Jump to content

99-Rated Players - A Journey Through Time


Recommended Posts

Re: 99-Rated Players - A Journey Through Time

Thierry Henry must have deserved 99/98 for his time at Arsenal. Constantly got 25-30 goals for 7 seasons. Won the WC and Euro 2000. Created many goals, scored against the best teams in the world, one of the highest scorers in champs league. Many individual awards (No World player of the year, Screw you Dinho!)

He was truly unbeleivable at Arsenal, unstoppable.

Bet Bergkamp would have got a high rating too, he was a magical player. Probably 95/94 as he didn't score as many goals as others.

The Arsenal invincibles would have been awesome to see what they would have been rated at the end of the season (Pires at his best? 96?). That was one of the best teams ever. Miss them days :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Re: 99-Rated Players - A Journey Through Time No Garrincha?

Re: 99-Rated Players - A Journey Through Time That's what I thought.

Re: 99-Rated Players - A Journey Through Time

Re: 99-Rated Players - A Journey Through Time

Thierry Henry must have deserved 99/98 for his time at Arsenal. Constantly got 25-30 goals for 7 seasons. Won the WC and Euro 2000. Created many goals' date=' scored against the best teams in the world, one of the highest scorers in champs league. Many individual awards (No World player of the year, Screw you Dinho!)

He was truly unbeleivable at Arsenal, unstoppable.

Bet Bergkamp would have got a high rating too, he was a magical player. Probably 95/94 as he didn't score as many goals as others.

The Arsenal invincibles would have been awesome to see what they would have been rated at the end of the season (Pires at his best? 96?). That was one of the best teams ever. Miss them days :([/quote']

Totally agree with you MaoM....:(:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: 99-Rated Players - A Journey Through Time

Thierry Henry must have deserved 99/98 for his time at Arsenal. Constantly got 25-30 goals for 7 seasons. Won the WC and Euro 2000. Created many goals' date=' scored against the best teams in the world, one of the highest scorers in champs league. Many individual awards (No World player of the year, Screw you Dinho!)

He was truly unbeleivable at Arsenal, unstoppable.

Bet Bergkamp would have got a high rating too, he was a magical player. Probably 95/94 as he didn't score as many goals as others.

The Arsenal invincibles would have been awesome to see what they would have been rated at the end of the season (Pires at his best? 96?). That was one of the best teams ever. Miss them days :([/quote']

I m an Arsenal fan but i can never agree with Henry getting a 99. To be a 99, you've got to clearly be the best player in the world for a significant period of time and henry was never that. Like you said, during the 03/04 season, ronaldinho was the person who deserved the tag. And him never winning the champions league with arsenal and French exit in Quarter finals rules him out of 99. IMO, he should have been nothing more than 97 in his peak. Pires as 96 and Bergkamp at 94/95 is right though

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: 99-Rated Players - A Journey Through Time

I m an Arsenal fan but i can never agree with Henry getting a 99. To be a 99' date=' you've got to clearly be the best player in the world for a significant period of time and henry was never that. Like you said, [b']during the 03/04 season, ronaldinho was the person who deserved the tag[/b]. And him never winning the champions league with arsenal and French exit in Quarter finals rules him out of 99. IMO, he should have been nothing more than 97 in his peak. Pires as 96 and Bergkamp at 94/95 is right though

No he didn't.

Henry had 39 goals and 19 assists in all competitions coupled with the premiership unbeaten season. Far outstripped anything Ronaldinho did that season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: 99-Rated Players - A Journey Through Time

I guess Zidane, Maradona and Pele are no-brainers. Ronaldo would've probably been 99 too. Garrincha, Platini, di Stefano, Eusebio, Beckenbauer and such are debatable but I think they would have been close if not 99. Just Fontaine should've been 99 just because of 1958 :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: 99-Rated Players - A Journey Through Time

Titus bramble at newcastle

Steve Marlet at fulham

Defo shevchenko at chelsea class

Tony cascerino at celtic 4 goals in 19 games is what u call mint

Minero at chelsea

Ljunberg at west ham

Thats off top of my head im sure theres miles more players worthy!

i wanna add ali dia to that list he better than player u include haha

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: 99-Rated Players - A Journey Through Time

Although I do agree Henrik Larsson was a very' date=' VERY special player for Celtic, he wasn't world class as some of the other great footballers have been mentioned.[/quote']

Is the correct answer, he played in a joke of a league, and when he did play in a proper league, scored something like 3 goals in 15 games for Man United, not sure of his ratio at Barcelona, but it wasn't great either.

My best friend is a Celtic fan, and it seems to be an affliction with which Celtic fans label a player who is any use "top class", or "world class".

His latest "world class" player is the Honduran left back they have, stating that he wouldn't be surprised if Barcelona came in for him at the end of the season.

This guy has a Masters degree BTW, so he isn't stupid, well, he is when it comes to football.

LOL@Larsson being a 99 though, catch a grip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: 99-Rated Players - A Journey Through Time

From a U.S. sports perspective, the most striking aspect about thse lists is the lack of pre-1950 players named. If you ask a baseball expert who the best 10 baseball players of all-time were, around half the names will be pre-1950 (Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Matthewson, Lou Gehrig...maybe Rogers Hornsby). Same thing if one asks for the Top 20 greatest (add: Joe Dimaggio, Honus Wagner, Cy Young, Jimmie Foxx, Grover Alexander...maybe Lefty Grove, Nap Lajoie, Tris Speaker or Eddie Collins). This is a big contrast to football, where very few lists contain pre-1950 players even when it is explained that we are looking for the best of an era even if the era is not as good as the modern era (due to lack of high pay, less training, etc.).

I'm not saying either method is right or wrong, just an observation. I think American sports hold our pioneers up higher partly because we are reminded of the early players through the various Halls of Fame. Football does not really have a good international Hall of Fame. For baseball in particular, it is easy to compare players of different eras through statistics (e.g., compare batting average of Ty Cobb to that of Alex Rodriguez or slugging percentage of Jimmie Foxx compared to that of Albert Pujols), although this is arguably overdone and maybe you end up with too many pre-1950 players on a Top 10 list.

I do think that, given the stated rules of this thread (a 99 for best of his era), by definition there have to be some 99s from 1890-1910, 1910-1930, and 1930-1950.

Per my earlier post, my pre-1950 99s would include:

G.O. Smith

Ricardo Zamora

Jose Nasazzi

Giuseppe Meazza

Maybe Dixie Dean, Zizinho and/or Leonidas (have to have someone from 40s).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: 99-Rated Players - A Journey Through Time

Is the correct answer' date=' he played in a joke of a league, and when he did play in a proper league, scored something like 3 goals in 15 games for Man United, not sure of his ratio at Barcelona, but it wasn't great either.

My best friend is a Celtic fan, and it seems to be an affliction with which Celtic fans label a player who is any use "top class", or "world class".

His latest "world class" player is the Honduran left back they have, stating that he wouldn't be surprised if Barcelona came in for him at the end of the season.

This guy has a Masters degree BTW, so he isn't stupid, well, he is when it comes to football.

LOL@Larsson being a 99 though, catch a grip.[/quote']

Yeah thats right henrik larsson wasnt that good just rhonaldinhio said he was the best player he ever played with and the barca fans stilll love him, oh it wasnt him who set up both goals to defeat arsenal and changed a game at about 34 :rolleyes: Yeah your right he wasnt world class.

Get a grip expect better from a celtic fan to

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: 99-Rated Players - A Journey Through Time

From a U.S. sports perspective' date=' the most striking aspect about thse lists is the lack of pre-1950 players named. If you ask a baseball expert who the best 10 baseball players of all-time were, around half the names will be pre-1950 (Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Matthewson, Lou Gehrig...maybe Rogers Hornsby). Same thing if one asks for the Top 20 greatest (add: Joe Dimaggio, Honus Wagner, Cy Young, Jimmie Foxx, Grover Alexander...maybe Lefty Grove, Nap Lajoie, Tris Speaker or Eddie Collins). This is a big contrast to football, where very few lists contain pre-1950 players even when it is explained that we are looking for the best of an era even if the era is not as good as the modern era (due to lack of high pay, less training, etc.).

I'm not saying either method is right or wrong, just an observation. I think American sports hold our pioneers up higher partly because we are reminded of the early players through the various Halls of Fame. Football does not really have a good international Hall of Fame. For baseball in particular, it is easy to compare players of different eras through statistics (e.g., compare batting average of Ty Cobb to that of Alex Rodriguez or slugging percentage of Jimmie Foxx compared to that of Albert Pujols), although this is arguably overdone and maybe you end up with too many pre-1950 players on a Top 10 list.

I do think that, given the stated rules of this thread (a 99 for best of his era), [i']by definition[/i] there have to be some 99s from 1890-1910, 1910-1930, and 1930-1950.

Per my earlier post, my pre-1950 99s would include:

G.O. Smith

Ricardo Zamora

Jose Nasazzi

Giuseppe Meazza

Maybe Dixie Dean, Zizinho and/or Leonidas (have to have someone from 40s).

Point here is that most of us haven't seen any of these players. Yes of course we can form our opinion on the information available, but I think people are better in identifying themselves with and recognizing great players they have actually seen play (live or on video).

And next to that, football is bigger all over the world so there are simply more top football players than there are top baseball players so the older guys get forgotten a bit quicker ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: 99-Rated Players - A Journey Through Time

Point here is that most of us haven't seen any of these players. Yes of course we can form our opinion on the information available' date=' but I think people are better in identifying themselves with and recognizing great players they have actually seen play (live or on video).

And next to that, football is bigger all over the world so there are simply more top football players than there are top baseball players so the older guys get forgotten a bit quicker ;)[/quote']

Another point is that baseball, perhaps more so than any other sport, is extremely stats driven, which lends itself to comparisons across eras.

Football, by contrast, has goals and clean sheets, and not much else. Even assist stats were not kept until relatively recently. In the absence of statistics, the only way to make comparisons across eras is anecdotal evidence, which can be very deceiving without proper context.

One other point about baseball - it was codified very early on, and the game has changed very little rules-wise over the past 150 years. Football didn't even have the modern offside rule until 1925 or so, after which strategies and formations have evolved constantly, which again makes comparisons across eras extremely difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: 99-Rated Players - A Journey Through Time

Basically, these players have to have been as good/better than Ronaldinho at his peak. So I only consider the following at '99 standard' ATM...

1) Pele

2) Maradona

3) Puskas

4) Di Stefano

5) Friedenreich

6) Cruyff

7) Garrincha

Note however, primarily Forwards and Midfielders get the 97+ ratings on SM, so throughout the years I highly doubt that there'd ever have been a 99 rated defender aside from perhaps Beckenbauer.

My all time XI would be:

Yashin

Carlos Alberto - Beckenbauer - Nilton

Garrincha - Cruyff - Di Stefano - Best

Maradona - Puskas - Pele

Oh, and yes I'm aware I moved Garrincha and Best from the wings to midfield and the forwards would all like to be in the centre! :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: 99-Rated Players - A Journey Through Time

Another point is that baseball' date=' perhaps more so than any other sport, is extremely stats driven, which lends itself to comparisons across eras.

Football, by contrast, has goals and clean sheets, and not much else. Even assist stats were not kept until relatively recently. In the absence of statistics, the only way to make comparisons across eras is anecdotal evidence, which can be very deceiving without proper context.

One other point about baseball - it was codified very early on, and the game has changed very little rules-wise over the past 150 years. Football didn't even have the modern offside rule until 1925 or so, after which strategies and formations have evolved constantly, which again makes comparisons across eras extremely difficult.[/quote']

Thank you for the comments guys, very interesting. When I posted my question, I had considered how extentive stats are in baseball, but not how sparse they are in football.

I would be very interested if an international football Hall of Fame were ever to be established and stick around (I know of two that folded in their infancy). I suppose the selections would be inherently controversial due to local country/team bias.

Until then, I will continue to research pre-1950 footballers on my own, makes for interesting late night reading on Wikipedia!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...