It's hard to come up with a list without being scrutinized, but I just don't think Messi has done enough yet. Kaka is debatable because he's won some hardware, but Messi hasn't done it for a long enough period of time. Figo has to be close to cracking the top 25, he was redonkulous. The game has advanced so much since Pele dominated it way back when which is why it's hard to say someone hasn't come along who's better than him. Jesse Owens was a bad example because track is raw athleticism with a dash of fundamentals. A better example would probably be any other sport, like gridiron or basketball. Would Wilt Chamberlain have scored 50 points per game if he was posting up on Yao Ming or Shaquille O'Neal instead of 6 foot 2 people? No way. It's hard to compare Pele and http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZXiIUUGtxNc when nobody even know what that was in Pele's day even with the heinous miss. Not to mention to teaching of the fundamentals has only become more advanced since then. I also doubt anyone would think that this move was an option in this situation. http://youtube.com/watch?v=zJKSXGkSyXM&feature=related
If you compare football with basketball, you'll get roasted. I suggest you examine the thread "Why there are no all-time greats" and review your conclusion. I don't remember about the first one, but, in regard to the second, Pele scored a pretty similar goal in the WC qualifications in 1969. Besides I don't understand what's your point with Chamberlain. So what if he wouldn't score 50 points per game ? I assume you were trying to make an analogy with Pele's scoring record. Pele scoring at a lesser rate than in the past wouldn't make him a less impressive player. Even a 500 goals record would be a phenomenal record and something which very few strikers were able to achieve.
I don't think there is any fundamental difference in physical fitness or in the game in general between today's players and the player's of the past. All that has to be seen in perspective: you cannot crudely oppose athletes that play nowadays with others who played 30 or 50 years ago. It's like saying that 'Rubinho' Barrichello was better than Jim Clark because he ran 100 km per hour faster. Fangio, then, would be a 'turtle' to him... Both generations - if we take the top clubs, NTs and players - had the best physical preparation possible as far as the parameters of their epochs were concerned. In each of those epochs, they were/are at the peak of what the science of physical fitness could/can offer. The same for the guy who won the Marathon in Greece 2 400 years ago... Wilt Chamberlain may not have faced in the 60's/70's players as big as Shaq or Yao Ming, but he faced people VERY tall for his time (his duels with Jabbar are in the history of the game, and Kareem was almost as big as them). Besides, Chamberlain didn't 'just' score 50 pts per game. He was the only player in history to have scored 100 pts in a game, at a time when there were no 3-point baskets nor 3-tries free-throws. Saying that the game (& all its 'peripherics': teaching of fundamentals, physical fitness techniques, soccer medicine etc) has 'advanced' is for me a somewhat biased and bold statement. Instead of 'advanced' I'd prefer to use a more precise term: 'evolved'... Everything evolves: not necessarilly for better, believe me (between the Neanderthal Man and Hitler I'd precisely know who to shake hands with)...
Exactly. The only true variable is the technology and equipment. If you want to make an issue of Jesse Owens' 100m time, you also need to look at the shoes he wore and the track he ran on compared to the high tech equipment of today. Balls are lighter. Shoes are lighter. Pitches look like billiard tables compared to those of forty or fifty years ago. I tend to think the best players would have risen to the top in any era.
I'm also of the opinion that most all-time great athletes would've been great in any era. But I think Pele would've been an even better athlete if he were born in say 1980 instead of 1940 since he would've had access to a better conditioning regimen and also better sports nutrition. He probably would've been stronger, quicker, faster and an even better leaper. As far as soccer skill he would've had a much broader array of dribbling tricks at his disposal to break down the more sophisticated defenses of today. Since many moves have been created since his heyday (elasticos, Maradonas, etc.) Pele would've been able to draw on these moves to make his game even more dangerous. Throw in his unparalelled creativity, intelligence and imagination, which would have been enhanced by watching the inventiveness of other players who have come along since, and it's pretty clear to me that he would beyond a doubt be a great player today.
1. Maradona - my opinion of Pele and Maradona keeps on alternating. Both have their claims on being the greatest. I usually give Maradona the benefit of the doubt because he played in Italy week in, week out 2. Pele - see above 3. Di Stefano - the most complete player ever. He defined Total Football before Cryuff 4. Cryuff - Holland's greatest ever. Great vision, great tactical mind, great athleticism and a great finisher 5. Beckenbauer - he was great in midfield but he even managed to dribble the ball out of defence from ease. Not only that, he wasn't a full-back 6. Puskas - phenomenally skilled player despite such a stocky build. He even was at the height of his powers at 33 and he played until he was 39 7. Eusebio - before C Ronaldo, Figo and Futre, there was Eusebio. Faster, stronger and technically better than those guys. He could score from long distances. He even scored once from 45 metres once 8. Garrincha - the greatest right-winger ever. Great pace and acceleration, he knew how to slow down and then accelerate in flash. Excellent at dummying and in the turn 9. Platini - France's greatest. He was graceful playmaker with great passing distribution and yet he had the scoring rate of a striker 10. Maldini - he could play anywhere in defence and use both feet. An effortless performer 11. Gerd Muller - the ultimate opportunist 12. Zoff - the greatest goalie ever. Unbelievable shot-stopper 13. Van Basten - an elegant goalscorer. So graceful 14. Baresi - a great defender and leader. An intelligent decision maker 15. Ronaldo - knee problems have stopped him from being greater. Great goalscoring capabilities coupled with great agility and acceleration 16. Best - his wild lifestyle stops him from being ranked higher 17. R Baggio - a great dribbler and he could score from any angle 18. Yashin - a great keeper but I don't believe he is the greatest ever. He was innovative but I think Zoff was better at making saves 19. Matthews - playing until 50 says a lot about this guy. He was even amongst Europe's best in his 40s 20. Zidane - great with fancy tricks (not that it means he's great on that basis) and dribbling but he did have a great header when he did score, he scored great goals. Phenomenal vision but he could have scored more goals 21. R Charlton - a quality distributer but he could run with ease and scored many goals with powerful shots. Very two-footed 22. Gullit - he could play anywhere at a high level. He was a complete player and only Cryuff and Van Basten had more to offer from Holland 23. Zico - Brazil's second greatest number 10. One of the greatest free-kick takers ever. Surprisingly never won a World Cup 24. Matthaeus - one of the most complete CMs ever. He was a number 6 and 10 put into one 25. B Moore - great CB. He had great timing. Not technically gifted but he knew how to use the ball wisely
I would not put Zidane over the five players you listed after him. They should all rate above him regardless of the critieria used. They made a bigger impact on their teams, had more influence on the game overall and were some of the very best players of their generation, something Zidane was not. Not that I want this to descend into another one of 'those' debates.
This list makes a lot more sense, although I am not sold on Mattaeus and Gullit belonging in a top-25 list.
Agreed dor02 list is much better and can be easily defended as reasonable. People might switch the order of the top five (I would) , but there is no way a knowledgeable fan would put anyone outside his top 5 as number 1. Some would have a different top 5, but it is hard to see anyone outside his top 10 (maybe even top 8) break into this elite group. Other would have a hard time with a GK missing from the top 11 or rate Yashin over Zoff, but again even if you disagree his picks are reasonable. Similar arguments might be made about only 1 pure defender (2 if you count Beckenbauer) in his top 13, but I'm not sure that anyone us can find 3-4 defenders that can displace anyone out of his top 9 to a spot below 11 (remember we are looking for the best players not the best players to make up a team). Players 15-25 are much more open for discussion and most of us are likely to have different names in these positions. But I do believe that at the end of the day 5+ of the players in his list would make an overall top 25 list. Overall the list might be somewhat biased toward Italian and players in Italy, but is it still very reasonable.
Just out of curiousity, who would you put in there? I was thinking of putting either Romario, Leonidas, Meazza or Scirea in there. I didn't put in Romario because IMHO, I just feel the players I had put in had more skills or offered more. I also feel that he stayed in Holland for too long and he didn't move to Spain earlier. The fact that he was injured at Italia 90 and had some controversial moments regarding the Selecao counts against him. I could make similar arguments for the players in my list but some players didn't really need to be a star at certain levels or competitions to prove how great they were. Playing in the 30s counts against Leonidas and Meazza as there is hardly any footage of them playing. I also need to do more research on Leonidas' success at club level. At least with Meazza, I know that he was legendary at Inter and scored with ease. Scirea probably isn't Top 25 material but I wasn't too comfortable with putting Moore in despite his greatness. Just the thought of putting an English defender higher than an Italian one was scaring me, even if it's a legend like Moore.
As far as Maradona and Pele, was the Serie A better than the Brazilian league in the 1960s(when all of Brazil's talent remained home, unlike today, where thousands are spread around the world in 6 continents?)
I was thinking of Romario (one of the classiest and deadliest finisher of the game), Zoff (posibly the greatest goallie as you hinted), Elias Figueroa (what a defender, better than Baresi IMHO), Jose Manual Moreno (in Argentina, many rate him better than Maradona) and Sandor Kocsis (from the little I've seen, a class apart). Others to consider: Enzo Francescoli, Teofilo Cubillas, Gordon Banks, Hristo Stoichov, Leonidas as well. I have never seen anything from Meazza or Scirea, although they always come up in these lists.
Actually yes he could as any of the the top 80 players could because the England defense was absolutely rubbish in their organisation at that moment. Yes it could be difficult to leave Beckenbauer out from the top 25. His teamwork is very very good. Just pointing out that after a while down the list, there is not really much between the players in terms of excellence.
With a strong bias toward 1970 Brazil I would add Gérson, Jairzinho, Tostão and Rivelino for consideration in the top 25. Others that are yet to be mentioned and could be considered are Mario Kempes and Omar Sivori (Argentina); Just Fontaine (France); Paul Breitner (Germany); Johan Neeskens (Holland); Gheorghe Hagi (Romania) and I'm sure there are others I forgot.
The thing with these "all time greatest players" lists is, some things are just lost to history so judging all-time greatness is almost impossible. Take Giuseppe Meazza, he won two World Cups, he scored 245 goals in 348 games in a proper league for Inter... that is greatness far above many of the people mentioned in these lists, yet because footage of him is not widely spread, you will see these lists usually flooded with an endless reel of overrated Brazilians, etc or guys like Zidane in place (who somehow usually makes it into the top 4 now), instead of the likes of him, Sallustro, Vojak, Bican and all of these guys who have more sound records, but have been lost to history. Also certain positions in football get preferential treatment, so the likes of Dino Zoff and Gordon Banks, who should always feature, make way for some flash in the pan tart who won't be regarded as anything near in 15 years.
A case could be made for Breitner but Neeskens is probably more worthy of a spot. Sivori is another that suffers for not having a great NT level record despite being a star at the 1957 Copa America. He is still one of the greatest left-wingers ever. I can only see Argentines and Juve fans putting him in the Top 25 although I'm one fan who wouldn't. Early retirement goes against Tostao and Fontaine yet impressive displays at the World Cup helps them to be ranked highly in Top __ lists. Kempes was a star at Argentina 78 but he didn't do well at West Germany 74 and Espana 82. For talent alone, guys like Maradona, Di Stefano, Sivori, Moreno and Labruna were known to have more ability. Maybe even Batistuta. In Jairzinho's and Rivelino's case, I don't think they're Top 25 players although I like them both. Gerson, IMHO, isn't worthy of a Top 50 spot. A great number 10 but he didn't have as many great performances or tornaments like the other number 10s. Figueroa isn't a player I know too much about. I've heard that he won numerous awards and that he was a great sweeper but what counts against him is that I haven't seen any footage of him at all. Not only that, he played for Chile at a time when the NT was rather weak. If he was born earlier so he could have played at Chile 62 or born in the 60s or 70s so he could have played at France 98, maybe I would know more about him. Moreno is an Argentine legend but like most of his teammates and rivals, they were stars when the Argentine football wasn't famous around the world. When he was a star in Argentina, most of the world, Europe in particular, had to deal with WWII. Kocsis was a great finisher. I don't know if he would be Top 25 material though. Likewise for Stoichkov. Leonidas and Banks are potential Top 25 players. I didn't add them to my list but I could see others putting them in. Cubillas has an impressive World Cup record but he played a lot in Peru. At Porto and Basel, he didn't do too well. Francescoli was great but he should have came to Europe earlier. He doesn't have an impressive WC record either. Playing for Racing Club Paris doesn't help either. If we are talking defensive standards, it's a yes. It sounds stereotypical but it's true.
You are probably right. It is just that I think that the 1970 Brazil team was the best team ever (and there GK is probably the worst GK to make it to a WC final), by listing Gérson I probably went to far. As to the others, they might not be top 25, but they earned the right to be part of the discussion.
I understand that these lists are based solely on opinion, and very few people on these boards seem to realize this. I too always feel compelled to place Zidane at the top of my "best" players of all time lists, etc., but realistically, this can't be. My only REAL question, to be completely honest, is how a person decides that Dennis Bergkamp, in any way, shape, or form, ranks BELOW Steven Gerrard......
Excellent list so far especially the top 10 but I think Maldini is a bit to high. I would swap him for Zico who I think is way too low in your list and definitely top 10 material. I also think Baggio is too high. Is he considered as a better player than Mazzola and Rivera for example ? Lastly I'm not sure I would have picked Matthaus and Gullit. A case could be made for other players instead of them in addition to those already named above - Kopa, Rumenigge and Passarella come to my mind for example.