The Ultimate Soccer Player to Walk the Earth

Top ten players of all time:

Beckham
Rooney
Gascoigne
Maradona
Moore
Pele
Best
Charlton
Beckenbauer
Zidane

Revelian

 

beckham hahahahahahahaahaahhahaaha.

 

Well, I would have put Ombak, but you're number eleven in my book.

Revelian

 

I don't think players of today have better technical abilities, more the other way round. A kid growing up in the 1930s to 1960s really had not much choice to do in his spare time than to play football after school with his friends. The best players when they were kids were known to have played nothing but football in the streets and backyards of their neighborhoods. They learned to control the ball that way.

Today's players grew up at a time when they had far more possibilities to do in their spare time. Computer games, movies, television and whatnot. They spent less time on the ball at young age than their counterpasts of previous generations.

That's why I think the greats of the past had overall a better technique than most of today's stars.

 

A lot of greats of the past also were physicly more versatile. That has a lot to do with kids not just playing one sport, but basicly playing a bunch of them. Kids wouldn't concentrate on one sport 'till they were like ten years old, which means they had about five years of a very versatile physical development.

This is also a huge reason why players used to be more versatile back in the day. Wingers playing fullback etc used to be pretty normal.

 

Feanor,

I say players today are better because players such as Cristiano Ronaldo, Denilson, Ronaldinho, Jay Jay Okocha, Robinho and Henry do things with the ball today that yesterdays players could never do in a million years. For christ sake, 'keepers didn't even start wearing gloves until the late 70's I don't think?!?! It's no wonder Pele scored over a thousand goals? He played in south America all his career in a game where the keepers didn't even have gloves?

Curling freekicks, ball juggling skills and training techniques are worlds apart from, the game 30 years ago, and don't try and debate which generation is the fitter. Technology has ensured that diet and personal fitness regimes are sculpted for each player to maximise their individual physical make up. In the same way that sprinters have got faster with time, so have footballers. The balls move quicker (as they are not just sacks of leather filled with air these days?) Technique is coached into players these days too from a very early age, hence the outrageous skills of the modern day player. If the England team of today played the England team of 1966, they would walk all over them, without a doubt. Fitness, tactics, ball skills. It's all different, all superior. I have a video of the 1992 premiership season (the first premiership) and the level of football is comparable to Championship level these days. Some of the players in that league wouldn't even make a promotion pushing side these days, never mind a premiership side. There are the odd exceptions. Maradona may well have been an exceptional player and so might have Best, Beckenbauer and Pele, but the likes of Muller, Charlton and Eusebio would not be the stars they were 30 years ago in todays game. Hell, I've Ajax youth player pull off greater skills than those players.

I'm not tking away their achievments. They were as good as they could have been for the time, but technology, more than anything else, has ensured that top players of today are capable of doing things that yesterdays players could not.

And there are plenty of versatile players in todays game. Rooney can play on either wing as well as up front, as can Ronaldinho, Giggs and Robinho. Hell, Phil Neville can play just about anywhere other than in attack? It says everything about todays game that the formations of old have been binned for new, more effective ones. It's no coincidence that when England tried to play 352 against Croatia, we got beaten easily because that formation hasn't been used in nearly 10 years and 442, which Croatia played that night, offers far greeater versaitlity and effectiveness. Despite our ranking being far superior to theirs, the more mdern way of playing came out ontop, even with lesser players playing it?

That, for me, illustrates it perfectly. Don't get me wrong. The great players of yesteryear were great players, but lets not put them on a pedastool just because they were here first..............

 

Another member of these forum said once : "Some of you young kids are so out to lunch that one can only have pity. I fear that you guys suffer from an acute case of videocliposis, a common condition among lazy children who can't be bothered to search for full matches so they satisfy themselves with video clips, resulting in a grossly distorted sense of reality."

These are harsh words. But they reflect reality.
Let's see :

This statement tells me a lot of things about the person in cause. It tells me that the number of videoclips totally overcomes the number of games watched or the speaker has some problems understanding the basics of football and what exactly makes a player "great".

This second statement also tells me something. It tells me that I don't have exactly a dialog, but rather I'm listening to a monologue, since it seems my interlocutor has not exactly read my argument, else he would have seen I've adressed this nonsense about how much sprinters got faster and what kind of "improvements" are we talking about.

This strengthens the conclusion above, especially the part about the "outrageous skills of the modern player". For Christ's sake, have you read at least one word from what I've written ?
What outrageous skills ? At the last WC, what pieces of great dribbling have we seen ? NONE !
What great plays remained into history ?
What matches for the ages ?
There were no great solo goals, no bycicle kicks, no moments of great ball control... All the great goals of the previous WC were a bunch of long range goals based more on luck than individual skill (two of the greatest goals were scored by Maxi Rodriguez and Joe Cole - enough said) and a goal preceded by 20 backward passes ?

Oh really ? Like what : hit the ball four times in a row in a Nike commercial ? Can you make the difference between a proper football matches and these ridiculous adverts ?
Let's settle this once and for all!

What vast array of moves and dribbles does Ronaldinho do on a regular basis? Seriously, where do you guys get this idea that Ronaldinho is some kind of circus act displaying an endless array of "new" tricks?
Ronaldinho does :

1) No look passes.
2) Elasticos.
3) The occasional stepover.
4) The occasional spin move.
5) Occasional backheels.

And that is all.

I hear this stuff a lot of times : Ronaldo/Ronaldinho/Zidane/insert any modern great can do a lot of trick which older players can't do. From videoclips, it seems so. But it's a load of bollocks. We have to thank Nike for this brainwashing.
What are these tricks modern greats perform so often and what is their end product ? A very limited number, who are very far from representing the core of dribbling.

In general, for a player to be a succesful dribbler he needs to meet the next requirements :

- great ball control ; for instance, take as an example Maradona's goal against England. What tricks does he use to get past those english defenders ? The same trick Ronaldinho to screw Real's defense one year ago, more exactly NOTHING. It was a classic solo based on speed, great ball control, sudden change of direction.

- decision making : this again is very important (the most important IMO) ; here is where the difference between the trickster (Denilson) and the great player (Ronaldinho) resides. Dinho could have ended like Denilson, they weren't so different at the beginning of their careers, but Dinho complements his technical skills with a much better decision making.

These are the main ones which represent the essence of dribbling. Master these 2 elements and you are going to be a great dribbler without any kind of tricks.

Additional requirements are :

- ability to change direction quickly ;
- ability to improvise ;
- speed ;
- strength.


Now let's take some cases for study from one of the greatest dribblers of our generation, pre-injury Ronaldo, and see what's the end product of those tricks.

- The goal versus Compostela : the hosts lose a ball at the midfield, Ronaldo picks the ball, he is tripped from the back, but he manages to free himself, a defender comes from behind, but when Ronaldo accelerates, that defender is in a very compromising position, so Ronaldo moves towards left and dashes past him, Ronaldo runs towards the goal with 2 defenders trailing him, once he slows down one defender manages to get before him, but Ronaldo moves towards right to make way for his shot and scores, while a forth defenders watches at 2-3 meters away. Tricks used : ZERO.

- First goal versus Valencia : Ronaldo receives a ball at aprox 40 meters, accelerates, uses his speed to ran past 2 defenders and scores ; trick used : ZERO ;

- The last goal versus Valencia : Ronaldo picks a ball in the midfield, dashes forward while a defender challenges him from the right but Ronaldo's superior speed prevents the contact from taking place, he rans towards the goal at full speed, he muscles his way through 2 defenders (his great speed denying them the time to close the space) and sends the ball into the net before a forth defender, coming from the right, had the time to tackle him ; a great goal based on speed. Tricks used : ZERO.

- Goal versus Atletico Madrid : Ronaldo gets the ball at 40-45 meters, he charges towards a defender, but he quickly changes direction towards right and sends a shot into the low corner from 20-25 meters ; tricks used : ZERO ;

Four of the greatest goals of Ronaldo required NO TRICKS. And like that are many. Sure there are some when Ronaldo used some tricks (I remember an elastico followed by a goal for Brazil), but the majority were not performed with "tricks".


Now let's see what kind of a dribbler Pele was. For this, I have to elaborate a little on different types of dribbling.

There are 2 types of dribbling which a player can use :

1. Dribbling at full speed : these type of players use speed to explode past a defender. This rarely begins from a standing spot. This type of dribbler runs with the ball before aproaching his man. Ronaldo was this type and the classic example is the infamous goal against Compostela : that was not a piece of great technique, but rather illustrated Ronaldo's speed and strength with the ball. Or the goal against Valencia. Pele was a master of this style, a classic example being the goal scored against Mexico in 1962, in the WC, which is practically a carbon copy of Ronaldo's goal against Compostela.
Another classic example which comes into my mind is Pele's run against Uruguay in WC 1970, when he gets past 4 players before he is brought down.

2. Stationary and lateral type of dribbling ; this type of dribbling is the most difficult one ; that's because the defender has more time to react towards the attacker's movements ; in general, in a full speed dribbling, the defender finds himself at disadvantage because the attacker had already gained momentum ; that's why was Ronaldo so effective in his prime ; because his great speed combined with excellent dribbling skills allowed him to use this style, against which defenses are the most vulnerable, to perfection, since it is extremely hard for a defender to anticipate it and his teammates don't have time to offer appropriate cover. Here is another example to illustrate how defenses can be made knock-out with such a style : the most infamous goals scored by Ronaldinho, the ones at Santiago Bernabeu. I've seen many comments about how simple were those goals and they were possible only because Real's miserable defense. False. Simply Ronaldinho approached Sergio Ramos at full speed, one lateral change of direction, goal ! Real - Barca 0 - 2, nail in the coffin, case closed. Dinho didn't use "one thousand tricks" to get past Sergio Ramos, but the same classic combination run-change direction-shoot which existed since the days of Stanley Matthews. Nothing new under the sun.

But this is not the case for the stationary dribbling. Quickness is necessary, but speed of thought is more important. This type of dribbler, dribbles from a stationary position and explodes left, right, forward or backward to draw the defender into a compromising position. The difficulty is that the defender already had the time to take defensive stance and his teammates had the time to cover him. These dribbling has 2 versions :
- the attackers bursts pasts a defender using his ability to accelerate quickly from a standing spot ; example : Ronaldinho's goal against Milan in 2004 ;
- the slow-motion dribble : this is one where skills or "tricks" as someone names them have the main role ; the attacker relies not on speed and quickness of reaction, but on feints and body movements to deceive the defender, more like teasing than running past him. Examples : Ibrahimovic's goal against NAC Breda.

Pele used this style as well and what made him even more deadly is that he combined both styles perfectly. A classic example is his second goal against Benfica from the Intercontinental in 1962 which started like Ronaldinho's goal, but Pele got past 3 defenders, not just one.

Besides this 2 classic types of dribbling, Pele had special movements. Here are some of them :

- The Sombrero movement : this is one of the most difficult dribbling movements ; when today a sombrero results in a goal, all the televisions fall flat ; Pele was probably the best executor of a sombrero the world has ever seen ; beside the classic from the 1958 WC final, there other examples, like a sombrero against Benfica in 1966, in a friendly. Two sombreros deserves though special mention : one, in august 1959, against Juventus Sao Paulo, in the SP league, Pele managed 3 sombreros in a row (dribbled 3 defenders without letting the ball touch the ground) and headed the ball into the net ; another classic was in a league game against Corinthians, in 1964 I think, when Pele did a lateral sombrero : he controled the ball with the chest, he lobed it over the defender who charged him, got past him, he trapped the ball again with his chest, volley and goal. Someone said once Pele played against muppets. This was a move insanely difficult to execute even if you have to face a dummy and not the defenders of Corinthians, one of the powerhouses of brazilian football.

- The shin dribbling, again one of the most difficult from the arsenal of a dribbler ; Pele used to play the ball directly off the shins of his opponent so the ball would bounce back allowing him to collect the ball while dashing past the defender at full speed. Even more, he used to play the ball of the lateral side of a defender's shin while Pele was blowing past him. And he did that while dribbling past groups of players at full speed. He did it even to the great Bobby Moore. Can you imagine the difficulty of performing these shin passes at full speed without screwing them up ?


Now you are telling me that players of today can do things which players of the past can't do ? Let me get the facts straight for you : there is no player today who can score a sombrero as good as Pele, nor do these shin passes as good as Pele. NO ONE.

 

I find it incredible that while the rest of the world has moved forward in the last 40 years, the pair of you are struggling to grasp the concept that football might well have done too?

The skills and techniques that modern day players display these days are far harder to execute than those of 40 years ago.

Pele's goals achievments are very impressive, but the game in south and north America was the same as it is today - played at a lot lower level than that of it's european counterparts. The fact that Pele never truly tested himself in the worlds best leagues means that his achievments will always be viewed with an air of cynicism. Dixie Dean once scored 60 league goals in a season for Everton. But he displayed all the technique of a rogue elephant in a china shop. The same can be said of Puskas, who's game was based on one very powerful left foot and a stocky build, but little else. I have no doubt that these players would not make such an impact today. If you think for one second that Dean would terrorise any premiership defence, you're having a laugh.

Given that he was almost certainly running faster than Pele ever did while keeping ball and avoiding/fighting off numerous defenders, and then finishing past 'keepers who are far, far better than those of 40 years ago, I'd say the technique and ball control in those golas is actually quite mind-boggling. "Tricks" mean nothing in a game. When I talk about tricks I do indeed refer to those Nike adverts but Nike are guilty of nothing other than illustrating exactly what a modern day footballer can do with a ball. The ball control, technique and imagination shown by the likes of Davids, Del Piero and Ronaldinho puts Pele's faints and shimmies into the shade.

And you don't think the level of ball control and the techniques used are mind boggling? No one ever said anything about action on the pitch, we said technique. But while we're at it:

They are far, far stronger, faster and more rounded athletes. They play the game at a far higher tempo, yet they control the ball with greater efficiency than those players gone by. Their passing is far more varied and has far more range, their shooting is harder, faster and more accurate and their dribbling skills are atleast as impressive, if not more. Given that the game as a whole is played at a higher tempo, by default it demands that you possess greater ball control and technique. You have to, otherwise the game would simply pass you by.

Having watched one of the world best leagues week in, week out, and having watched more football than is healthy, I have a very, very clear idea of what makes a good player, and what makes a great one.


Understand this; Football has moved forward, as things inevitably do. It is a far more advanced game than it was 40 years ago both in terms of technique, speed, skill, tempo. It demands that players get better.......

 

Harry....vs...Fean...
Its turning out to be a good match with interesting points being made on both sides.
"good match ole boys!"

please..
continue

 

How much of Puskas have you actually seen? I am willing to guess that at most it is the 1960 European Cup Final and a couple of other highlights as this statement is just completely off the mark. In his Honved days Puskas was as mobile as any other striker around - the Hungarian game was based on him constantly swapping positions at high speed. If you believe he only had a powerful left foot then you really are missing the point. His left foot could produce an incredibly powerful shot, but was also able of the most delicate pieces of skill. How many modern players are capable of juggling a bar of soap in the shower or deliberately hitting 10 straight shots off the crossbar from outside the box?

 

In fact I'm having a laugh at your comments. Here is another gem from your previous post :

Really ? So players from 1992 were inferior to the ones of today you say ? Let's see : in 2001, Ronaldo was injured, and Brazil faced a striker crisis. Their coaches experimented all kind of new strikers from the new generation and nothing worked. Brazil was in danger of losing the qualification. So what did they do ? They called old papa Romario, who was 35 years old and on the brink of retirement, a player who developed his skills in the late '80s and hit the peak of his form in 1992-1994, that period whose players you pretend they are so inferior to the new stars. It was up to Romario to save their asses. And he did that much better than the new generation of strikers who proved themselves totally incapable of delivering the needed goals.

It's quite simple to understand in fact. There are certain disciplines where native talent plays such a big role that the development of technology does not help people get better.
That is why there is only one Shakespeare, only one Mozart, only one Leonardo da Vinci. You know, the world has moved a lot forward over the last 200 years, in fact much more than over the last 40 years. Can you explain why no other Mozart came to town if your paradigm about the evolution of the world leading to the evolution of talent is true ?

Sometimes I really wonder why I waste my time here since you simply repeat the same point over and over again, despite being crushed by many posters in this thread on many occasions.
Have you heard of the type of poster called Ferrous Cranus ? Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.
You mentioned this idea, "The skills and techniques that modern day players display these days are far harder to execute than those of 40 years ago." It was rebuked. Now you simply state it again, without any kind of variations. At least try to be original, bring something new to the table !

Ok, that's it ! THE SAME POINT AGAIN ??? Read the first two pages and stop polutting this thread, please.
The simple fact that you believe that the game in South America was at the same level as it is today expose you as someone whose knowledge of football before 1998 is INEXISTANT (as if the naivetes stated in your first post would not have been enough...) and as someone whose remarks cannot be taken seriously.

Almost certainly ? Just curious, how fast was Pele and how fast was Ronaldo ? When you make such a statement, you should provide some evidence of it, not just your self-constructed beliefs.
Keepers far, far better ? Do you know who is the best keeper all-time ? Lev Yashin.

Aha ! Interesting comment. If you really believe that the Nike adverts illustrate the skills of a modern footballer, I ask the people who read these thread, there is any need for a comment ?
And, btw, if the moves of these modern players are much harder to execute, why no one can execute a sombrero at least from time to time, while Pele did that quite often ? The only sombrero scored by Ronaldinho was scored in 1999, in Copa America, against Venezuela. And that is ALL !

The same points again. Ok, I was polite in my previous reply, but since I have to deal with such level of obtuzity that I start to lose my temper.
So :
- players are far stronger, faster and more rounded athletes ;
- they control the ball with greater efficiency ;
- their passing is more varied, their shooting is harder and more accurate ;
- their dribbling skills are at least as impressive.

Who says all these things ? Some great manager who has a lot of experience in the field ? Not quite. The same guy who :

- mentions two mediocrities like Denilson and Okocha among the players who have better skills than Pele or Cruyff ;
- says that the game in South America in the time of Pele was the same as today - at a lower level than its european counterpart ;
- says that the Nike adverts illustrate what a modern players can do with the ball.

Do you realize that, after stating such nonsense, your credentials are NIL ?

This what you say. Your own arguments suggest the opposite. In fact, they are so incoherent that they can be used to put the modern players down !
Stop watching compilations, young man, and educate yourself before entering a debate.
I would be embarassed if my kid would go in online forums claiming that Godzilla is a better movie than Ben-Hur.
In these debate about modern players, you make a confusion between what is fancy and what represents quality. Just like between Godzilla and Ben-Hur.

No, in fact I don't understand. Let's look at the current generation for instance. One generation of players is about to retire and another takes its place.
Ronaldo retires. Who takes his places ? Two average players like Fred and Adriano ? What kind of evolution is that ?
Figo and Rui Costa retired. Who replaces them ? Deco and C.Ronaldo ? Is that evolution ?
Italy has to replace its forwards. Who comes instead of Inzaghi, Vieri, Totti ? Gilardino and Toni ? Evolution ? I think not.
Batistuta retired 4 years ago. In our modern era. What player of today comes remotely close to Batigol in the Argentinian squad ?
France had to call back Zidane from retirement, because the new players were not good enough. Where is the evolution ?
Roberto Carlos and Cafu are retiring ? Who are replacing them ?
If players become better, then do tell me why Matthaeus, a player who started his career in late 70s, was kept in the team until he could not move his body on the pitch anymore, at the age of 39 ? Matthaesus was clearly fading away after 1998, but Germany simply had no one to take his place !
Why Milan has to use two old veterans from the age of Maradona like Maldini and Costacurta ? Is there no one capable to replace these guys ? Well, it seems not.
The only evolution is in Brazil's midfield, where Rivaldo was replaced by Ronaldinho and Kaka. At this moment, this is the only improvement, the rest are only downgrades.

If you think players automatically get better with time, I'm sorry for you, you are leaving in wonderland. Talent does not evolve. Tactics only CHANGE.

 

nice fean..quote: Can you explain why no other Mozart came to town if your paradigm about the evolution of the world leading to the evolution of talent is true ?:quote Fean.


Because their has been Stevie Wonder's,Ray Charles, and others who have created their own legacy?

Oh yeah...
Welcome to Big soccer Harry
lol...lol

Fean is
Manchester City...
Harry is Sheffield Wedensday

 

True, but does that mean they were more talented because they lived in a modern era ?

 

One of the best threads yet!

I agree with Feanor though. Even if you go back as recently as the 94 WC and compare that Brazilian team to the 06 WC team(referrencing Brazil for obvious reasons), it's almost like night and day.

Players like Romaria and Bebeto, OMG, truly made it a beautiful game everytime they stepped on that pitch. I'm not old enough to site matches any further than that, but from what I remember from witnessing that team, it only makes the current squad's lack of creativity that much more trivial.

Not bashing the current players as they still have greatness in Ronaldinho, Robinho, Kaka etc. but even the fiercest Canarinho supporter would have to agree that these guys just don't have that same magic and brilliance as their former teams from the past.

 

But more people play the game today than they did earlier. Training methods have improved. There is more and more competition in the game starting from the earliest ages. I think.

 

I want to point to you something. There is no direct connection between the number of people who play the game and the number of good players produced.

Let's make a direct comparison between two very similar countries :

Spain and Argentina have almost the same population. They are both latin countries. They have both the infrastructure needed to produce great players. They have both a football mentality which prefers offensive football. In both countries football is extremely popular.
Yet, Argentina produced two fantastic players like Alfredo Di Stefano and Diego Maradona. Spain did not produce anyone of the magnitude of these two legends. Why ? There is no logical explanation. It's a matter of circumstances and luck.
Again, Spain is 3 times more populated than Holland. If more people play means more good players, then Spain should have had better players than Holland. Yet they did not. Holland gave us Cruyff and Van Basten. Spain did not produce any player as good as these 2, despite the fact that more people play the game in Spain.

If there is a direct connection between the number of people who play the game and quality, then Brazil from 1990 should have had better performances than Brazil from 1958. In 1958, Brazil had aprox 80 millions people towards 140 millions in 1990. They did not.

Do I need to continue ?

Incorrect. At international level, there are the same number of teams who can represent a challenge.
There are 7-8 powerhouses, 10-15 decent teams + canon fodder.
Between 1950-1970, the great teams were Brazil, England, Uruguay, Soviet Union, Spain, Italy, Argentina, West Germany, Czechoslovakia + 2 teams who were great at a certain tournament, but not over the entire period, like France and Portugal.
Now Uruguay, Soviet Union and Hungary have dissappeared from the stage.
The countries remaining : Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Czechs, Italy, Spain, England, France, countries who are not powerhouses anymore were replaced by new ones like Holland, and Portugal.
There is absolutely no additional competition.

What about club level ?

Let's look at Spain : between 1956 and 1974 (Pele's time), the teams winning La Liga were Real Madrid, Barcelona, Atletico Madrid, Valencia and FC Sevilla.
Between 1988 and 2006, the teams winning la Liga are Real Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Atletico Madrid and Deportivo La Coruna.
If more people play means more great players, then shouldn't other teams be able to win La Liga ?
Let's say that we have 20 fantastic players in La Liga from 1960. Ten of them are taken by Real Madrid who manages to win La Liga five times in a row between 1961 and 1965.
If the game is more competitive, such a feat should not be possible anymore. Not quite.
In 1985, the population has increased, thus there should be more great players available. Yet, la Quinta del Buitre manages to win again five titles in a row from 1986 to 1990. If your paradigm is correct, the exploits of Real between 1986-1990 and Barcelona between 1991-1994 should not have been possible.

There are only specific competitions who became more competitive. The WC and domestic leagues no, but the CL yes. The cause of this change is directly related to the format of the competition. In the beginning, CL accepted only the champion teams and had less games. So in 1962 we had around 10 great teams : the champions of Italy, Spain, England, Portugal, Soviet Union, Yougoslavia, Scotland, Hungary, France. The rest were cannon fodder. Second, there was no selection of teams according to their quality, like today, so the teams who finally emerged as champion could have had the chance of facing at a certain stage teams much weaker than them.
Today, the strong leagues send more teams into the competition and the teams are carefully selected.
I'll give you an example. In 1960, Spain had 2 teams in CL : Barcelona as champions and Real as CL winners. These 2 teams, the strongest in Europe at that time, faced each other in the first round, Real being eliminated and thus making Benfica's task easier. Today something like that is impossible due to the format change.

 

gffgbfhhfghgfhfhfhgh

 

Yes, I do. I have watched the game for years ad I'm telling you now, I'm not guessing, I know. The premiership has moved on from 10 or 15 years ago when the likes on John Warke and Ian Crook were plying their trade for Oldham and Norwich. These were players who were, compared to the modern day premiership footballer, were truly aweful. Don't argue with my point regarding this, the premiership is a much improved league from 15 years ago and anyone who argues otherwise is cleaerly not up to speed with the modern game?

Buit football isn't an imagination game, it's a physical game. The development of training methods and phyical grooming ofmplayers has made them superior athletes. It's inevitable that they are in physically better shape, with quicker uscles that allow them to do more. It really is quite simple?

My points is regarding the likes of Carlos Alberto, Pele and Jairzinho. They are not as complete a players as Ronaldinho, Ronaldo and Kaka. Not close.

Well, given the fact that we have established that training methods and fitness levels has made modern day footballers superior athletes, it's a foregone conclusion you putz? They are stronger and faster. Full stop. What's more, they do more, faster. I'll repeat my points until you actually acknowledge them, rather than conveniently skirting round them?

Wrong, there's no such thing as an easy game at international levels apart from some very specific examples such as San Marino and Luxembourg. That's why, in recent years we have seen Equador beat Brazil, Croatia defeat England and Scotland beat Germany away, and Jamaice and Trinidad qualify fr the World Cups.

No, because as football has expanded, so has the scouting networks of these teams and their financial clout. The bigger teams inevitably snap up or buy the most promising players? Thats why the only teams to have ever won the premiership are Arsenal, Man Utd, Chelsea and Blackburn. Any half decent player who comes through gets signed, eg Wayne Rooney to Man Utd, and half the West Ham team of Cole, Lampard, Carrick, Ferdinand and Defoe all being bought. Very few teams outside the top 4 in any league manage to keep their top players. When the big boys come calling, they cannot say "no". Sevilla have had to sell Reyes and Ramos in recent years because they just cannot astave off the interest of Real Madrid and Arsenal.

The panalists on Match of The Day who have played the game in the past and state every week that the game has moved on to new levels. I would suggest that monseurs Hansen and Lawrensen know more about the game than some scab on a chat forum who thinks he knows the history of football when in actually fact, he does not.

[/QUOTE]

You are naming truly exceptional player that can never be replaced. The fact of the matter is, did Vieri win the world cup? No. Did Gillardinho and Toni. Yes, they did. Ronaldo is every bit as good as Figo was at his age and will go on to become a truly great player. Deco is a great player too. You cannot use Figos and Rui Costas achievmenta againmst the more modern players as they have had their time. Come back when Ronaldo is 33, yes?

The reason I say this is because over the course of the premiership, there has been 3, maybe 4 south Americans who have actually made an impact. Edu and Gilberto at Arsenal, Heinze at Man Utd and Juninho at 'Boro. Veron flopped. Crespo flopped. Tevez and Mascherano are struggling badly, Marinelli flopped, Kleberson flopped, Emerson was average, the two south Amercians that Newcastle signed 5 years ago flopped. What's more, only the truly exceptional player even stay around. Batistuta, Ronaldinho, Romario. Even Bebeto spent most of his career in Brazil?


If you want to live in this sentimental and idealistic fantasy world that "the greats" of times gone by are the technically better generation then you can do. It sugggest to me that you are going off the reputation and prestige that these names carry, rather than the logical conclusion that football has evolved just like any other sport. It is no longer the game where 22 strong men took to a field and kicked a pigs bladder around with toe-capped boots and put the big man in nets without gloves. Players these days train more often, the skills and expertise they have around them is worlds apart. Natural talent was never the issue, TECHNICAL ability was the issue in hand, and todays players are better technically then there fore-fathers were, so to speak. Your clais for a "sombrero" is one skill. Get over it. It's like the Cruyff turn. When it was invented, it was impressive. These days, any conference player can do it.......

 

PELE NOT AS COMPLETE AS RONALDO, RONALDINHO OR KAKA ???

Harry, I have no beef with you, so take it as a friendly advice : you have been repeatedly exposed by different posters in this thread as someone who does not know what he is talking about.
Your points have been repeatedly torn to pieces, yet you keep repeating the same points again and again like a damaged tape recorder.
Your last post is nothing more than a reiteration of your previous ones without any kind of variations.
Your posts lost any weight when you mentioned that the "south american and north american leagues were the same as today". Beside the absurdity of mentioning the brazilian league in the same sentence as the north-american one, your claim is extremely innacurate and anyone whith a modicum of knowledge on football history can easily demolish it. And it's not even the only one. The number of inaccuracies in your arguments is considerable.

So if you keep claiming these things, you are not doing yourself any favors. You are setting yourself for being ridiculed from now on.

And I would suggest Franz Beckenbauer and Johan Cruyff, two persons who played in the old era and coached/managed clubs in the modern era, know more about football than "monseurs Hansen and Lawrensen".
And "scab on a chat forum who thinks he knows the history of football when he does not" ? You do have a lot of nerve, kid. Didn't Lanman caught you with your pants down in regard to Puskas exactly on this same page ?

And, yeah, and you also said that "When I talk about tricks I do indeed refer to those Nike adverts but Nike are guilty of nothing other than illustrating exactly what a modern day footballer can do with a ball.", so stop playing this charade, please.

Well, I'm an extremely curious person. I want to know how fast was Pele/Eusebio/Gento and how fast are Ronaldo/Henry/Eto'o. Answer the question or shut your mouth about this speed obsession of yours.

 

All the things you prementioned were about how the diets, coaching, fitness etc has changed, it has nothing to debate the skill of the players. If Maradona was just 18 now and received all the same training that C.Ronaldo has, I somehow think Maradona would be a fair bit better. It's about Vision. Take Zidane he didn't always use fast paced stepovers, he did them quite moderately at his own leisure, because he was that good, that he gave himself all the time in the world to do it.

 

Hate to bring the thread down to this level but...someone should really get on the phone to those guys down at MGM studios, i mean that virtual fight they set up between Rocky Balboa and Antonio Tarver, I mean that really got people wondering about who was the best. Perhaps we should get them to make a Football one?

 

You missed out Ricky Villa and Ossie Ardiles, the only two Argentinian success stories in the history of English Football. Heinze is the only person to even come close, although i pray Tevez will find form, he truly is a great player.

Definitely better than Maradona IMO.

 

Don't forget the legs! Garrincha.