The greatest footballer of all times.

Discussion in 'The Beautiful Game' started by Krokko, Mar 31, 2013.

?

Who is greatest footballer of all times?

Poll closed Oct 31, 2013.
  1. Beckenbauer

    3.7%
  2. Cruyff

    6.1%
  3. Di Stéfano

    2.4%
  4. Eusébio

    6.1%
  5. Garrincha

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Maradona

    22.0%
  7. Messi

    17.1%
  8. Pelé

    31.7%
  9. Platini

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. Puskás

    4.9%
  11. Ronaldo Fenômeno

    6.1%
  12. Zico

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  13. Zidane

    13.4%
  14. someone else

    7.3%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. tony-soprano37

    Dec 5, 2008
    Club:
    AFC Ajax
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    nice to hear him say :"johan cruyff was the best he ever saw".
     
  2. tony-soprano37

    Dec 5, 2008
    Club:
    AFC Ajax
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    but niot the mental toughness or the cast iron chin of ali.

    if tyson couldn't ko his opponent and if his opponent gave him hell most of the times he could not overcome himself and win.
    where as ali overcame huge disadvantages against several opponents with all different styles.. swarmers, sluggers, boxers etc etc
     
    Afghan-Juventus, Jaweirdo and JamesBH11 repped this.
  3. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Sep 17, 2004
    correct!
    Tyson is just a big puncher (strongest ever forehand) but ... with a dumb @$$ in his head
    In his best ever form, ... he was twice LOST to older champions Holiefield, and too desperate to BITE him LOL
     
    Jaweirdo repped this.
  4. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Sep 17, 2004
    but he lost to Douglas in 90 and won a controversial against Ruudock in 91 (before jail)
     
  5. Bada Bing

    Bada Bing Member+

    Jul 13, 2012
    Finland
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    #630 Bada Bing, Aug 25, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2014
    Before the defeat Tyson's personal life were already in shambles, his father figure died, his co-manager and best friend died, he fought with media, his fiance, manager, promoter and fired the last thing that held him together, Kevin Rooney. And even then there was a clear controversy on Douglas fight:



    After that he became more of a head hunter, but during that time Tyson was the pinnacle of boxing history, and it's not even close.

    Not surprised that James has no knowledge of boxing either.
     
  6. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Sep 17, 2004
    like you have no idea of how controversial Messi got his WC2014 Goldenball ? and you claimed you're an expert? LOL
     
  7. Bada Bing

    Bada Bing Member+

    Jul 13, 2012
    Finland
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Not as controversial as Pele 70 as we will probably discover.
     
  8. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Sep 17, 2004
    #633 JamesBH11, Aug 25, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2014
    Probably? ....
    for your info: .... after 45years passed (I am sure much longer than your existence) .. nothing! and you still hope every one is as naive and misinformed like you?

    Below is how people viewed them wc70"
    1- "King Pele" and Brazil is invincible
    2- "impossible to defeat Brazil of PELE"
    3- Brazil team 70 were like Poets to defeat the Mathematicians in Italian team


    [​IMG]
     
  9. leadleader

    leadleader Member+

    Aug 19, 2009
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    #634 leadleader, Aug 25, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2014
    And you've just proven/reinforced my point. This idea of "the system" as some tacky word that can be applied to any formation and to any group of players, is wrong. In reality, the system is the end result of the whole apparatus: the formation, the players, and the style of play. If you try to play "total football" with the wrong players, the intended result was total football, but the obtained result could be a mockery of total football -- thus, the system is the actual result, the system is not the intended result, the system is not merely some word that you can apply to any group of players and to any formation.

    So wait a second, when a poster is being rude and infantile, describing his argument as infantile is an insult?

    So saying that CR7 could be a great playmaker in the same mold as a Pirlo/Xavi/Platini, just because CR7 can produce great passes every now and then -- that's not infantile logic?

    As usual, you take "insults" far too seriously/personally. Making light comments about an argument, and personally insulting a person, are different things.

    I agree that some "insults" were not necessary at all, but when you're typing that many letters as fast as you can, such mistakes can happen -- I certainly admit that, had I had more time, I probably would have taken a few words out, and the response would have been a lot shorter as well. But alas, slipping unwanted insults because you're passionate about a given subject, rather than because you really wanted to insult the person on the other end, does happen a lot in the internet. I'm certainly not immune to the spoils of the internet and, let me tell you, neither are you by the way.
     
    JamesBH11 repped this.
  10. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Sep 17, 2004
    #635 JamesBH11, Aug 25, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2014
    Agree with you there ... but let me rephrase
    "a system" is a combination of coaching tactics within a formation, that utilized certain type of players successfully

    sometimes it takes years for a coach to implement his "system" or sometimes it won't happen as he would get kicked out before hand

    In recent times a few teams are succeeded with coach system: ManU 98-06, Arsenal 02-08, Juve 96-04, Bayern 09-now, Barca 08-now, Aletlico Madrid shortly from 12-now ...
     
    leadleader repped this.
  11. United_xxx

    United_xxx Member

    Aug 10, 2004
    Thailand
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    I used to think that Tyson is one of the best heavyweight boxers of all time until I see this fight.


    Imagine that if that was Ali instead of Tillis, Tyson would have been more frustrated. Then, there is one suspicious fight, the third unify fight vs Tucker.


    In the first round he's almost knocked down by Tucker but it seemed Tucker didn't want to win the fight. He stopped seriously punching after three rounds while all Tyson strikes could not hurt him throughout the fight. It seems to be a fixed fight IMO.

    Overall, the quality of his opponents was not comparable to the likes of Ali, Louis, etc and he seemed to have a certain route paved by Don King for marketing reasons.
     
    Jaweirdo repped this.
  12. Jaweirdo

    Jaweirdo Member+

    Aug 19, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Its generally accepted in boxing circles that Tyson is an overrated boxer, he fought weak levels of opposition "tomato-can fighters" and when he faced adversity or technically gifted boxers prepared for his peek-a-boo style he was perplexed as to why they weren't being knocked out by his extreme power. Instead of changing his game plan he would keep head hunting with more and more erratic knockout punches...the most effective punch against Tyson was a jab. He was definitely entertaining though I'd rank him maybe top 50 or top 60 of all time
     
    JamesBH11 and United_xxx repped this.
  13. Bada Bing

    Bada Bing Member+

    Jul 13, 2012
    Finland
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    #638 Bada Bing, Aug 26, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2014
    Offtopic but I feel the need to educate casual fans on this.

    The "quick" Tillis fight was the first fight Tyson was asked to go distance, and it was uncharted waters him, and why he was taking it cautiously. Yet he knocked Tillis down, and won pretty comfortably. After the fight and before Douglas fight, Tyson was asked to go distance couple times and he had confidence dominate matches throughout, he had stamina to put opponent pressure all 12 rounds, like the fight against Mitch Green just after "quick" Tillis where he won every round.



    Now but Ali in place of Mitch Green. Or what would happen if Tyson fought Ali instead of Frazier? Ali would have been knocked out in both matches. Tyson was a stronger, faster and two handed version of Frazier with better defense.
     
  14. Bada Bing

    Bada Bing Member+

    Jul 13, 2012
    Finland
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    #639 Bada Bing, Aug 26, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2014
    Whenever someone quotes "boxing historians" or "boxing circles", you know the person doesn't have the knowledge to self argue his thought. It's the exact same in football, shown in this forum daily.

    Jab effective punch against Tyson? Sadly it was never going to be enough when you were put such pressure throughout the match. Or can you quote a fight where this happened before his personal life exploded and he stopped caring?
     
  15. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    Is it possible to assign an accurate rank to him if apparently some of the fights had been fixed? Don King is infamous indeed.
     
  16. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Sep 17, 2004
    well I would not say Tyson is overrated ... He was indeed great and looked like invincible in his time. However his career at top level fell short ... compared to other greats = that's all

    Like I said, Boxer is not just an athlete going up to the ring and wait for a moment to KO opponent- that's Tyson's style ... (similar to Muller, Basten Ronaldo Romario or Messi)
    Muhamad Ali was more than that ... tactics, movement with feets, two hands ... and of course KOs (a la Pele)
     
    Afghan-Juventus repped this.
  17. tony-soprano37

    Dec 5, 2008
    Club:
    AFC Ajax
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    hahaha but not with the mentality or mental tougness of frazier..

    tyson did not evne want to fight an old foreman because he remember what cus dámato said to him when eh was young and watchign tapes of prime foreman that foreman was all wrong for mike's style of boxing
    it scared him so much years and years later he refused to fight old foreman not evne for a huge amount of money..

    this is a well known fact.

    furthermore tyson was a total different boxer thenf razier stylweyse speaking. tyson was more liek patterson except way stronger.

    but no way mike tyson coudl have done what frazier did in manilla tyson didn't had the mental strongness that frazier had.

    foreman, ali, louis, holmes, lewis, dempsey, frazier, liston, marciano, holyfield all can be ranked above tyson..

    and when we talk about a H2H comparison i think joe louis, ali, holmes (a prime holmes not the faded version who fought mike tyson) foreman and liston, lennox lewis beat tyson 8 outta 10 times.

    frazier is 50/50 beause joe was a slow starterand mike the opposite.
    holyfield 60/40
    marciano 60/40
    dempsey 70/40 (tyson himself had a huge respect for dempsey and marciano (both would give him a fight he never ever had to fight in his life)
    even a fully prepared max baer (not the clownign version but the motivated baer) probably beats mike most of the times.

    and how about george chuvalo ??? never knocked to the floor in 93 proffessional fights..

    the man had a cast iron chin.. no opponent ever knocked him down.. and he was never ever ko'd only 2 times technical ko (agaisnt frazier and foreman ( after ernie shavers the hardest ever puncher) he fought guys like bonavena, cleveland williams , ernie terrell etc etc.

    if tyson fought chuvalo and found himself unable to even once put him to the floor after a few rounds tyson would crumble.. as he always did when eh couldn't ko his man.

    trust me tyson was a very very good heavyweight in a weak era who gets very overrated but he ain't an top 10 all tiem heavyweight..
     
    Jaweirdo repped this.
  18. Bada Bing

    Bada Bing Member+

    Jul 13, 2012
    Finland
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    That is like saying Maradona made somebody else play better. Complete hooey. It was the personal life that destroyed his boxing career, nothing to do with his ability.

    Tyson isn't the greatest boxer, that's Sugar Ray, but in his prime he was the pinnacle of what boxing is, he had everything, and he was the best boxer that has been.
     
  19. Bada Bing

    Bada Bing Member+

    Jul 13, 2012
    Finland
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Tyson knocked down and out many opponents first time, Spinks, Botha, Pinklon Thomas to name few.
     
  20. Bada Bing

    Bada Bing Member+

    Jul 13, 2012
    Finland
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Botha talking fighting Klitscho, Lewis, Tyson, and that was when Tyson was a well past his prime and a head hunter:



    "Tyson, even when he misses there's a wind going to bash your face."
     
  21. Bada Bing

    Bada Bing Member+

    Jul 13, 2012
    Finland
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Marvis Frazier, taught by his father and had his style. Legitimate boxer with 56-2 in amateurs and only one loss in pro when he was rushed against Larry Holmes.

    Tyson ended his boxing career.



    Marvis Frazier - "Tyson was just another guy who was going to be a statistic. Yeah, that's what I thought. I threw a jab and that's all I remember."
     
  22. EdgarAllanPoet

    EdgarAllanPoet Member+

    May 1, 2011

    A+ for an overly verbose rant. I shall do my best to reciprocate.

    @Pipiolo , you're a clown.

    Now back to reality, what is being argued is whether or not Ronaldo is as skillful of a goal creator, passer/dribbler, visionary and attack facilitator as players who are classically considered great play-makers. I've already fuking said repeatedly this is not his role. So his influence in the middle is quite low by comparison. Though it is undeniable the ability he has when he does engage in such actions in the middle of the park or otherwise. At 18 after the United/Sporting friendly the players begged Ferguson to sign him. This wasn't due to his goal scoring prowess. Early in his career he routinely made dazzling dribbles, linked up with teammates, dropped deep in his own half to collect the ball and dribbled tirelessly, challenging defenders three and four at a time. He was near to, if not the quickest player in the world. His sudden bursts of speed and agility made him unplayable. He is perfectly two footed and possesses an arsenal of foot-skills that he could utilize to embarrass defenders and a first touch that can break a play wide open. He was providing crosses, through-balls, back-heels, 1-2's and creating space long before he was scoring 50 goals a season.

    These are traits of lethal play-maker, I watched every game from day one at United. You sound ignorant not recognizing he spent his first three years at United as a gifted, penetrating provider and facilitator of attacks. At United he influenced play all over the field. Every possession went through him and his mobility allowed him to roam freely. He did much more than just dominate the wings. Which he did to perfection as well. This was the work of a bonafide prodigy who only needed to approach the game less individualistically as he had the habit of trying to do everything himself.

    There was no lack of skill or attributes between Ronaldo and the past greats.
    It was Ferguson who pushed Ronaldo further up the field realizing he would maximize Ronaldo's potential as a goal scorer. He lowered Ronaldo's defensive duties and involvement in build ups. Though he quite frequently still participated to an effective degree. He was moved further from midfield and more centrally while Rooney was dropped back and pushed wider to assume the void left by Ronaldo for the '07-08 season. They were both public to their dismay as Ronaldo preferred the wide set-up role. His natural position.

    At 21 he had 20 assists and 23 goals while playing his natural position. A season Platini was winning Ballon D'ors for. A season Di Maria at 26 has never produced. Ronaldo had a much greater impact and wider influence on United than Di Maria ever had on Madrid and Di Maria has received plenty of adulation as being one of the finest play-makers in the world. Ronaldo's play-making abilities have always been overshadowed by his penchant for scoring the spectacular goal. Had Ronaldo never transformed himself set in motion with the strong encouragements of Ferguson he would have been the 20 goal 25-30 assist type. At this time he was already largely considered better than George Best. After '07-08 critics were tipping Cristiano as a potential best ever. Many still regard him as having surpassed Law and Charlton as being United's greatest player ever.

    What do you think all that was on the back of? He wasn't scoring at a rate of 1.01 for them and only had one season as a top scorer there. It was his ability to score and CREATE. His versatility and completeness as a player. An all around talent. For most players all this would have sufficed. He could have easily limited himself and remained playing deeper behind the forwards but he chose to transform his style and body into what he is today. One of the greatest goal scores in history. Platini, Zidane, Xavi, Ronaldinho, Iniesta, Pirlo, etc. never had the capability to score at astonishing rates. Believe me, they would have made the same transition if possible.

    Where you and your cronies are mistaking is believing because he doesn't play deep, he can't. That is a false equivalency. I reiterate he has the same skill sets as all those play makers you celebrate.

    You rebuke the idea that no player in history possessed any more skill than Ronaldo without providing any evidence to the contrary. You instead counter with there are better dribblers and passers currently. Well how insightful you are. I could just as easily argue there were certainly better passers and dribblers littered throughout the world during the times of any player lavished with all-time great recognition in any era....Platini, Zico, Zidane, Xavi, whoever one could name could do nothing on the field with a ball Ronaldo can not.

    You can romanticize possession all you like though the fact remains it is simply the nature of the game. Ronaldo could easily regress to playing the ball sideways and behind to retain possession. What is more than this is actual progression and Ronaldo can take apart a defense with his dribbling and passing as well as anyone before him. Routine, mundane passing is the fundamental methodology of moving the ball around the field and any professional player can execute them with ease. You want to argue some do it better than others, fine. Still does not constitute play-making for me. You are glorifying and over complicating common play. "Pass and move to free yourself?" Really? What an abstract concept beyond Ronaldo's depth.....geeezus..

    Now with my scenario of Ronaldo winning the ball in his own half and linking up with teammates out-sprinting the opposition, providing the final pass and creating a goal was lost on you obviously. In an argument about skill, there are more skills and attributes on display over the course of a play like that (which he does often enough to deem it a skill) than linking up with teammates 10m apart repetitively that you consider "vision"....lol.....Vision is placing a ball between defenders into space. Vision is recognizing a run, vision is processing weakness in the defense. How individuals exploit these situations are a testament to their skill and their tangible results are a testament to their effectiveness. Their ability to repeat these skills is a testament to their consistency. I do not see any players being greater than Ronaldo in any of these aspects.

    Passing the ball around routinely is not fuking play-making. Especially in the fashion Barcelona do it, tapping the ball back and forth ad nauseum. I have said already and will say again I do not value retention on the same level as penetration anyway. Convincing me otherwise is an impossible task. All these players were exceptional and decisive goal creators, that I am not contesting. I just do not see fulfilling their roles by passing the ball around as creativity or play-making. You also are guilty of a double standard if you believe Ronaldo doing these same things on the wing for Madrid is not play making while when they are performed centrally it is.

    Defenders idly passing to one another in the backfield is hardly classified as play-making. Why then, midfielders 30m up the field engaging in this exact same activity is deemed as such? Lmao. For all your logic iterations you certainly leave yourself open here.

    It is players utilizing their skills to break from the routine flow and create an attack with the most critical aspect being a chance on goal, hence a "play" and its participants "makers." The definition is right in the word. Making something happen, in this case plays. Natural possession passing and dribbling/movement is not making anything. These sequences of passes are self evident and necessary if you want to move the ball from player. Theoretically you could hold the ball never crossing the center line and hold 100% possession. Without attacking what plays were made and what was their value? This is exactly what I mean, all the microcosm's of this same scenario which naturally happens in games by default is what you are all valuing and defining as play-making while I value the creation elements.

    Ironic that you twice referenced Ozil who is an extremely direct play-maker. His actions are predominantly intended to create chances. Seems he would agree with me on what are the vital areas of play-making.


    Now in relation to Barelona/Xavi

    When teams push up and pressure not allowing Barcelona the chance to settle in Tiki-Taka is rendered ineffective. This is when Xavi and Iniesta become pedestrian. Barcelona lulling the opposition to sleep with a harmonious circle jerk picking opportune moments to attack is definitely when Xavi and Iniesta are most effective. If you cannot see the role that possession has played in their success you shouldn't be joining the conversation. Xavi will receive the ball 8-10 times in one possession alone, that is a ridiculous amount of opportunity to be the decisive player. If nothing arises no worries, pass it sideways, players shift around, get it back and look for another opening, rinse and repeat for 90 minutes. I don't think Xavi would fare well on a team not containing other passing and possession maestros. If he were required to run and scrap for possession I don't believe he would have the athleticism. Ronaldo definitely is more universal and adaptable. He can play wide, up front, on the counter possession....etc.

    Furthermore, The sort of touches and looks, Messi, Xavi and Iniesta enjoy in a game is a luxury. You say they don't need that amount but that is immaterial as they indeed have it and benefit from it. I read an article a while back that stated Messi on average has 40 more touches in the final third a game than Ronaldo. Give Ronaldo 40 more opportunities to influence a game..... He's already providing comparable assists to the best play-makers and scoring goals on a level equal to the greatest players in history.

    Now whether Tiki Taka has truly dead or not is not the issue. Xavi, Iniesta and Messi losing significant form simultaneously in a time when teams have learned how to counter it is. I don't see this as a coincidence.

    And stop with the bullsh1t about Spain and no forwards. They were having scoreless draws, winning on penalties and scraping out 1-0 wins. Quit pretending Xavi and Iniesta were obliterating the opposition. Lots of luck, the best goal keeper in decades and a defense that just didn't allow goals were the ultimate contributing factors. Not to mention it coincided with quite a few great players all being in their primes and having mostly players who played together at Barcelona. That kind of familiarity is irreplaceable. (SEE Germany) If the Portugal national team consisted of all the key elements of Madrid and Ronaldo won tournaments there'd be no end to all the fuking ways to discredit it.

    Finally, you want to talk double standards? How about Xavi's decline being Pedro's fault? Pedro is fukin Puskas compared to Almeida, Eder and Postiga. This is also a huge exaggeration and you making excuses as he had Messi and Neymar and was no better. How about Xavi has had premier strikers to create for in his career. Players who all at one time could be considered the best in the world. Ronaldo only plays with the most expensive, nowhere near the best. Xavi being in decline at 34 when his game requires no physicality is a pitiful excuse too. Pirlo, Giggs, Scholes, Xabi....
     
    SterNYork repped this.
  23. EdgarAllanPoet

    EdgarAllanPoet Member+

    May 1, 2011
    Does this video go back 8 years @leadleader ?

    More team play, dribbles, thru passes, combinations and assists. All that boring stuff you guys don't classify as "play-making."



    For the previous video, lets disregard years of a players work in play-making because its convenient. Lol
     
  24. Jaweirdo

    Jaweirdo Member+

    Aug 19, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    #649 Jaweirdo, Aug 27, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2014
    I like how you extrapolated touches to opportunities when its obvious Messi's propensity to dribble with short strides gives him more touches. If Ronaldo wants 40 more touches a game he's gotta take it upon himself to produce those "opportunities"; either that or reverse his growth and change his whole style of play

    & no Ronaldo is not a playmaker in any sense of the word
     
    Pipiolo repped this.
  25. Pipiolo

    Pipiolo Member+

    Jul 19, 2008
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Tyson beats Holyfield if he was really prepared for the fight. I would have loved to see Tyson versus Lewis before 1998, I think had that fight taken place the winner would have placed themselves in the all-time top ten list for heavyweights.

    LOL, the sad part is you wrote all of this and no one is going to bother reading it :rolleyes:

    Cristiano Ronaldo, World Cup footnote :cool:
     

Share This Page