The 'Best Player Ever'

[FreshOwl]

8 minutes ago, CalmJimmers said:

 

I see your legend and I raise you this legend.

 

 

7 time Serie A Champion, 5 time Champions League winner and won a Balloon d'Or as a flipping centre back.

 

That Milan defence was unreal, and the kit makes my nipples hard.

 

Good response and I agree Maldini is world class.
 

I guess it just begs the question of what is more valued in football. Being a match winner virtually carrying an entire nation, or a defence Marshall whose organisation and leadership might be worth the same in gold? 
 

In terms of natural ability, Maradona was hand picked by god, I stand by that. We will never see someone like him again. 

[PeteG_1984]

Out of C Ronaldo and Messi, the former is probably the better athlete, better all rounder and is more decorated domestically and internationally. But Messi seems technically more genius.

 

Pele loses credibility because of the extra goals he adds on to his tally but he’s probably too under rated by people under 50. There’s a goal he scored in the 1958 World Cup as a skinny 17 year old where he lifts he over a defender and slots the ball home that looks absolutely sublime. Even more remarkable with how much balls weighed then.

 

Also worth remembering the crap Pele and Maradona had to put up with when defenders could get away with kicking them. If they were playing today with better nutrition, better pitches and more protection, they probably would have been even more amazing.

[FreshOwl]

37 minutes ago, PeteG_1984 said:

Out of C Ronaldo and Messi, the former is probably the better athlete, better all rounder and is more decorated domestically and internationally. But Messi seems technically more genius.

 

Pele loses credibility because of the extra goals he adds on to his tally but he’s probably too under rated by people under 50. There’s a goal he scored in the 1958 World Cup as a skinny 17 year old where he lifts he over a defender and slots the ball home that looks absolutely sublime. Even more remarkable with how much balls weighed then.

 

Also worth remembering the crap Pele and Maradona had to put up with when defenders could get away with kicking them. If they were playing today with better nutrition, better pitches and more protection, they probably would have been even more amazing.

Pele and Maradona are better than both ronaldo and Messi 

 

Would ronaldo and Messi be scoring the same goals hitting footballs that they used to use in the 70/80s, in those pitch conditions? With brutal and often blatant dangerous defending with little help from officials? 

Edited April 17, 2021 by FreshOwl

[scram]

7 hours ago, FreshOwl said:

Pele and Maradona are better than both ronaldo and Messi 

 

Would ronaldo and Messi be scoring the same goals hitting footballs that they used to use in the 70/80s, in those pitch conditions? With brutal and often blatant dangerous defending with little help from officials? 

 

 

It's a fair point about the brutality and detrimental conditions back in the day

 

But against that you'd have to factor in could the players from yonder cope with the speed and intensity of the game today?

 

It's by no means a given - many very gifted football players don't make the grade because of that very reason

[nevthelodgemoorowl]

Back in the day there were quite a few events where a world 11 would play Anniversary  matches against various National sides.

 

Who would be your nominations for British inclusions  ?

 

Duncan Edwards, John Charles, George Best and Jim Baxter would be my nominees from the 4 Nations. 

[FreshOwl]

1 hour ago, scram said:

 

 

It's a fair point about the brutality and detrimental conditions back in the day

 

But against that you'd have to factor in could the players from yonder cope with the speed and intensity of the game today?

 

It's by no means a given - many very gifted football players don't make the grade because of that very reason

yes defenders are more athletic these days. Looking at the speed of Maradona I’d say easily. He was a warrior and was constantly pressing defenders and tracking back to win the ball and then beating about 8 players 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2021 by FreshOwl

[torryowl]

1 hour ago, scram said:

 

 

 

 

But against that you'd have to factor in could the players from yonder cope with the speed and intensity of the game today?

 

 

we'll never know will we ....everyone thinks  there generation is best .ive seen the modern players of yours and think mine is better just as my dad would have  thought  his were......its an impossible to say who is the best ever .all you can be is the best of your era .  

[legendaryswan]

George Best was a very gifted footballer,once saw him nutmeg Johan Cruyff twice in a matter of minutes for N.Ireland, was a great shame he didnt handle all the adulation,as he got better as he got older. It was harder for George to showcase his talent on the international stage as NI rarely qualified for the final stages,but in europe he always stood out for United.

Close behind him was Franz Beckenbauer, a superbly balanced player that read the game from a distance and like Best could take the game away from you in a moment, his timing was perfection. hed just glide through your midfield almost without effort.

Dino Zoff was an immaculate goalkeeper,his positioning and the command of his area and marshalling of the defenders was legendary, with cat like reflexes he was master in the art of keeping goal.

[Ellis Rimmer]

No none attacking player should be in the mix. The hardest thing is to score and create goals. Best players always end up in attacking positions.

[1867owl]

Cristiano Ronaldo.

 

The graft and extra effort he's put in to be as good as he is makes him more special, not less.

 

An absolute powerhouse.

[torryowl]

12 hours ago, Ellis Rimmer said:

No none attacking player should be in the mix. The hardest thing is to score and create goals. Best players always end up in attacking positions.

 our best player was a goalie .......its a moot point a striker can miss 5 sitters and  still be a hero if he puts the 6th one in and wins the game ....the keeper can make 5 world class saves and still be the mug who  costs  you game if he drops a clanger with 6th  ........i think goalkeeper is the hardest position and yet they usually go for a fraction of what a striker costs .

[Utah Owl]

If Best had ever made it to a major tournament he'd be up there with them. No doubt in my mind.

[Emerson Thome]

On 17/04/2021 at 07:23, CalmJimmers said:

 

I see your legend and I raise you this legend.

 

 

7 time Serie A Champion, 5 time Champions League winner and won a Balloon d'Or as a flipping centre back.

 

That Milan defence was unreal, and the kit makes my nipples hard.

 

 

This is a controversial opinion, but I find Maldini one of the most overrated footballers ever. He was a very good defender - but how people can compare him to the likes of Pele, Maradona and Messi, I have no idea.

 

First of all, he never won the Ballon d'Or. I know defenders rarely win it, but Beckenbauer and Cannavaro did. In fact, van Dijk came second last year which is better than Maldini ever managed (third).

 

Secondly, yes he won lots of Serie A titles, but that's because AC Milan were the best team in the 90s. Gary Neville has 8 Premier League titles and Chellini has 9 Serie A's, but that doesn't make them all-time greats. Just very good defenders that were part of great teams, lots of equally great defenders - Baresi, Desailly, Cafu, etc. where part of those Milan teams. If Maldini wasn't in that Milan team they would still have won 7 Serie A titles and 5 Champions Leagues. You can't say Argentina or Napoli would have won titles without Maradona.

 

Thirdly, despite being part of a star-studded Italian team and over a long career with 8 attempts at winning a major title - Italy normally under-performed in big tournaments with Maldini in the team. But just before Maldini started, Italy won the World Cup. Just after he retired, they won the World Cup.

 

Finally, I don't think you can call him an all-time great centre back because he only ended his career there. And as a full-back, he was very much of his time - decent going forward, but there have been plenty of better attacking full-backs. Very solid defensively. So you're basically picking him in an all-time world XI if you want to play a back three or very conservative back 4 with full backs who primarily defend. A position that has kind of gone out of fashion in the modern game.

 

So why is he so highly rated? The longevity, the being part of a good team and the good looks all help. But I think you can compare him to Beckham in some respects as his reputation is vastly out of proportion to his achievements. Yes, I'm certainly not saying he was shít and he would probably make a list of the 20 best defenders of all time. But we're talking about the best player ever here.

[CalmJimmers]

7 hours ago, Emerson Thome said:

 

This is a controversial opinion, but I find Maldini one of the most overrated footballers ever. He was a very good defender - but how people can compare him to the likes of Pele, Maradona and Messi, I have no idea.

 

First of all, he never won the Ballon d'Or. I know defenders rarely win it, but Beckenbauer and Cannavaro did. In fact, van Dijk came second last year which is better than Maldini ever managed (third).

 

Secondly, yes he won lots of Serie A titles, but that's because AC Milan were the best team in the 90s. Gary Neville has 8 Premier League titles and Chellini has 9 Serie A's, but that doesn't make them all-time greats. Just very good defenders that were part of great teams, lots of equally great defenders - Baresi, Desailly, Cafu, etc. where part of those Milan teams. If Maldini wasn't in that Milan team they would still have won 7 Serie A titles and 5 Champions Leagues. You can't say Argentina or Napoli would have won titles without Maradona.

 

Thirdly, despite being part of a star-studded Italian team and over a long career with 8 attempts at winning a major title - Italy normally under-performed in big tournaments with Maldini in the team. But just before Maldini started, Italy won the World Cup. Just after he retired, they won the World Cup.

 

Finally, I don't think you can call him an all-time great centre back because he only ended his career there. And as a full-back, he was very much of his time - decent going forward, but there have been plenty of better attacking full-backs. Very solid defensively. So you're basically picking him in an all-time world XI if you want to play a back three or very conservative back 4 with full backs who primarily defend. A position that has kind of gone out of fashion in the modern game.

 

So why is he so highly rated? The longevity, the being part of a good team and the good looks all help. But I think you can compare him to Beckham in some respects as his reputation is vastly out of proportion to his achievements. Yes, I'm certainly not saying he was shít and he would probably make a list of the 20 best defenders of all time. But we're talking about the best player ever here.

 

Fair points, and yes just looked, didn't win the Ballon d'Or, think he came 2nd. 

 

Alex Ferguson called him his favourite he's seen, above Messi. R9 Ronaldo called him the best player he's ever played against. Gullit called him the best ever. Zlatan said he's the most difficult he's played against. David Villa called him one of the best players ever.

 

What I find interesting about the whole argument is - what defines 'best player ever'? Somebody who can score 40 a season? Somebody who can stop that player scoring consistently? Somebody who can create 40 a season? Somebody who could do everything, like a true box-to-box? A fantastic team player that made everybody around them better?

[Guest]

12 hours ago, torryowl said:

 our best player was a goalie .......its a moot point a striker can miss 5 sitters and  still be a hero if he puts the 6th one in and wins the game ....the keeper can make 5 world class saves and still be the mug who  costs  you game if he drops a clanger with 6th  ........i think goalkeeper is the hardest position and yet they usually go for a fraction of what a striker costs .

 

I agree that goalkeeper is a hard position to play for the reasons you express but it is still easier to keep the ball out of the goal than it is to put the ball in it overall. Occasionally goalkeepers standout as truly making a big difference - the likes of Yashin, Zoff, Buffon, Schmeicel but generally the big games, the big titles are won by the players who can make a difference in an attacking sense and fans in general, as much as they may admire great saves and quality defending, want to see goals. You don't get many fans going to games or watching games on TV hoping to see a 0-0 with classic defending and top class goalkeeping being top of their list of things to see.  

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Emerson Thome said:

 

This is a controversial opinion, but I find Maldini one of the most overrated footballers ever. He was a very good defender - but how people can compare him to the likes of Pele, Maradona and Messi, I have no idea.

 

First of all, he never won the Ballon d'Or. I know defenders rarely win it, but Beckenbauer and Cannavaro did. In fact, van Dijk came second last year which is better than Maldini ever managed (third).

 

Secondly, yes he won lots of Serie A titles, but that's because AC Milan were the best team in the 90s. Gary Neville has 8 Premier League titles and Chellini has 9 Serie A's, but that doesn't make them all-time greats. Just very good defenders that were part of great teams, lots of equally great defenders - Baresi, Desailly, Cafu, etc. where part of those Milan teams. If Maldini wasn't in that Milan team they would still have won 7 Serie A titles and 5 Champions Leagues. You can't say Argentina or Napoli would have won titles without Maradona.

 

Thirdly, despite being part of a star-studded Italian team and over a long career with 8 attempts at winning a major title - Italy normally under-performed in big tournaments with Maldini in the team. But just before Maldini started, Italy won the World Cup. Just after he retired, they won the World Cup.

 

Finally, I don't think you can call him an all-time great centre back because he only ended his career there. And as a full-back, he was very much of his time - decent going forward, but there have been plenty of better attacking full-backs. Very solid defensively. So you're basically picking him in an all-time world XI if you want to play a back three or very conservative back 4 with full backs who primarily defend. A position that has kind of gone out of fashion in the modern game.

 

So why is he so highly rated? The longevity, the being part of a good team and the good looks all help. But I think you can compare him to Beckham in some respects as his reputation is vastly out of proportion to his achievements. Yes, I'm certainly not saying he was shít and he would probably make a list of the 20 best defenders of all time. But we're talking about the best player ever here.

 

Fair points. I'm not sure Milan would have won the same amount of titles without him though. Of course they would still have been very successful but a lot of their success was based on defending and they chose him as their best in that position for over 2 decades. 

 

Not winning the World Cup is also a bit of a moot point - he captained Italy to the final in 94 and they lost on penalties after shutting out an attacking Brazil side - hardly his fault that he didn't win the honour when lesser players have done. That's a bit like those who point towards Ronaldo winning the Euro's while Messi has never won the Copa America. Portugal were fairly fortunate in Euro 2016, qualifying for the knockout stages after finishing 3rd in a poor group, Ronaldo played well perhaps twice in the whole tournament and was injured in the final with the score at 0-0. Argentina have lost in the final 3 times with Messi in the team, twice on penalties. 

He also played centre-back a bit more than you suggest - he played the role in the 94 World Cup when Baresi got injured for example. 

 

I'd say he would be in the top 10 of best defenders of all time but agree not in the running for the best ever footballer. 

 

 

 

 

[Rogers]

Natural talent - Maradona 

Dedicated talent - C Ronaldo

 

Where does Zidane sit; in a top 20? 

 

 

 

[Emerson Thome]

1 hour ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Fair points. I'm not sure Milan would have won the same amount of titles without him though. Of course they would still have been very successful but a lot of their success was based on defending and they chose him as their best in that position for over 2 decades. 

 

Not winning the World Cup is also a bit of a moot point - he captained Italy to the final in 94 and they lost on penalties after shutting out an attacking Brazil side - hardly his fault that he didn't win the honour when lesser players have done. That's a bit like those who point towards Ronaldo winning the Euro's while Messi has never won the Copa America. Portugal were fairly fortunate in Euro 2016, qualifying for the knockout stages after finishing 3rd in a poor group, Ronaldo played well perhaps twice in the whole tournament and was injured in the final with the score at 0-0. Argentina have lost in the final 3 times with Messi in the team, twice on penalties. 

He also played centre-back a bit more than you suggest - he played the role in the 94 World Cup when Baresi got injured for example. 

 

I'd say he would be in the top 10 of best defenders of all time but agree not in the running for the best ever footballer. 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair enough - the World Cup point was a bit of a stretch (and Italy/Maldini also had a very good defence in Italia 90). And I agree he was an all time great.

 

I guess it comes back to the point also made by @CalmJimmers about what defines the best player ever. For me, I would never really consider a defender, unless at a stretch a Beckenbauer type that can control the tempo of the game from back and carry the ball out of defence.

 

Reason is, I think it is harder to score goals than to stop goals. I think to some extent the players who become defenders are failed midfielders or forwards (not sure about Maldini, but certainly many English defenders, e.g. Carragher, Campbell, started out as forwards and were moved back).

 

It would be an interesting thought experiment to switch positions. I suspect Ronaldo with his pace, anticipation, strength, etc - could be an absolute world class centre back if he wanted to be. I think I remember some quote from Howard Wilkinson about how Maradona could play any position on the pitch and be world class because he was so good at football (I struggle to see him as a centre half because of his height, but surely he would be an incredible full back). But they never play in defence because attackers are so much more valuable (unless you're Tony Pulis...).

 

But, if the roles were reversed, I can't see Maldini, or Baresi, Thuram, or whichever other great defender as anything more than a journeyman second divison striker. Good all-round game, but without the explosive pace or skill to score 20+ goals a season.

[Emerson Thome]

12 minutes ago, Rogers said:

Natural talent - Maradona 

Dedicated talent - C Ronaldo

 

Where does Zidane sit; in a top 20? 

 

 

 

 

I think Zidane would definitely be in a Top 20, but after you've gone past the 'god-tier' of Pele, Maradona, Messi, Ronaldo, Cruyff then there are a lot of players it is quite hard to differentiate between. E.g. in Zidane's rough era there was also Rivaldo, Ronaldo, Batistuta, Bergkamp, Henry, Romario, Figo, etc - or if you go back 30 years you have Puskas, Di Stefano, Charlton, Eusebio, Kopa, Garrincha, Jairzinho, etc... I'm not sure Zidane did enough to elevate him to the 'god tier'.

[scram]

Some good points

 

Regarding ZZ i'd not even have him as the best ever French player - Platini would hold that honour for me