The bread and butter of every football discussion and it always seems everybody (me included) has a high level of confidence in his opinion about certain players. To clarify: all this is concerning player performances and not their actual skillset. As someone who loved researching and learning more about certain players I figured out the most accurate (but very time consuming) method would be to actually go through every single career game and keep track of your finding about it somewhere. So this is kind of a long term "project" for me right now and not even close to finished, however I already learned a valuable lesson. “The more you know, the more you know you don't know.” or however that saying goes would be fitting to describe it. After spending some time on certain players - some which I had very strong opinions and was very certain about (examples are Rivaldo/Figo or Iniesta/Xavi ) - I'm seriously reconsidering that they were wrong all along. And those are high exposure players who played recently, careers that I actively followed and I watched them hundred of times! So what do I actually know about how good some semi-famous players from the 60s were? I have no fecking clue. Unless we are talking about the extremly obvious standout players like Pele and Maradona (let's be honest 99.9% of people also know feckall about those players outside of the WC, but you don't need to go into details to figure out that they are at the top of the pyramid) or recently Messi and Ronaldo most stuff just looks like slightly better guesses to me. Once we go down further the list and reach the end of the top 100 alltime I'd give every player ranked a margin of error of +/- 50 spots or so, getting larger the further down we go. Furthermore, an additional thing I'm doing is keeping track of current player performances using all possible material I could think of that might be useful (watching games, player ratings from several different sources, stat based player ratings like whoscored/sofascore, reading writeups, regular stats) It made me realize that unless you have an eidetic memory and watch every single game it's impossible to make a decent ranking besides the handful of clearly outstanding candidates. Heck even with all that information some players are just so close that several choices are virtually tied and would seem reasonable. Using whoscored only might be alright for attackers, but I feel it doesn't work that well for midfielders, defenders and goalkeepers. Still I can tell you for sure that if I would post my findings on a very active discussion board like reddit people would dismiss them as garbage and stand by the opinion they already hold. I assume a lot would be just supporters of certain clubs who feel their players are underrated, another thing that always draws scrunity is ranking no name players who fly under the radar (both playing for a small team and statswise because of their role), but are actually playing well using the "eyetest". So what's my point? I think that people in general (me included) heavily overestimate how much they know about players and to make a decent ranking of current players A LOT of time investment is needed. Now if we're talking about an alltime ranking I can't imagine how many years (more like decades - I mean look at my registation date) it would take to make one I would be satisfied with and confident in calling pretty good.