Cristiano Ronaldo

[Rams4Justice]

Those three were before the golden age began.

[Romanis]

Those three were before the golden age began.

Before the golden age? If the golden age is to be the 60s, then it starts at 1960 not 1963. But I guess you borrowed this 1963 golden era rubbish from Wikipedia. I had a look at it here's what it says:

Contents [hide]
1 1200–1800: Pre-codification
2 1800–1870: Early rules
3 1870–1888: The FA Cup, professionalism and the first international match
4 1888–1915: Creation of the Football League
5 1919–1939: Inter-war years
6 1945–1961: The end of English dominance
7 1963–1971: The golden age
8 1972–1985: The rise of Liverpool
9 1986–1991: The end of an era
10 1992–2001: The Premier League and Sky Television
11 2003–present: Financial polarisation

You took it wholesale and present it as facts, when it's just singular opinion written in Wikipedia. Granted Wikipedia is often a good source but since it's open to user edits and reflects the position of the original writer, it cannot be taken as the be all and end all.

If really this is the so called financial polarisation era, we'd be hearing this term very often. But we're not.

As for your golden age, read the caveat:

1963–1971: The golden age[edit]
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

It DOES NOT CITE ANY SOURCES.
Funnily it's labelled 63-71 but instead starts with Spurs double winning team which was before 1963.

It was Tottenham Hotspur who became the dominant force in English football in the early 1960s, winning the elusive double of the League and FA Cup in 1961, retaining the cup in 1962 and becoming the first British team to win a European trophy, after their 5–1 victory over Atlético Madrid in the 1963 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup final. The captain of this side was Danny Blanchflower, who retired in 1964, after which manager Bill Nicholson built a new side containing the likes of Jimmy Greaves and Terry Venables, which won the FA Cup in 1967.

So this is the opinion of the original contributor to Wikipedia. Which is at odds to a host of other writers who would describe football using the 1960s, 1970s etc.

And the whole page in Wikipedia is all about English or British football. Which is incorrect when one looks at football as a whole. There were a host of footballing excellence in the rest of the world in the 1960s. And in the 3 years before 63, we had 3 great European Cup Finals and a World Cup, described as Garrincha's World Cup (1962)

As I said you shot your whole argument down by presenting this 63-71 and 2003 thingy as official. It's not OFFICIAL, it's an opinion by 1 writer to which there are dozens probably hundreds who would describe in a different way.

[Romanis]

Quite right Romanis - you can always back up your own opinion with examples. When you are parrotting other peoples opinions its more difficult.

"63-71 is a golden era" may be true foe Emglish football as we won a World Cup and a team from Derby did quite well on the national stage. But globally it wasnt golden - and the best player title isnt just from England.

You're right on that score since the 'facts' presented only reflect English footy and a bit about Celtic's 1967 team.
We had players like John Charles, George Best, Denis Law, Tommy Gemmill, Charlton, Moore, Banks, Hurst, Greaves, Mackay and a host of legendary club players. England won the World Cup, and British sides like Spurs, West Ham, Celtic, Man Utd all won European trophies for the first time. As great as they may be, we cannot exclude great players and teams from the whole of the 60s beginning with Real Madrid's stunning 7-3 win at Hampden park in 1960, followed by Eusebio finally leading Benfica to success in 61 and 62. And of course the World Cup of 1962. How can you start an era by omitting a WC I don't know. Where Garrincha was the star, possibly Zagalo and others.

But strange to start from 1963. Nobody starts comparing eras with years ending 2-4, or 6-8. Even 5 is not common but may appear as 1965-1980.
Usually football writers and historians would describe eras in the 2 most common forms:

Year 0-9 like 1960-1969 to describe the 60s
or Year 1-10, that is 1961-1970 also to describe the 60s.

But very odd to begin with 1963 even for English football, because Spurs' 1961 double winning team, the first ever in the 20th century would be omitted. A most glaring omission.

As he did not produce his source, let me reproduce it for clarity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...all_in_England

Which is strange way to describe eras, because for football in general, another Wikipedia page uses decades:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...ation_football

So how he came by official I don't know, but I guess the only thing right is that he's officially wrong.
Probably better to talk about the eras he's actually watched football on a regular basis. I don't delve much into the 60s because I didn't watch regularly and couldn't (not born) The 70s, still very much a kid, but from the 80s, I could watch, compare, have an opinion and so on. Pele and that 1970 WC and some other players, we can discuss even if we didn't watch much because so many videos and articles exist to document them. But anything before perhaps we had better rely on Oldtimeram and Ramanag amongst others to educate us.

[ramAnag]

You're right on that score since the 'facts' presented only reflect English footy and a bit about Celtic's 1967 team.
We had players like John Charles, George Best, Denis Law, Tommy Gemmill, Charlton, Moore, Banks, Hurst, Greaves, Mackay and a host of legendary club players. England won the World Cup, and British sides like Spurs, West Ham, Celtic, Man Utd all won European trophies for the first time. As great as they may be, we cannot exclude great players and teams from the whole of the 60s beginning with Real Madrid's stunning 7-3 win at Hampden park in 1960, followed by Eusebio finally leading Benfica to success in 61 and 62. And of course the World Cup of 1962. How can you start an era by omitting a WC I don't know. Where Garrincha was the star, possibly Zagalo and others.

But strange to start from 1963. Nobody starts comparing eras with years ending 2-4, or 6-8. Even 5 is not common but may appear as 1965-1980.
Usually football writers and historians would describe eras in the 2 most common forms:

Year 0-9 like 1960-1969 to describe the 60s
or Year 1-10, that is 1961-1970 also to describe the 60s.

But very odd to begin with 1963 even for English football, because Spurs' 1961 double winning team, the first ever in the 20th century would be omitted. A most glaring omission.

As he did not produce his source, let me reproduce it for clarity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...all_in_England

Which is strange way to describe eras, because for football in general, another Wikipedia page uses decades:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...ation_football

So how he came by official I don't know, but I guess the only thing right is that he's officially wrong.
Probably better to talk about the eras he's actually watched football on a regular basis. I don't delve much into the 60s because I didn't watch regularly and couldn't (not born) The 70s, still very much a kid, but from the 80s, I could watch, compare, have an opinion and so on. Pele and that 1970 WC and some other players, we can discuss even if we didn't watch much because so many videos and articles exist to document them. But anything before perhaps we had better rely on Oldtimeram and Ramanag amongst others to educate us.

OTR maybe...I only left school in '72 you cheeky sod.

Have you cottoned on to why the rest of us tend to leave the Googlechild to just get on with it yet?

[Andy_Faber]

Sorry. Eusebio

[Romanis]

OTR maybe...I only left school in '72 you cheeky sod.

Have you cottoned on to why the rest of us tend to leave the Googlechild to just get on with it yet?

Have you cottoned on to why the rest of us tend to leave the Googlechild to just get on with it yet?[/QUOTE]

Oh I know. But I created the topic he replied, so I think out of courtesy I should reply back. But I still respect his right to his flawed opinion (or rather accepting the opinion of another and then presenting as his own as well or in agreement with it).

But I don't mind it, since I don't really create many topics and most topics have no bearing on me being a non Derby fan. But yes I would of course prefer him to give his own opinion, things he's actually seen or believes in rather than using another's. There's nothing to win. I wouldn't think less of him if he knows little, nor impressed if he knows more. In fact he already had a head start for this topic, he thinks Pele is the best ever as opposed to my view. Talk about Pele then being better than Ronaldo. There's no need to bring out lists of players from eons ago which few of us have watched or experienced in their playing days.

Anyway I think I've already given him sufficient replies, unless there's a few others who want to have a say on the topic, I think i's run its course. Ronaldo is still playing, it would be interesting to see what he does in the next years and then when he finally retires and we look back. I'm certain he will be talked in the same breath as Pele, Maradona and Zidane by most pundits.

[Rams4Justice]

"Funny it's labelled as 1963" is that because that when the era started you prune. 😂

[Romanis]

"Funny it's labelled as 1963" is that because that when the era started you prune. ��

Yup create a topic which starts in 63 but then refer to events in previous years. Brilliant point, Winning argument.

[Rams4Justice]

Roger or Swale got you on their brigade to bring you on their repetition trip and repeat yourself over and over again, trying to explain yourself about how wrong you are over and over again and make yourself look like a complete fool every time you repeat it.

You really got brought in by Roger & Swale who made you look like an idiot. Aww... they really are piling up to take their shots, it's becoming quite entertaining none of the less to see you all break a sweat over it. 😂

[Rams4Justice]

Refer to events in previous years, is that because that's when they happened and not in 1963. 😱 😂