For a while I'm trying to do a top 100 of the best football players of all-time and as is very common I have many doubts about many comparisons which I'll solve subjectively, however, there are some cases that are somewhat incomprehensible to me despite having decent knowledge about the players in question. One involves the 3 players mentioned in the thread title (Rivelino, George Best and Ronaldinho), who are sure incomes in the list but with very debatable positions in my opinion, especially considering them from the point of view of the last and still an active player. Visiting many rankings and considering many opinions I've the feeling that Best is the highest considered from 3, commonly in the top 20 with a rather impressive slogan: "the most brilliant British player in history", acclaimed for his graceful technique and remembered as a very popular character beyond the fields. Moreover, Ronaldinho doesn't usually enter to the top 30 despite being close and the reason is very punctual, despite the enormous talent displayed at his best, his peak was relatively short (2003-2006) and then declined due to an undisciplined regime. The reason seems me valid, but doesn't it be equally damaging to Best? As far as I know the Northern Irish reached his peak between 1967 and 1971 and then also declined for indiscipline. Furthermore, I have the feeling that in the strongest point of Best, gifted technical skills, Ronaldinho could beat him, so what's the reason because Best is usually a more automatic option in any top 20 than Ronaldinho? Then another paradox appears in my study: Rivelino. This historical Brazilian star is usually highly regarded among historians (around top 30) and I notice that he often appears ahead of modern figures like Rivaldo and Ronaldinho himself. I never questioned that position so much, he always seemed me a cultural figure of huge talent, but when I started to make a study of the best players year by year I realized that is likely that he has never been in the top 3. Of course, that's not a decisive factor, his best was in one of the worst periods of Corinthians and in a transition period for Brazil after the World Cup in Mexico, that explains his few honors, then coincided with huge worldwide explosions as Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Müller and the young Zico at 70's, that probably diluted his attraction in many awards (he never won the South American Footballer of the Year award and was below Tostao, Pelé, Cubillas, Figueroa and Zico in votes between 1971 and 1978), but esentially, despite his great technical skills, I can't find him better than Ronaldinho at his highest peak and worldwide impact. My question is almost the same, what's the reason because Rivelino is usually a more automatic option in any top 30 and in a Brazilian All-Star Team than Ronaldinho? I'm not a particular fan of Ronaldinho, I don't intend to raise him in his historical status but I've the feeling that there isn't a reasonable point at which he might be considered below at least Best and Rivelino so clearly. Someone could illustrate me better in this particular case?
Good thread! Even though they were all different type of player. Rivelino was a pure Play maker and operated at deeper MF - while both Best and Ronaldinho were more of a pure playmaker/creative FW functioning in attack! For me: 1- Pure skillset or peak Season: Best = Ronaldinho > Rivelino 2- Longevity and consistency: Rivelino > Ronaldinho > Best 3- Versatlity and good effect on team: Rivelino = G Best >= Ronaldinho ============================================ Normally Best could be comparable to Ronaldinho, CR7 or Messi Kaka .. Neymar Rivelino is more comparable to Zidane, Laudrup , Socrates , Hagi Vaderama ..Riquelme ..
glavi, ill give you my view on the three: all players are renowned for their technical abilities. -george best was the best in taking on defenders for the longest period. however i rate him the lowest because of his lack of vision/teamwork. with team mates in front of him, being wide open for the pass, one can only discount this on best's skill set. bobby charlton has said that if best came close to the goal, best wouldn't pass him (or others) the ball anymore. -rivelino's technique inspired maradona. but the difference between the two playmakers is that maradona had an engine. rivelino is more like rincon. both players possessed decent speed and refined technique but would sparsely take on defenders or cover big terrain because of their lack of stamina/work ethic. rivelino's vision was ok, quite similar to didi's. i'm not sure if rivelino would be more productive than best per se, but i rate him higher for being a team player. -ronaldinho is the only player who can really claim that he sat on top of the world. but as you said, it was only for as short as r10's motivation lasted. later on his return in brazil, he found new motivation and climbed to the (south american) top once more. perhaps best was also a player who could shape up just by pure will. but r10 had better vision and was always a beloved team member. ronaldinho has to be the better of the three.
Not to have a go at you mate, or even say you are wrong, but I'd be interested to know if that view of Best is just formed from reading a comment from Charlton (which could maybe be misinterpreted/taken out of context easily?) or based on viewing games/footage (maybe much moreso than myself - I don't even know how old you are so you might have lived through Best's career for all I know)? Anyway, I don't think the comment of Charlton should be taken literally (more like a statement that Best did like to go it alone and sometimes ignored the pass to carry on dribbling). This video shows quite a few occasions of Best using good vision/passing/crossing/teamwork etc:
Interesting thread Peru I guess you have already seen the video I just posted. Other points in favour of Best I believe would be his completeness - RoyoftheRovers has talked of him playing in the midfield 3 in a 4-3-3 formation for Man Utd in the 60's (of course he also often played as winger, wing forward and further forward more centrally too) and he excelled more than Ronaldinho in terms of heading. tackling etc, his pure dribbling ability and capability to withstand challenges and retain his balance (despite I agree not really being better technically than Ronaldinho in general) and I'd say being a better goal scorer and a bit quicker. On Rivelino/Ronaldinho I do tend to agree - maybe it's because Rivelino is a 'legend' while Ronaldinho is a recent player who's peak tailed off early that can mean a lot of people now favour Rivelino. No doubt Rivelino was still a very skilled player, with inspirational moments and I'm certainly no expert on him - it would indeed be interesting to know which year(s) were really considered his very best. My feeling is that Ronaldinho had a bit more capacity as a star player during his peak though indeed.
I've seen best play as a number 10, setting up teammates with some lovely lay offs and through balls. Even on the wing I've seen some very impressive link up play, round the corner passes type stuff. Just putting that here, when a player has a reputation for a certain thing, it could be easy to underestimate other features of his game.
Yes, I know they had different types of roles in their teams, but I'm trying to measure their global dimension in just only one overall ranking.
Not have much time to explain informatively now but this point has jut been interested by me as well since he has prominently performed in South Americas especially if consider his ages. Ronaldinho's peak is not questionable as one of an phenomenon performer but his poor attitude in football career let he disappointed many in the 2006 World Cup, probably the biggest failure performance and must be much lower the average among world legends. This case study indicates in the contrary way of opportune fulfillment. For me, it is worse than legends who lack of opportunity to play world cup likes Di Stefano and George Best. Ronaldinho's prime is between 2004 and 2006 (only 3 years) and I think George Best still has a slight longer prime (1967 - 1971) at least 4 consecutive seasons. Rivelino's career is smoother than Rivaldo and Ronaldinho and not much fluctuate but he played in unsuccessful club let his potential is not fulfilled. He played greatly in twice world cup (70 and 74) and should be rated in lower world-class as he was not among the best player of any tournament. He is rarely rated in top three best player in the world partially due to era of high competitiveness (Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Muller, Netzer, Zoff, Best). I'm more interested to compare him with Rivera (Now I rate Rivera slightly higher because Rivera is considered very consistent in club career but he did not get opportunity enough in NT due to mutual appearance with Sandro Mazzola. Even so, stats shows Rivera is one of the most effective chance creations in three consecutive world cup.
That's a bit of exaggeration about Ronaldinho. First his WC 06 performance was seriously hindered by being played out of position farther from the goal and playing in a team with many players past their prime. Think about this, at Barca Ronaldinho had Eto'o to pick out for passes, in Brazil he had Ronaldo at 95kg. In his position, he articulated the play in the midfield fairly well. Let's not forget he played very well in WC 02. Rivaldo and Ronaldo were obviously the stars, but Ronaldinho played very well in a role he was able to roam more. He put Ronaldo twice in front of the goal in the Final with excellent passes and if Ronaldo had finished them, we'd remember his performance more. So much like Rivelino, he had a great WC with a good team, and a not so great one with a poorer team. About his peak years, he still had a great year in 06-07 proven by his stats. He wasn't as lively but still world class. So I wouldn't say his peak was only 3 years at Barca, I'd put it at 4. And I also think you could say he was already playing at a very high level at PSG. His problems with the coach affected his playing time. Proof of this is that (1) he had a great performance already at the WC stage in 02 and (2) took zero time to show how good he was at Barca when he signed in 03.
i think charlton's comment should be interpreted more as you say. the trinity didn't get along all that well. so there might be some degree of exaggeration from the overall diplomatic charlton. i have seen a few whole games of best. and his decision making in midfield was truely poor at times. this doesn't mean that he wasn't capable of delivering passes, although he never produced anything incisive. some of his crosses were perfect though. i hope this answers your question.
I remember reading an article in which one journalist stated he felt CR7 needed a moment, one similar to Zidane in the champions league final, to fully cement his place as an all time great. Rivellino has the 1970 world cup in which he was a phenomenon, and if I remember rightly had a decent individual 74 tournament, and Best has the European cup final and various other performances. Now I know Ronaldinho will always have his performance at the Bernabeu but other than that I don't recall him having a standout moment/performance in the semi final/final of a major tournament? Do correct me if I'm wrong this is just from memory. I'm not saying because of this he should be regarded as the lesser of the three (although I do regard him personally as the lesser of the three) I'm just citing this as a potential reason. Also I know he has his free-kick against England but I don't think his set piece ability is anything in question. Also Seamen should've saved it
you can partly correct yourself simply by reading what others have posted about rivelino. ronaldinho vs chelsea is one match that i won't easily forget. he was also rated quite highly at the wc02 by statisticians i can't seem to find the source of: BEST PLAYER RATING POINTS Christian Vieri ITA 4 7,00 Gerardo Torrado MEX 4 7,00 Rafael Marquez MEX 4 6,88 Raul Gonzalez SPA 4 6,88 Emre Belozoglu TUR 6 6,83 Ronaldinho Gaucho BRA 5 6,80 Song Chung-Gug KOR 7 6,79 Francesco Totti ITA 4 6,75 Johan Mjällby SWE 4 6,75 Rivaldo BRA 7 6,71
I pretty much stand by what I said about Rivellino. Maybe not a phenomenon in 1970 but was very, very good. He was young at the time and also played out of position during that world cup. His 1970 tournament dwarfs that of Ronaldinho's 02.
Ronaldinho's problem is his attitude not his skill and he played football inactively look likes he did not want to win the trophy because he already won the previous world cup just different to Barcelona where he just won UCL in the same year. I specified only 2006 means to also include the first half of 2006 - 2007 season. After then, he was noticed to clearly much declined even stats of goals of this season is the best.
well I do not know where you get this ratings, but all ratings are just subjective, not objective .. No way that Ronnie was rated higher than Rivaldo at WC02 It's hard to say definitively who was better Rivelino WC70 or Ronaldinho 2002 ... (could well be same?) But from 74 to 78, Rivelino was surely a true playmaker and leader of the Brazil team in WC
watch this if you've not already seen it mate. Short skysports documentary on Rivelino that ain't a half bad
Thanks (I did know that link) What I said was : Ronnie and Best were both more flashy and had better PEAK years than Rivelino (ever had) but Rivelino was more consistent and reliable playmaker/leader for the team than them Rivelino was like Totti while Best/Ronnie were like Baggio (for their Italy NT or Clubs)
What do you have to know his level in the first half of 2006-07? http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/bale-v-neymar-who-is-better.1985282/page-23#post-29746491
Yes, I've seen the video. One of his characteristics that stand out over Ronaldinho in my opinion is his aggressiveness on the offensive mark, what I thought long ago he hadn't because I had the impression that he was a little lazy player.
In your all-time ranking you've ranked Rivelino as 33rd, Ronaldinho as 43rd and Rivaldo as 46th, more or less similar as I've seen are usually ranked these 3 Brazilians. I've a very similar idea about Rivelino, on a theoretical analysis he has disadvantages due to circumstances beyond his individual level, but what makes my work difficult is because those circumstances I'd need to analyze more in detail and I never couldn't find meticulous sources relating to his level of play apart from the results of his teams. This ignorance makes me even difficult to determine precisely which years he reached his peak of performance but I understand that it has been in the early 70's. Then, for a player who grazes the top 30 of all-time I understand that at least once he had to be very close to being the best player in the world and I was trying to deduce ideas from the South American Player of the Year award: 1971 1. Tostao (Cruzeiro) 2. Omar Pastoriza (Independiente) 3. Luis Artime (Nacional) 4. Teófilo Cubillas (Alianza Lima) 5. Gérson (Sao Paulo) 1972 1. Teófilo Cubillas (Alianza Lima) 2. Pelé (Santos) 3. Jairzinho (Botafogo) 4. Tostao (Vasco da Gama) 5. Ademir (Palmeiras) / Julio Montero Castillo (Peñarol) 1973 1. Pelé (Santos) 2. Miguel Ángel Brindisi (Huracán) 3. Rivelino (Corinthians) 4. Fernando Morena (Peñarol) 5. Carlos Caszely (Colo-Colo) 1974 1. Elías Figueroa (Internacional) 2. Marinho Chagas (Botafogo) 3. Carlos Babington (Wattenscheid 09) 4. Luís Pereira (Palmeiras) 5. Pelé (Santos) 1975 1. Elías Figueroa (Internacional) 2. Norberto Alonso (River Plate) 3. Fernando Morena (Peñarol) 4. Nelinho (Cruzeiro) 5. Luís Pereira (Atlético Madrid) 1976 1. Elías Figueroa (Internacional) 2. Zico (Flamengo) 3. Rivelino (Fluminense) 4. Hugo Gatti (Boca Juniors) 5. Luís Pereira (Atlético Madrid) 1977 1. Zico (Flamengo) 2. Rivelino (Fluminense) 3. Elías Figueroa (Palestino) 4. Pelé (New York Cosmos) 5. Ubaldo Fillol (River Plate) 1978 1. Mario Kempes (Valencia) 2. Ubaldo Fillol (River Plate) 3. Dirceu (América) 4. Daniel Passarella (River Plate) 5. Teófilo Cubillas (Alianza Lima) 1979 1. Diego Maradona (Argentinos Juniors) 2. Julio César Romero (Sportivo Luqueño) 3. Falcao (Internacional) 4. Ubaldo Fillol (River Plate) 5. Zico (Flamengo) Even though I know that these awards aren't necessarily clear on criteria, I feel it's very rare for a Brazilian offensive player near to the all-timers has been so poorly recognized during his best possible stage.
I get the sense from Rivelino, that while a fantastic player indeed, he was quite replaceable in that legendary Brazil WC70's team - any of Ademir, Dirceu Lopes, Edu and a few others would have done just as great, which takes some luster from the legend. On the other hand, there was no one like Best on that Manchester United team of the 60s, he was the spark that made the team different. Same with Ronaldinho at Barcelona, a magician of the highest skill, unfortunately his flat WC06 and subsequent quick decline will always be part of the discussion.
I just remember in what I watched him start to be inactive but surely I was not record and scored his playing performance at that time.
Passarella should be named at least in top five in 1976 and also should not be inferior to Gatti. In 1973, it is depend on your criteria but Pele played in only domestic level although his superiority is unquestionable. I also notice you did not name Bochini in anywhere probably due to his disappearances in national team but if consider the years which major international country tournament was not held, Bochini was an absolute influential player to Independiente's dominance in Copa Libertadores Cup. For Rivelino's club performance, there is a placar rating thread which you can take it into account but it is not available in every seasons.