in football, there are some presumptions based on "public polls" and they are usually used in discussions. are they really worthy to be used as an reliable or solid arguement?! is a public poll sufficient to demonstrate something?! I think no. as far as I understand, it is just "who is more selected" more than "who is better." imagine presidential elections, they do not choose best and they do not claim to have choosen the best, they just show the one who is most voted. Real Madrid was the team of the 20th century. many RM fans and non-RMfans will use it as arguement, as a proof they use the poll held by Fifa, after RM comes Manchester United as the second best club of the 20th centruy, ahead of Bayern Munchen. now, if this poll is enough to demonstrate RM was the best/greatest of 20th century, then that must also be enought to demonstrate that MU of 20th century had better/greater achievements than Bayern achieved in 20 th century, right?! MU vs BM: champions league winner : MU 2 (68, 99) times vs Bayern's 3 (3 in row between 74-76). total international (UEFA, intercontinental ande.t.c): MU 5 vs BM 6 UCL runner-up: MU 0 times vs Bayern's 3. (82, 87, 99) domestic league: MU 12 titles vs 16 of BM domestic cups (such as FA cup, carling cup): MU 25 vs BM 24 relegation to second division: MU was and BM was NOT relegated. and what about comparing MU vs Benfica: Benfica was champion 30 times of Portugal in 20th century compared to 12 of MU. 29 times were owner of domestic cups compared to 25 of MU. 2 times champion and 10 times were runner up in UCL, UEFA/CLUV WORLD CUP compared to 3 and 1 of MU. and then, relying upon the poll held by fifa, is it rational to deduce that in 20th century overall, MU was better than BM and Benfica?! if this is flaw, then this poll is not worthy to be used as an arguement. or am I wrong?! the same goes for any kind of ranking. Ballandor is not public but that is also not to be taken seriously and never was due to a poll based on SUBJECTIVE opinions of people rather than an objective criteria to measure the quality. Ballandor, WpoY, the poll in which Maradona was selected the player of the century, Player of the season, Club of the century and e.t.c all did not determine and demonstrate the best, showed the most voted only. they do not have a criteria to determine and measure the quality of a player/team, the player who won Ballandor is not the best player, just the most voted player. relying on such rankings, I can deduce that Messi was not best 4 times, CR7 was not best 3 times, they were just most voted 4 and 3 times respectively. Maradona was not the greatest player of 20th century, he was just the most voted player of the 20th century. Because there was no any explanation, any method which can be used to demonstrate that A is better than B. they were just most voted, not best, not greatest.