I know many Benfica fans consider Eusebio as the greatest Portuguese player but since he was actually born and raised in Mozambique and not Portugal shouldn't Pauleta be considered the greatest player since he has surpassed Eusebio's goal record? Just because Pauleta never played for one of the big three in Portugal does this make him less qualified for the title of greatest Portuguese player?
I have decided to ignore posts from certain people around here..... This just proved my theory.... Paulo Futre Fernando Chalana Jordao Rui Costa Coluna Simoes Figo Rui Barros Humberto Coelho Vitor Damas 5 Violinos God the list goes on Mozambique was a colony and as such he was Portuguese.....
Well this is the thing...sure players like Figo and many others are great players but lets consider a couple of things. 1) Pauleta in my opinion is more of the poacher style of player and not the most attractive to watch. Certainly no Crisitiano Ronaldo or Figo. But is that his fault? No, he's just a different class of player. 2) Pauleta hasn't helped any of the big three clubs but he's been voted best player in the French league twice. 3) Pauleta has scored more goals for the national team than anyone else in Portuguese history. Surely this qualifies him for the best Portuguese player? Otherwise it's just personal opinions right? If a player doesn't become the greatest by the number of goals he's scored for his national team then how do we measure the greatness of a Portuguese player in an objective manner?
Missing the point. Why is Pauleta a lesser player than Rui Costa? Pauleta's job is to score goals just like Rui but Pauleta has scored far more than Rui. Yet people believe Rui is the better player. Is it just because Rui was a Benfica player and Pauleta wasn't?
your speaking for yourself....what eusebio did is beyond comparable to pauleta. if pauleta doest win a nt title he is unworthy and for all i care he can shine my shoes. i got love and respect for eusebio so dont say it means nothin.
That's fair enough and I respect that. But isn't that just based on personal taste and not the hard core facts?
IMO, to say that he is the greatest player due to the goals he has scored is ludacris. His job is to score, so he is doing his job, big deal. Eusebio took Portugal to 3rd place in the WC. What has Pauleta done for Portugal??? We didn't reach the Euro final because of his sparkling play. A player should be judge on his impact on the team, overall performance in crutial games, his ability to make the team better and a reference when representing Portugal. Figo, Rui Costa, Eusebio and 20 others fit this bill more than Pauleta.
Goals don't make the player. Don't ever forget that. He may have more goals than Eusebio, but Pauleta could only DREAM of having the talent Eusebio had. He's supposed to be a poacher... HE'S A STRIKER! What you're saying is basically he is the best because he's a forward. I would take a 25 year-old Jorge Cadete over an on-form Pauleta anytime...
lets stop bickering we all know eusebio is one of the greats.... pauleta is a good player and brought alot to us in the past decade but eusebio made portugal what we are today. THE DIAMOND GENERATION has landed and thank goodness for that cause THE GOLDEN GENERATION by my standards failed.
What has Pauleta done for Portugal? Come on give the player some respect. UEFA and France certainly have. So a player is great according to where his national team reached? If Pauleta takes Portugal to the finals in 2006 will this make him the greatest Portuguese player?
I only follow the national team and the Champions league as I don't get much coverage of the Portuguese league where I am.
Look, Pauleta is a good player but when you compare his career to some other Portuguese players, he falls way short of being the greatest. You can't just look at goals and even if you did, Eusebio has a much better strike ratio. Other players like Peyroto scored something like 15 goals in 20 games for Portugal.
A player becomes great when he becomes part of greatness. What he has done for club has nothing to do with the topic of this conversation. I didn't say a player is judge on how far his team reached, but on what role he had taking the team there. Portugal without Eusebio would not have finished 3rd in the WC. Portugal without Pauleta reached the Euro finals.
Ok now we've got something tangible - strike ratios. By that same logic then Pauleta is a better player than Rui Costa right? Surely Pauleta has a better strike ratio than Rui.