10 greatest footballers of all time

[Posh Ram]

I'm sorry, but the Brazilian League of his time wasn't a "Mickey Mouse League" and to say so shows a drastic misunderstanding of World Football at the time. The Brazilian League of his day was arguably the strongest in the world at that time, and he dominated the World Stage with Brazil. 

I just think it's difficult to consider him "greatest of all-time" when he didn't compete regularly against the best of the best. If he'd spent three or four seasons playing in a top European league, that would be enough to change my mind.

Yes he dominated the world stage with Brazil, but you've got to remember the teams he played on were very, very good. The group from 1958 (where he wouldn't have won Golden Ball, if it had been awarded, despite that being common thinking) went on to win again 4 years later. The team in 1970 featured five of World Soccer's "100 greatest players of the 20th century". It was absolutely stacked and it wasn't hard for him to dominate.

I still think that Pele was a great player, and he ranks just outside of my top 10. But imo it's farcical to rank him above Messi, C Ronaldo, Maradona, Cruyff. We never saw him consistently dominate the best players like the others have. 

​How many World Cups has Messi won , he has only ever played for one team that has been built around him , and when he plays internationally he disappears , Maradonna virtually carried Argentina on his back to win , Messi can not do it , he is NOT the best ever .

The 'Messi has never won the World Cup' argument isn't fair. The European Cup/Champions League is a much better, fairer competition than the World Cup, based entirely on what country you're from. And Messi has won that twice.

Even if the World Cup argument was valid, last summer Messi almost carried a poor Argentina side to the World Cup last summer and won himself a Golden Ball in the process. Maradona's achievements were only slightly better in that regard, and Messi's record at club level is so much better.

[Ovis aries]

 

Seems to me that every player put up against Messi has had it easier for some reason or another , what a load of twaddle .IMHO.

Ronnie brilliant in the Premier , brilliant in La Liga.

Messi brilliant in La Liga , brilliant in ??????.

[Albert]

I just think it's difficult to consider him "greatest of all-time" when he didn't compete regularly against the best of the best. If he'd spent three or four seasons playing in a top European league, that would be enough to change my mind.

Yes he dominated the world stage with Brazil, but you've got to remember the teams he played on were very, very good. The group from 1958 (where he wouldn't have won Golden Ball, if it had been awarded, despite that being common thinking) went on to win again 4 years later. The team in 1970 featured five of World Soccer's "100 greatest players of the 20th century". It was absolutely stacked and it wasn't hard for him to dominate.

I still think that Pele was a great player, and he ranks just outside of my top 10. But imo it's farcical to rank him above Messi, C Ronaldo, Maradona, Cruyff. We never saw him consistently dominate the best players like the others have. 

​I honestly wouldn't rank anyone above Messi or Ronaldo to be honest. They are a head and shoulders above any player in history, a true showing of the King Effect, where both are truly exceptional. Whether it's by the effect they've had on their teams, or just the weight or raw statistics, the two stand out in a way that's very hard to compare. 

As for "didn't compete with the best of the best". Again, how can anyone say this? Is all football prior to the 80s and 90s just discarded because "they didn't play against the best of the best". The Brazilian League of the time was arguably the best of the best. He was the star of a star studded Brazilian side. 

I honestly don't see why people feel that greats need world cups to their name though. I do always find it funny when people write off the Brazilian League, particularly at it's peak. It would be like someone writing off the Premier League of today 10-20 years from now "because Messi and Ronaldo didn't play in it" or writing off Cruyff's Ajax side "because it was in the Micky Mouse Dutch League". It speaks to little more than a misunderstanding of World Football at the time. 

[Posh Ram]

 

Seems to me that every player put up against Messi has had it easier for some reason or another , what a load of twaddle .IMHO.

Ronnie brilliant in the Premier , brilliant in La Liga.

Messi brilliant in La Liga , brilliant in ??????.

​Why is that relevant? He's much more brilliant than Ronaldo in La Liga, anyway. And he'd dominate in the Premier League.

Ronaldo is a brilliant player. Messi turns his team-mates into brilliant players.

Let's not let this descend into a Messi v Ronaldo/Maradona debate anyway. I think all three of those players will feature in almost everybody's top 10. 

[Kernow]

The World Cup is a ridiculous level to base player's abilities on. If Messi was German would have won the World Cup last year? Probably. If Neuer was English would he have won the World Cup last year? Nope. 

You can't help where you're born. On the grounds that 'Messi has never won a World Cup so Maradonna is therefore better' is flawed. You could also then say that Rory Fallon is better than George Weah ever was. Why? Because Rory Fallon has played at the World Cup and George Weah has not.

[Ovis aries]

​Why is that relevant? He's much more brilliant than Ronaldo in La Liga, anyway. And he'd dominate in the Premier League.

Ronaldo is a brilliant player. Messi turns his team-mates into brilliant players.

Let's not let this descend into a Messi v Ronaldo/Maradona debate anyway. I think all three of those players will feature in almost everybody's top 10.

​You are only surmising that Messi would dominate in the Premier , you have no proof , so your statement is meaningless , and merely an opinion .

The second goal he scored last night was good , but would he have scored it against Fabio Cannavaro , I think maybe not , but that's just my opinion .

[Posh Ram]

​I honestly wouldn't rank anyone above Messi or Ronaldo to be honest. They are a head and shoulders above any player in history, a true showing of the King Effect, where both are truly exceptional. Whether it's by the effect they've had on their teams, or just the weight or raw statistics, the two stand out in a way that's very hard to compare. 

As for "didn't compete with the best of the best". Again, how can anyone say this? Is all football prior to the 80s and 90s just discarded because "they didn't play against the best of the best". The Brazilian League of the time was arguably the best of the best. He was the star of a star studded Brazilian side. 

I honestly don't see why people feel that greats need world cups to their name though. I do always find it funny when people write off the Brazilian League, particularly at it's peak. It would be like someone writing off the Premier League of today 10-20 years from now "because Messi and Ronaldo didn't play in it" or writing off Cruyff's Ajax side "because it was in the Micky Mouse Dutch League". It speaks to little more than a misunderstanding of World Football at the time. 

​The thing is, Cruyff's Ajax side were quality as well, winning three consecutive European Cups. And the European Cup was, to an extent, the best against the best, even if it was only for league champions. Cruyff then went to Barcelona and reasserted his dominance.

Can we really say the same for Pele? I suppose he won two Intercontinental Cups with Santos, but he played a pretty limited role in the second triumph. Other than that, he only really dominated world class competition in two World Cups. Even then, I think it's a stretch to say he was "dominant" - in 1958 he only scored 6 goals, and Fontaine would have won the Golden Ball had it been awarded. In 1970 he was very good but he also played on a very good team. 

I see your point, and as I say if he'd been dominant playing for a major European team, I'd believe him to be up there wiyj the best players. But that wasn't the case. I still accept he's great, I just don't think it's fair to assume he was better than terrific players like Maradona, Cruyff, Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi, when they proved their greatness so many more times whilst playing in higher quality competitions.

[Posh Ram]

​You are only surmising that Messi would dominate in the Premier , you have no proof , so your statement is meaningless , and merely an opinion .

The second goal he scored last night was good , but would he have scored it against Fabio Cannavaro , I think maybe not , but that's just my opinion .

​That's true. But you similarly have no proof he wouldn't dominate. I'm curious to know why you think his game wouldn't translate across to England.

The second goal last night he was helped massively by Boateng's slip, of course. But you've got to remember that Boateng is a very good defender, obviously not Cannavaro standard, but still one of the best centre-halves in the world. And the chip, on his weak foot as well, was magnificent.

[Bris Vegas]

​You are only surmising that Messi would dominate in the Premier , you have no proof , so your statement is meaningless , and merely an opinion .

The second goal he scored last night was good , but would he have scored it against Fabio Cannavaro , I think maybe not , but that's just my opinion .

​Messi doesn't need to play in the PL to dominate English teams, just ask Manchester United, Arsenal and Manchester City fans how he fares against PL clubs in the CL.

The World Cup arguement is also completely flawed. Pele and Maradona won World Cups when only 8 or 16 teams entered. The WC last year didn't even include the most expensive player in history - it's not a competition that includes the best players, the Champions League on the other hand does.

I'm not saying Messi is the greatest ever (although I think he is) but to claim he isn't because he's only played for Barcelona and hasn't won a World Cup is absolute rubbish.

Barcelona 09-12 has been named the greatest club team ever. And that side was built around Messi. Doesn't that go to show how good he is? That he made such greats look ordinary in comparison?

He currently has the best goal scoring records in the best competition in history, and scored a ridiculous 93 goals in a single calender year - around 20 more than the very next best.

[Kernow]

​That's true. But you similarly have no proof he wouldn't dominate. I'm curious to know why you think his game wouldn't translate across to England.

The second goal last night he was helped massively by Boateng's slip, of course. But you've got to remember that Boateng is a very good defender, obviously not Cannavaro standard, but still one of the best centre-halves in the world. And the chip, on his weak foot as well, was magnificent.

​Past the best goalkeeper in the world. Nobody would have saved it.

[Ovis aries]

 

 

"​Messi doesn't need to play in the PL to dominate English teams, just ask Manchester United, Arsenal and Manchester City fans how he fares against PL clubs in the CL".

Yes but that's playing with Barcelona , not Burnley

[Sexydadbod]

"​Messi doesn't need to play in the PL to dominate English teams, just ask Manchester United, Arsenal and Manchester City fans how he fares against PL clubs in the CL".

Yes but that's playing with Barcelona , not Burnley

​So Messi needs to play with Burnley now to prove himself 

[Sexydadbod]

​You are only surmising that Messi would dominate in the Premier , you have no proof , so your statement is meaningless , and merely an opinion .

The second goal he scored last night was good , but would he have scored it against Fabio Cannavaro , I think maybe not , but that's just my opinion .

​Why wouldn't Messi do well in the premier league? Costa and Aguero have better strike rates in the premier league than la liga.

[AmericanRam]

Messi is best to ever play imo.I mean all the world records he has set,and the bloke is only 27 and will more than likely set some more records.

He just makes the game look so simple.

[Sexydadbod]

​No thicko , it was Barcelona that beat City , United  etc not Messi on his own,

 

​You can say that about every one of the greatest players in history. You can say that the 1986 Argentina team played for Maradona and gave him the platform to express himself.

[Albert]

​The thing is, Cruyff's Ajax side were quality as well, winning three consecutive European Cups. And the European Cup was, to an extent, the best against the best, even if it was only for league champions. Cruyff then went to Barcelona and reasserted his dominance.

Can we really say the same for Pele? I suppose he won two Intercontinental Cups with Santos, but he played a pretty limited role in the second triumph. Other than that, he only really dominated world class competition in two World Cups. Even then, I think it's a stretch to say he was "dominant" - in 1958 he only scored 6 goals, and Fontaine would have won the Golden Ball had it been awarded. In 1970 he was very good but he also played on a very good team. 

I see your point, and as I say if he'd been dominant playing for a major European team, I'd believe him to be up there wiyj the best players. But that wasn't the case. I still accept he's great, I just don't think it's fair to assume he was better than terrific players like Maradona, Cruyff, Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi, when they proved their greatness so many more times whilst playing in higher quality competitions.

​Again though, it requires that you simply discard the achievements of one arbitrarily. Just because you're from Europe, and the European Competitions are now the best doesn't mean that achievements in the past in other leagues are suddenly meaningless. 

Again, you discard his achievements simply because they weren't in the region your from. Going by that logic we may as well discard all English football records until the 90s, because the English leagues were nothing special. We may as well discard all of football. 

In any case, you mention the Intercontinental Cup:

From it's birth to 1980: South America 11 - 8 Europe

1981 until it finished: South America 9 - 11 Europe

Europe of the day wasn't anything special. To discard's Pelé's achievements for Santos is exactly the same as discarding Cruyff's for Ajax or Barcelona. 6 Brazilian Titles, 2 Copa Libertadores, 2 Intercontinental Cups, 1 Intercontinental Super Cup, 3 World Cups (though he only played on game in 62). There's more than that as well, but may as well keep it simple. He also holds numerous scoring records, but ultimately the point is that he holds the reputation he has for a reason. I get that some people like being edgy, and "Pelé wasn't that good" is a good way of going about it, but the facts simply don't align with it. I wouldn't call him the best player of all time anymore, that honour most definitely goes to Messi, but to not even have him in the top ten is utterly bizarre. 

[Ovis aries]

​You can say that about every one of the greatest players in history. You can say that the 1986 Argentina team played for Maradona and gave him the platform to express himself.

​I am not saying the bloke isn't brilliant , he is superb , but would he be as good as Ronaldo was here if dropped into a different team , we will never know .

would he stand out like Cambiasso at Leicester , like a blue brick against a watnall common ?

[Bris Vegas]

​I am not saying the bloke isn't brilliant , he is superb , but would he be as good as Ronaldo was here if dropped into a different team , we will never know .

would he stand out like Cambiasso at Leicester , like a blue brick against a watnall common ?

​You forget that Ronaldo played for the best team in England and finished as the top goal scorer just once...

And why in the hell would Messi play for Burnley? He doesn't need to stand out in England because England isn't the be all and end all of football.

La Liga and the Champions League both possess more difficult teams than the Premier League, and Messi stands out in both.

 

[Ovis aries]

​You forget that Ronaldo played for the best team in England and finished as the top goal scorer just once...

And why in the hell would Messi play for Burnley? He doesn't need to stand out in England because England isn't the be all and end all of football.

La Liga and the Champions League both possess more difficult teams than the Premier League, and Messi stands out in both.

 

​I never said he should sign for Burnley , merely intimating whether he would do it with another team over here , and you don't know if he would , just as much as I don't know he would not , but I do know Ronnie did .

[Bris Vegas]

​I never said he should sign for Burnley , merely intimating whether he would do it with another team over here , and you don't know if he would , just as much as I don't know he would not , but I do know Ronnie did .

​But what's your point that Ronaldo 'did it' with Manchester United? What has the Premier League got to do with anything? 

The only way you can compare Messi and Ronaldo is to compare them playing in exactly the same competitions.

They both feature in La Liga, the Champions League and the World Cup - and Messi comes out on top in all three. If that isn't enough, the Argentine magician has four Ballon d'Or awards (will be 5 next December) to Ronaldo's three.

If that isn't enough, Messi has scored more goals, assisted more goals, won more individual awards, won more collective awards etc.

You can simply say that you think Maradona, Pele etc. are better than Messi based on ability. No problem. But to say Messi hasn't won a World Cup or 'done it' in the PL as your reasoning for him not being the greatest is utterly ludicrous.