too much into evolution!!! You sound like a scientist who has never watched a game in his life. I am taking about the game of football. I read your post and you are referring to things like 'the aerodynamics of the ball', '96 meters in 10 seconds', 'modern advancements'.

My judgements have nothing to do with nostalgia. I don't judge players any higher because they played in the past or modern day. I judge players for what they did and how they performed in their day. Plain and simple.

 

You are missing the point about athleticism. I am obviously talking in tandem with the other necessary attributes such as vision, control, movement, anticipation, intelligence and god given skill..etc. etc. You are jumping to the conclusion that I am saying that any great athletic specimen would make a great soccer player. I am saying that great soccer players who have supreme athletic ability will only raise the standard of pay.

Consider that without Cristiano's sheer determination and dedication to his body perhaps he has a nice 5 year peak as one of the greatest wingers of all-time rather than being a freak with a 12 year run as one of the two best players in the world where he was able to make multiple transitions to his game and has won absolutely everything multiple times outside of a World Cup. Players today are amazed by his personal commitment, in the 1950's it wouldn't even have been conceivable. Nobody trained that intense, for that long, and no thought was widely given to strict dietary habits or the utter abstention from alcohol, tobacco and other toxins.

Cristiano has similar knee problems that forced Ronaldo Fenomeno into retirement. He obviously lacked Cristiano's will and work ethic. Which is another point about advancements, with each generation sports medicine will continue to bring players back from injuries faster keeping them on the field longer. Some injuries that used to end player's careers are now a month long process before they are playing again. This will obviously raise the standard of play as better players are able to play more and have longer careers with longer peaks.

Quite naturally, players will continue to progress and kids who idolize Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar etc. will mature and take from their skills and mix them with their own inventiveness and again, create their own unique modern styles that will perhaps make players today look primitive skill-wise. It's just natural progression.

Garrincha and Di Stefano had great control and it was very effective dribbling for their time. Can you really deny that in comparison to a young Cristiano or Neymar for example that their moves look rudimentary? They didn't have an arsenal of skill moves they were performing. Most of the moves that the creative dribblers use today weren't in existence in the 1950's. This is undeniable fact and we have videographic evidence to this.

Lastly, Barcelona was not "simple"....They had a collection of the best control dribblers and possession/penetrating passers in the world along with great defenders and the best attacking RB in the world plus Messi. They kept their shape and organization while imposing their will on teams who were clueless how to defend against them as they completed 600/700 passes a game. It took years for the world to catch up. Now teams can successfully play against them without full-on desperation outside of Liga minnows. After some progression.....

 

Yeah I agree it are small differences and not really decided tbh. With the passage of time there's probably a clearer perception on 'impact'.

While Real Madrid their early history is more glaring, I think it's underestimated in which state Real Madrid found itself when Cristiano Ronaldo entered the club.

Yes, you can point out to the vast investments made and that things were improving (Perez overhauled the whole organization, including the staff, improvements in diet etc. - he used his network, simply put), but that also applies to 1950s Real Madrid.

This 1950s Real Madrid gradually maneuvered itself into a position of a monopoly (tangible fact: they were by the late 1950s the only Spanish club to be allowed more than 25 players under contract, amidst some other exemptions, in particular the process of naturalization/Oriundi); the 2010s were at least a full-blown duopoly rather than a monopoly, or a gradual trajectory to monopolization.

For six seasons in a row Real Madrid did not progress past the round of 16 in the Champions League. That is Arsenal level. In the two decades prior to Ronaldo his arrival, they won 'only' six league titles. The majority of those league titles had, funnily, a Barcelona or Ajax product as their main driving force (or: main playmaker) in midfield. That's a reasonable proposition at least.

Of course Real Madrid had a great history when Ronaldo entered, but in some ways it is underestimated how underperforming they were.

It is difficult (impossible...) to come to a precise weighing and formula but feel that a lot of the things that can be raised 'against' the one also applies to the other.

The things in favor is where we see some differences.

Di Stefano certainly the more rounded player (though you gave some insight into how he concealed possible weaknesses) but looking at how strong Real Madrid was when ADS was way past his prime or when ADS was gone it's well possible CR7 his impact was no less. Statistical measurements show him up there with the other double BdO winners...

 

Yes, the argument that Alfredo was the most complete or first total footballer is a specious one and in reality (based on the opinion of many of those that were with him) was technically not complete, relatively weak in the aerial game and in his beginnings weak with his weaker foot and only had one profile: to his right. All of that improved over time but was not necessarily mastered.

I believe his legend grew stronger with the passing of time and some of his bad habits, like his bad temperament on the field, was shoved aside to wash away many of his blemishes (as was the case with Pelé).

For those that argue (mostly on myths and legends of encyclopedia history books that recycle and repeat what previous writers published) that he was a complete player, I’d challenge some of it, based on what I’ve stated above. Was he well rounded? Certainly improved over time to become it. Did he become a totall all outfield player ? Yes, but some of it is probably exaggerated.

Cristiano is not technically a specialist in any category (neither was Di Stefano) but he’s a complete offensive forward. These players probably would have been different had they been one. Their incredible physical athleticism was/is one of their primary natural advantages.

In some ways they are similar: their greatest strengths being their discipline and dedication to always want to improve, despite their natural technical limitations.

 

I doubt he was more complete than Cruijff.

 

Probably a matter of definition. Some people define 'complete' as in complete technique, being able to do everything to a high standard. In this case, Pele is probably the most complete.

Some define it more as a matter of function. A complete player is someone who's heavily involved in all aspect of the game, which is why you usually hear people describe someone like Lampard as being a complete player, even if technically he wasn't the best. Alfredo Di Stefano probably gets rated very highly by this definition.

 

Main difference is Lampard was not a prolific scorer and Di Stefano was - he won 5 pichichi awards..

From wiki:
Di Stéfano's 49 goals in 58 matches was for decades the all-time highest tally in the European Cup. It has since been surpassed by six players, initially Real Madrid's Raúl in 2005 and most recently by Cristiano Ronaldo in 2014 and Karim Benzema in 2016.

Di Stéfano scored in five consecutive European Cup finals for Real Madrid between 1956 and 1960, including a hat-trick in the last.