Greatest player of all time?

[Steve20]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Messi and Ronaldo have been head and shoulders above every player and have broken every record going in an era where the standard is the highest it’s ever been. Where all of their opponents are stronger, fitter, have access to the most technologically advanced treatment, sports science and tactics the game has ever seen. Where their ability and determination are the main differences from their opponents. They are playing against real athletes every single week and don’t have the opportunity to look better by playing against unfit, chain smoking players like those in the 50s-80s - no amount of nostalgia will change that.

I watched footage of George Best playing for Hibs the other day, and while he was undoubtedly still the best on the pitch and a legend of his era, his close control and agility wasn’t spectacular, and any defender worth his salt these days would have been able to stick tight to him.

There isn’t a single doubt in mind Messi and Ronaldo are the greatest players to ever exist. And I also believe as the game advances even further that they’ll be surpassed eventually too. Look at athletics - world records are regularly surpassed - the longest standing record being 34 years. So all records have been broken since 1983, and most of the records still standing from the 80s are held by Eastern European’s in suspicious circumstances. Sports will always advance and so will sportsmen.

They’re sensational. But Pele and Maradona were even a level above those two.

And I’ve read on here than George Best wouldn’t get into the Man Utd team? What? I can’t believe what I just read.

[Pagan Hibernia]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Messi and Ronaldo have been head and shoulders above every player and have broken every record going in an era where the standard is the highest it’s ever been. Where all of their opponents are stronger, fitter, have access to the most technologically advanced treatment, sports science and tactics the game has ever seen. Where their ability and determination are the main differences from their opponents. They are playing against real athletes every single week and don’t have the opportunity to look better by playing against unfit, chain smoking players like those in the 50s-80s - no amount of nostalgia will change that.

I watched footage of George Best playing for Hibs the other day, and while he was undoubtedly still the best on the pitch and a legend of his era, his close control and agility wasn’t spectacular, and any defender worth his salt these days would have been able to stick tight to him.

There isn’t a single doubt in mind Messi and Ronaldo are the greatest players to ever exist. And I also believe as the game advances even further that they’ll be surpassed eventually too. Look at athletics - world records are regularly surpassed - the longest standing record being 34 years. So all records have been broken since 1983, and most of the records still standing from the 80s are held by Eastern European’s in suspicious circumstances. Sports will always advance and so will sportsmen.

well into his 30s and after a solid decade of alcohol abuse george best at Hibs in 79-80 was a pale imitation of what he had been and what he could previously do. He even looked like a completely different player physically to the majestic little thing that terrorised English and European defences in the 1960s

[J-C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He also played for New York Cosmos at the tail end of his career.....

I forgot about that, ta.

[calumhibee1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They’re sensational. But Pele and Maradona were even a level above those two.

And I’ve read on here than George Best wouldn’t get into the Man Utd team? What? I can’t believe what I just read.

George Best would get nowhere near Man Utd now.

You can’t seriously think that a full blown alcoholic could compete at the top end of football nowadays against the athletes that are around now - as much as the athletic prowess of players these days has been attempted to have been played down on this thread. I don’t care how talented he was, someone with his lifestyle absolutely could not play at the top level now, nowhere near it infact.

[J-C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

George Best would get nowhere near Man Utd now.

You can’t seriously think that a full blown alcoholic could compete at the top end of football nowadays against the athletes that are around now - as much as the athletic prowess of players these days has been attempted to have been played down.

Do you think that in today's game he would be an alcoholic?

Best was an outstanding player and if he was playing right now in has early 20's he'd walk into Man U and in fact most big European teams. The 60's and 70's were a different era where players regularly smoked and drank, today's players are better looked after on and off the pitch.

[Since90+2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Do you think that in today's game he would be an alcoholic?

Best was an outstanding player and if he was playing right now in has early 20's he'd walk into Man U and in fact most big European teams. The 60's and 70's were a different era where players regularly smoked and drank, today's players are better looked after on and off the pitch.

I think that's the whole point. If you took the literal player who played in the 60s and 70s he'd be nowhere near top level football due to his alcohol consumption.

If we was about these days there is a very good chance he would be a top level player. I don't think that can be certain though as there's no guarantee he'd have been able to commit to the lifestyle required. A very talented player nonetheless.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

George Best would get nowhere near Man Utd now.

You can’t seriously think that a full blown alcoholic could compete at the top end of football nowadays against the athletes that are around now - as much as the athletic prowess of players these days has been attempted to have been played down on this thread. I don’t care how talented he was, someone with his lifestyle absolutely could not play at the top level now, nowhere near it infact.

He wasn't a full blown alcoholic at 17 or at 24. During his peak years before that problem hit him he would walk into any team in Europe, unless talent is somehow different these days.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[calumhibee1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Do you think that in today's game he would be an alcoholic?

Best was an outstanding player and if he was playing right now in has early 20's he'd walk into Man U and in fact most big European teams. The 60's and 70's were a different era where players regularly smoked and drank, today's players are better looked after on and off the pitch.

That’s a different argument though - it’s comparing a George Best that never even existed which I think is where the argument that Pele, Maradona etc would have been better had they had the modern tech etc fall down. They didn’t have what players have now so we’re then starting to compare fictional versions of Pele, Maradona, Best etc rather than the versions that actually existed.

[calumhibee1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He wasn't a full blown alcoholic at 17 or at 24. During his peak years before that problem hit him he would walk into any team in Europe, unless talent is somehow different these days.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Talent is different nowadays. Talent at the top level comes in a 6ft2, ultra lean package where the players are faster and more powerful than ever along with all the skill and technique. Players might not have been technically worse (although even then from watching clips I’d say they were much poorer) but even if they were similar, they were physically nowhere near as good. All this stuff combines to make a footballer, it’s not purely technique. If it was then these players would have a better arguement.

[Since90+2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He wasn't a full blown alcoholic at 17 or at 24. During his peak years before that problem hit him he would walk into any team in Europe, unless talent is somehow different these days.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Did Best smoke throughout his life? I know his alcohol problems are well documented but not sure if he was also a smoker.

[Killiehibbie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Talent is different nowadays. Talent at the top level comes in a 6ft2, ultra lean package where the players are faster and more powerful than ever along with all the skill and technique. Players might not have been technically worse (although even then from watching clips I’d say they were much poorer) but even if they were similar, they were physically nowhere near as good. All this stuff combines to make a footballer, it’s not purely technique. If it was then these players would have a better arguement.

5 foot 7? Messi where does he fit in?

[calumhibee1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

5 foot 7? Messi where does he fit in?

I was speaking in general terms because we were more talking about whether Best would get in the Man Utd team.

Messi is just a freak in terms of ability, vision whilst also being absolutely rapid off the mark - at least in his younger years. The best ever imo.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I was speaking in general terms because we were more talking about whether Best would get in the Man Utd team.

Messi is just a freak in terms of ability, vision whilst also being absolutely rapid off the mark - at least in his younger years. The best ever imo.

And George Best wasn’t a freak talent in his peak?

The perception that all current players are superhuman and all players 50 years ago were unfit and slow is just nonsense.

[calumhibee1]

As a slightly different point, the first result that came up on google indicated that footballers in the 70s covered around 4km a game. Now tbh, as much as I’ve been very vocal in saying that footballers now are physically better, I struggle to believe it was anywhere near as low as that. If it was though, then the 10km or so that players run a game now would see these teams/players be so far out their depth on fitness alone.

I’m aware though that there probably wouldn’t be proper statistics on these things from that sort of time.

[calumhibee1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And George Best wasn’t a freak talent in his peak?

The perception that all current players are superhuman and all players 50 years ago were unfit and slow is just nonsense.

Your insistence that footballers/athletes have made minuscule physical improvements in the last 50 years is what’s nonsense. The world record holder in other sports like the 100m - a skill that would have some sort of benefit in football - wouldn’t even get to compete at the elite level anymore, never mind challenge to be the best, yet you’re convinced that football - as one of the wealthiest sports in the world - for some reason was missed out in these massive improvements.

You don’t even need statistics to see that players have improved massively physically. Watch peak Cristiano Ronaldo breaking up the pitch on a counter attack and try tell me with a straight face that players from yesteryear could do it at anywhere near the same sort of speed. Likewise watch Ronaldo score his header the other season for Juve and tell me a player from yesteryear could get to that sort of height. He’s literally above the crossbar. They quite simply couldn’t.

[tamig]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Talent is different nowadays. Talent at the top level comes in a 6ft2, ultra lean package where the players are faster and more powerful than ever along with all the skill and technique. Players might not have been technically worse (although even then from watching clips I’d say they were much poorer) but even if they were similar, they were physically nowhere near as good. All this stuff combines to make a footballer, it’s not purely technique. If it was then these players would have a better arguement.

And how does Messi fit into that template 😂

[calumhibee1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And how does Messi fit into that template 😂

As I said, it was a general point because we were discussing whether George Best would get into the Man Utd team. However, whilst Messi doesn’t fit into it, the guys he has to play against do. Unlike the defenders the likes of Maradona, Pele etc came up against.

Peak Messi was absolutely lightning quick with imo the best technical ability of any footballer ever by quite some distance.

[FilipinoHibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

5 foot 7? Messi where does he fit in?

I am a seller at 5 foot 7. Pele was 5 foot 8. As well as having all round great skills he was a good athlete. You have to remember the drinking in particular was a British player trait. Foreign players did physical training and had good diets. We may not have had a developed Sports Science but foreign teams were well on the way. Foreign teams dominated World Cups and club championships and still do.

[tamig]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As I said, it was a general point because we were discussing whether George Best would get into the Man Utd team.

Peak Messi was absolutely lightning quick with imo the best technical ability of any footballer ever by quite some distance.

George Best’s footballing skills - at his peak - would see him walk into most, if not all, of the top European teams today. George Best was quick in his heyday. And probably took more of a battering than and of his modern day peers. He was one of the greatest.

[calumhibee1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

George Best’s footballing skills - at his peak - would see him walk into most, if not all, of the top European teams today. George Best was quick in his heyday. And probably took more of a battering than and of his modern day peers. He was one of the greatest.

Not for me, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Videos of him would never suggest such exceptional levels of skill that he could get by on that alone whilst being an alcoholic against the super-fit physical freaks that exist at the top level today.

[calumhibee1]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.i...038.html%3famp

Let’s keep in mind this article is from 2002 and footballers have physically come on leaps and bounds even since then. We’re talking comparisons with players 30 years previous to the article and were 18 years on from that now so you could probably look at the comparisons and add at least 20-30% on again for players now.

Fitness training consisted of running laps round a track/up sand dunes
Players didn’t really bother warming up - Jimmy Greaves said it tired him out too much

Players ate steak dinners before games - an absolute shocker of a pre match meal
Players in 2002 covered 30m in 3.94 on average. The top players like Ronaldo and Messi would be significantly quicker than that anyway, even more so when you account for the fact they hit their peak 10-15 years after that stat was relevant.

Average player ran 8-11km in the 70s. In 2002 it was 12-14km with a greater percentage of that also being at higher intensity. Again, we’re 18 years on from the article being written so I’m sure that stat will be even more in favour of players now.

This idea that footballers nowadays aren’t that much better physically is shot down by near enough every bit of evidence that you could find. These guys might have been great in their day, they might have even been further ahead of their peers than Ronaldo and Messi, but they were physically miles behind and would struggle to play at any form of decent level nowadays, never mind the top.

[The Modfather]

Surely this debate should be about natural ability alone as that’s comparable across the eras. Anything else is supposition.

E.G. would Ronaldo be the same physical specimen (to the extent he is today anyway as he’s blessed with athletic genes as well as his hard work) in the 60s or 70s without the benefits of sport science and conditioning we have today? I don’t think Ronaldo has the natural ability of Messi or Maradona, but he’s fulfilled every bit of potential he has. Could he do that to the same extent in the 60s or 70s?

For what it’s worth, I vote Messi based on natural ability and consistency closely followed by Ronaldo for his consistency and longevity.

[calumhibee1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Surely this debate should be about natural ability alone as that’s comparable across the eras. Anything else is supposition.

E.G. would Ronaldo be the same physical specimen (to the extent he is today anyway as he’s blessed with athletic genes as well as his hard work) in the 60s or 70s without the benefits of sport science and conditioning we have today? I don’t think Ronaldo has the natural ability of Messi or Maradona, but he’s fulfilled every bit of potential he has. Could he do that to the same extent in the 60s or 70s?

For what it’s worth, I vote Messi based on natural ability and consistency closely followed by Ronaldo for his consistency and longevity.

That’s probably a fairer debate for the older players but then you’re starting to compare fictional versions of players rather than the actual versions that existed. Saying that Pele now would be quicker, stronger, fitter etc is probably true. But Pele wasn’t quicker, stronger or fitter like he would be now. Likewise saying Ronaldo wouldn’t be the specimen he is now back then is almost undoubtedly true. But he is that physical specimen, so again, it would be comparing a Ronaldo that doesn’t exist rather than the one that actually does exist.

There’s no doubting that it’s not necessarily a ‘fair’ debate for the older players. They’re being compared with a massive disadvantage. But at the end of the day, they had that disadvantage and it played a part in forming the player they were.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.i...038.html%3famp

Let’s keep in mind this article is from 2002 and footballers have physically come on leaps and bounds even since then. We’re talking comparisons with players 30 years previous to the article and were 18 years on from that now so you could probably look at the comparisons and add at least 20-30% on again.

Fitness training consisted of running laps round a track/up sand dunes
Players didn’t really bother warming up - Jimmy Greaves said it tired him out too much

Players ate steak dinners before games - an absolute shocker of a pre match meal
Players in 2002 covered 30m in 3.94 on average. The top players like Ronaldo and Messi would be significantly quicker than that anyway, even more so when you account for the fact they hit their peak 10-15 years after that stat was relevant.

Average player ran 8-11km in the 70s. In 2002 it was 12-14km with a greater percentage of that also being at higher intensity.

This idea that footballers nowadays aren’t that much better physically is shot down by near enough every bit of evidence that you could find. These guys might have been great in their day, they might have even been further ahead of their peers than Ronaldo and Messi, but they were physically miles behind and would struggle to play at any form of decent level nowadays, never mind the top.

Remember the players we are talking about were all exceptional of their time. An average team now would probably win out over an average team from the 60s and 70s.

Pele for example was physically a beast. Best was quick and his feet and vision were ahead of anyone.

Football of course is not all about running fast or long in any case. The likes of Messi, Modric, Zlatan etc aren’t all about being exceptional athletes.

You think things have improved markedly over 20 years. I’m assuming you’re saying Sauzee and Latapy wouldn’t get in this Hibs team? Most people who actually watched both teams would probably be pretty clear that both would walk into it.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Did Best smoke throughout his life? I know his alcohol problems are well documented but not sure if he was also a smoker.

He, like most footballers in the 20th Century, was on 40 a day. They also injected heroin between his toes and had a heavy valium habit. It's a wonder they made it off the team bus.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[calumhibee1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Remember the players we are talking about were all exceptional of their time. An average team now would probably win out over an average team from the 60s and 70s.

Pele for example was physically a beast. Best was quick and his feet and vision were ahead of anyone.

Football of course is not all about running fast or long in any case. The likes of Messi, Modric, Zlatan etc aren’t all about being exceptional athletes.

You think things have improved markedly over 20 years. I’m assuming you’re saying Sauzee and Latapy wouldn’t get in this Hibs team? Most people who actually watched both teams would probably be pretty clear that both would walk into it.

As are Ronaldo and Messi exceptional of their time. If the average players now would probably beat a team of the average players back then it would stand to reason that the exceptional players now would be better than the exceptional then as well. I doubt the difference between the very best and their peers has massively changed. However, I don’t think there’s any doubt that a team of average now would beat average back then as you’d suggest. In fact I’d suggest the Hibs team now would comfortably beat the very best from the 70s and before. They’d physically dominate them. The stats from that link I provided would probably suggest that teams from the 70s had the physical prowess of a part time team - I’d highly doubt part time team players cover less than 7-9km a game for example.

Thinks have massively improved over the last 20 years, again, it would defy logic for that not to be the case. The difference with your Hibs analogy is that Hibs have dropped further and further from the sort of level we were at with Sauzee and Latapy and on top of that, they were playing less than 20 years ago, not 60 like Pele. We were a lot closer to a high level of the footballing hierarchy than we are now and the players we had then reflected that - back then we signed a Champions League winner and France captain, nowadays we sign guys from English League One and League Two, so no, I’m not saying Sauzee and Latapy wouldn’t get in the Hibs team now.

We’re comparing the very best v the very best in different eras. That comparison is comparing very, very good with distinctly average and doesn’t work.

[Sammy7nil]

I think you put too much on physical attributes over ability.

I think the Tornadoes would give today’s team a good game and that is with a fifty year gap.

Edwards, Stanton, Duncan, etc imho would do fine on their ability alone not saying they would definitely win but I like to bet the Tornadoes at say 7/2

[Since90+2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think you put too much on physical attributes over ability.

I think the Tornadoes would give today’s team a good game and that is with a fifty year gap.

Edwards, Stanton, Duncan, etc imho would do fine on their ability alone not saying they would definitely win but I like to bet the Tornadoes at say 7/2

Current Hibs team would hammer the Tornadoes. Probably about 5 or 6 nil.

Similarly if you took the Lisbon Lions and put them against the current European Champions they would be absolutely annihilated. Would probably be about 10-0.

[calumhibee1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think you put too much on physical attributes over ability.

I think the Tornadoes would give today’s team a good game and that is with a fifty year gap.

Edwards, Stanton, Duncan, etc imho would do fine on their ability alone not saying they would definitely win but I like to bet the Tornadoes at say 7/2

Not at all. The Hibs team today would rip them a new one.

If physical attributes are over played - does anyone think Hibs would toil against the best women’s teams? And if not, then why not? Most likely physical differences more than anything.

[wookie70]

Stole this from another forum but it was quite interesting. Not too scientific as there is only single games used for comparison but it does suggest that speed hasn't increased greatly. How far is travelled is a different story of course

"The following are the results conducted by the German Sport Academy of Cologne. The scientists were asked by German football magazine “11 Freunde” to analyze 19 German World Cup games from 1958, 1966, 1970, 1974, 1982, 1986 and 1990 and to compare them with those of 2002 to 2010 (for which the data was already available). Of the 1958 World Cup, the only German game that was reviewed was the third place game against France (3-6). The game was rather meaningless to Germany and was played by a B-selection. Since the nature of that game was not really competitive, in my opinion it skewes the 1958 results quite a bit.

The researchers focused on the pace of the games, which of course is one of the Modernists’ most beloved-arguments to underline the superiority of the modern game. The pace was measured in meters per second. To obtain that figure for the older games, the scientists measured the net playing time which they put into relation to the distance the ball covered.

The German World Cup teams with the highest average pace were as follows:

Pace

1974 2.60 meters/per second
2010 2.60 m/s
1966 2.40 m/s
2002 2.25 m/s
1986 2.10 m/s
1990 1.95 m/s
1982 1.90 m/s
2006 1.85 m/s
1958 1.80 m/s
1970 1.75 m/s"