Messi has had an underwhelming tournament in my eyes. He really hasn't looked like the best player in the world right now, or the best player ever. Based on the little footage @Brwned sent me a few years ago, and the words of people who have seen the other greats play, I don't think he's in that stratospheric tier with Pele and Maradona, and Beckenbauer and Cryuff. He has the talent and the skill set to end up higher than all those names by the time his career is over, but I'm not in any hurry to crown him GOAT yet. Not making any excuses for him either, you want to be the GOAT? Then step up and play, dominate a tournament from start to finish. Yes, despite having "useless" team mates (we're talking about Aguero, Higuain, Lavezzi, Mascherano here), and being double/triple marked. If he's having a great tournament, what do you use to describe his form in 2008-2010? What I have seen has fallen way short of those standards.
Messi at the World Cup - No Ronaldo comparisons!
- Thread starter amolbhatia50k
- Start date
I think the issue with Messi and the World Cup is much less about him having to do well in the World Cup for no reason or win the World Cup and more about it being his only chance to show that he isn't over performing thanks to playing in the best team in history.
It is always incredibly difficult to try and decipher how much a player, Messi in this case, benefits of having the worlds best team around him, a team which is hugely dominant in terms of player quality and what they get out of them. It is also his chance to show that he doesn't need his team to play a certain style to perform at his very best.
In the three world-cups he has played in it certainly seems like he drops several levels when he isn't playing for a completely dominant team who with or without Messi would absolutely dominate their opponents. One should then remember that Argentina are still so good that with a under-performing Messi they can still win the world cup thanks to being one of the football powerhouse teams.
Most of the greatest ever had a much higher influence over their teams level of performances than Messi seems to have.
It is always incredibly difficult to try and decipher how much a player, Messi in this case, benefits of having the worlds best team around him, a team which is hugely dominant in terms of player quality and what they get out of them. It is also his chance to show that he doesn't need his team to play a certain style to perform at his very best.
In the three world-cups he has played in it certainly seems like he drops several levels when he isn't playing for a completely dominant team who with or without Messi would absolutely dominate their opponents. One should then remember that Argentina are still so good that with a under-performing Messi they can still win the world cup thanks to being one of the football powerhouse teams.
Most of the greatest ever had a much higher influence over their teams level of performances than Messi seems to have.
I'm amazed more of the top players don't just do that. It's pretty simple really. I bet he's kicking himself for not doing that in 2010 too. With Aguero, Higuain, and Lavezzi having been in such scintillating form in Brasil there really is no excuse.
Until the semi final he had played a role in 6 our of 7 Argie goals. If that's not having a big influence then what is? I thought the argument about his club team mates was put to bed a couple of years ago. Xavi and Iniesta didn't play well in Vilanova's year in charge and that title win was as much of a one man effort as I've seen in a top league, and over a larger number of games than the World Cup too.
Aye. No one can ever take 2008-2011 away from him. But Spain dominated international football without him. So...
And no one is proclaiming Ronaldo, or Aguero, Higuain, or Lavezzi as the best players of all time. But has he really stood out in the tournament? If I mention names I'll start a storm up in here, but I can think of 5 players who have been better, and some are on teams that were knocked out in the quarter finals/semi finals (no worries, Luiz isn't on the list)
It's like pulling out teeth on here. It's an insult to Messi's talent to proclaim his form at this tournament as anything special. "Played a role in 6 out of 7 goals..." Who is he, Danny Welbeck? (Shoutout to Welbz)
That's the kind of compliment one gives to someone who otherwise flatters to deceive. I've seen such compliments in the Kagawa and Ozil threads.
That's the kind of compliment one gives to someone who otherwise flatters to deceive. I've seen such compliments in the Kagawa and Ozil threads.
Understandably so since neither of the mentioned have hit the same heights. And the latter 3 I mentioned with complete sarcasm since neither of them have really done anything of note for Argentina in this tournament, Higuain one game aside.
Name names if you like. As for being a stand out? Absolutely, and it seems like the majority agree. See my last post above. Key roles in 6 out of 7 of his sides goals, done under tight marking and playing under immense pressure I'm betting your other 5 players haven't had to deal with. Pressure's a huge one though, only Neymar is comparable. Even Maradona didn't go into 86 with the world taking to the internet to say "this is your last chance to really cement your status".
Yeah, he's undoubtedly been very good for them overall and has been important, but he's definitely not had a special tournament or anything like that.
Why would Welbeck even get a mention? even as a sarcy joke there's no sense in it. scored 4, directly assisted 1, people are pretty unanimous in agreeing this Argentina side hasn't played very well. So even though he's scored/created the vast majority of his sides goals and captained them to the final, it's an insult to suggest he's been a stand out player? I mean he's blatantly been the best player in a side that's reached the final.
I won't even bother getting into the stats for chances created and dribbles completed at this World Cup.
His teammates at Barcelona has been one of the greatest international sides ever winning three titles in a row and Messi hasn't won anything of value ever on the International stage even if he plays for Argentina which is already one of the best sides in the world. Maradona was more influential for Argentina in 1990 than Messi has ever been for them in the biggest tournaments.
So it is indeed a good question which Messi needs to prove wrong, I don't think any of the other all time greats needed so much pampering and such a dominant side to be able to dominate completely themselves.
interesting, again. I read on previous page that Maradona didn't have a good enough team behind him in Napoli and that's why he couldn't do shit in champions league.
if argentina wins the world cup, the excuses to say that now that is not enough to claim he is one of the GOATs are already served
Argentina haven't won a thing since 1986
Is it really hard to comprehend why he hasn't won anything with Argentina while his Spanish team mates have? They went into a national side full of players they were already playing regularly with week in week out for their club, complimented by David Villa in the prime of his career. This was a Golden period for Spain the likes of which I;ve never seen for a national team, an embarrassment of riches, (Villa, Xavi, Iniesta, Silva, Fabregas, Torres, Senna, Busquets, Ramos, Puyol). Messi went into a disjointed side managed by Diego Maradona
A guy who selected Otamendi because he had a dream that Argentina won the world cup and Otamendi was there, a side who people seemed to rate simply because it had an abundance of world class strikers, but shockingly their midfield trio of Mascherano, Di Maria and Maxi Rodriguez couldn't take Germany's midfield of Schweinstagger, Ozil, Khedire and Podolski!It depends what you see as being dominant doesn't it? and he's hardly pampered, I always found it amusing that people think he has it easy because he's only played at the one club. I'm sure having the pressure of being the main man at one of the biggest clubs in football is easy going. Incidentally seeing as Maradona seems to be the benchmark, lets remember his two defining world cup moments were cheating against England to score the all important first goal, and running from the halfway line where I think Shilton makes the first real meaningful attempt at taking the ball from him, now as impressive as the goal still is (more so for his turn when he first gets on the ball) if that goal was scored today the opposition players would be laughed at. Another prominent feature of the Maradona debate is over time people have started to peddle the myth that he played with a group of amateurs which heightens his status.
The good thing for Messi is footballers careers are romanticised beyond belief when they retire, so time will be kind to him. Just like it has to pretty much every top level footballer, I mean I regularly see people talk about how Zidane lit up France 98, which is by all accounts complete and utter bollocks.
Bottom line, by his own standards this hasn't been 'special' for Messi. I can't disagree with that, but he's definitely been a standout player in the tournament, and as someone else said previously, if any other player had his current tournament form they'd be getting huge praise, and rightly so.
There is no player that has been getting outstanding praise. Robben, James, Muller... they have been very good. Standout by the fact that there have been none better.
All I'll say is that I expected much better from Messi. It's an opinion at the end of the day, holds no more weight than anyone elses.
All I'll say is that I expected much better from Messi. It's an opinion at the end of the day, holds no more weight than anyone elses.
That's true. I know several people who think Cruyff is the greatest footballer of all time. A couple of my Dad's mates genuinely believe its Beckenbauer. There's no real barometer and it's increasingly difficult to really compare and contrast across different generations.
Football is the ultimate team sport no one "dominates completely themselves".
Well I disagree that Maradona is about those two moments, you mustn't have watched that World Cup in a while if you think those moments define his World Cup in 1986. He had an outstanding World Cup all in all and his team wasn't a bunch of amateurs but better than the Argentina team of today in comparison to the other teams.Argentina haven't won a thing since 1986
Is it really hard to comprehend why he hasn't won anything with Argentina while his Spanish team mates have? They went into a national side full of players they were already playing regularly with week in week out for their club, complimented by David Villa in the prime of his career. This was a Golden period for Spain the likes of which I;ve never seen for a national team, an embarrassment of riches, (Villa, Xavi, Iniesta, Silva, Fabregas, Torres, Senna, Busquets, Ramos, Puyol). Messi went into a disjointed side managed by Diego Maradona
It depends what you see as being dominant doesn't it? and he's hardly pampered, I always found it amusing that people think he has it easy because he's only played at the one club. I'm sure having the pressure of being the main man at one of the biggest clubs in football is easy going. Incidentally seeing as Maradona seems to be the benchmark, lets remember his two defining world cup moments were cheating against England to score the all important first goal, and running from the halfway line where I think Shilton makes the first real meaningful attempt at taking the ball from him, now as impressive as the goal still is (more so for his turn when he first gets on the ball) if that goal was scored today the opposition players would be laughed at. Another prominent feature of the Maradona debate is over time people have started to peddle the myth that he played with a group of amateurs which heightens his status.
The good thing for Messi is footballers careers are romanticised beyond belief when they retire, so time will be kind to him. Just like it has to pretty much every top level footballer, I mean I regularly see people talk about how Zidane lit up France 98, which is by all accounts complete and utter bollocks.
Bottom line, by his own standards this hasn't been 'special' for Messi. I can't disagree with that, but he's definitely been a standout player in the tournament, and as someone else said previously, if any other player had his current tournament form they'd be getting huge praise, and rightly so.
The only two world-class players in the team were Ruggeri and Maradona and the rest were of much lower quality whereas today they had a much better set of individuals than the teams they have faced so far. (Switzerland, Belgium and Holland in KO's and Nigeria, Iran and Bosnia in the Group)
Argentina of 1986 before the World Cup played similar to their actual qualities and they didn't win in I believe 6 training matches just before the World Cup. What we witnessed at the World Cup was a Maradona who had stepped up completely and improved the entire side by running as many plays as possible, and he did it extremely well.
Remember that back then it wasn't just a double or triple mark you faced, but the referee didn't protect the stars like they do today so he had a much harder treatment than Messi is getting. Messi is not being bad in this world cup if we compare him to the other players in the world, but that is not the discussion it is whether he is the greatest ever.
I agree that Zidane is hugely overrated though, I've always said he is one of the most overrated "all-timers" in my eyes so I won't argue against that. You should remember though that for every Zidane that people will never forget there are 10 equally great performers that the world forgets very fast like Hagi/Stoichkov/Brolin of 94.
Have you heard of Leonidas, Varela, Meazza, Monti, Schiaffino, Sindelar, Marzolini, Seeler, Breitner, Lato, Vogts and the list goes on and on over players who have had absolutely brilliant world cups but are forgotten in most peoples minds. I don't think Messi's current world cup can be compared to the top tier ones who actually hugely improved their team and in many cases actually carried them.
I think Messi so far has a decent WC by his standard , and a very good WC for any other current player.
People are a bit too harsh on him. Take Zidane as example. He is widely regarded a big game player and rightfully so. He didn't do much in WC 98 until the final where he scored two headers. In 2000 Euro cup final, he was anonymous, completely marked out of game by Ambrosini. Had it not been for Wiltord who equalized in the 90th minute and Trezeguet's goal in ET, Italy would've won. Fast forward to now, how many people remember those games where he was average and didn't have much impact ?
People are a bit too harsh on him. Take Zidane as example. He is widely regarded a big game player and rightfully so. He didn't do much in WC 98 until the final where he scored two headers. In 2000 Euro cup final, he was anonymous, completely marked out of game by Ambrosini. Had it not been for Wiltord who equalized in the 90th minute and Trezeguet's goal in ET, Italy would've won. Fast forward to now, how many people remember those games where he was average and didn't have much impact ?
Wow wow hold on. I didn't say that. I don't think Zidane is over-rated, he was a phenomenal footballer and for me he is one of the all time greats. I'm just using France 98 as an example of what shit people talk a few years down the line because he wasn't even France's best player at that tournament.
As for Maradona in 86, yeah I can't dispute he was brilliant, but it's still been blown out of proportion regardless of how good he was. And for the talk of a lack of protection, he certainly had the benefit of playing against slower, clumbsier defenders. People will never change my opinion on that, defenders are quicker, more athletic than ever now. When I look at his goal against Belgium there's still a gap there in the defence I haven't really seen available to Messi in this tournament so far.
But again it's all down to personal opinion.
He had two chances in the old European cup (there was no Champions League back then). Napoli lost to Real Madrid in 1988 (unlucky draw, one could reasonably say) and went out on penalities in 1991.
The main point would be, however, that the old EC isn't comparable to the CL era at all. Only league winners entered, knockout all the way to the final. Hypothetically, if there had been group stages and multiple teams from the big leagues back in the late 80s, I have no doubt Napoli would have done very well over the course of Maradona's stint there.
he dominated the most competetive national competition in Europe and he dominated the biggest international competition in the world but he couldn't handle champions league. in other words, he FAILED to step up. but, I suppose Spartak had better players than him in their team... PSV, Marseille, Red Star, Benfica, Steaua and Anderlecht too...
Thank you very much, good stuff. Never thought about the consistency angle, always looked at it as a really unstable decade, but reading it that way Napoli did more than just win two titles, they were effectively a big club during his tenure there.
Yes, he did fail to win the EC. He had two chances to win it and he failed. He did win the old UEFA cup, though.
It is quite common knowledge though that the late 80's and 90's had the best defenders of all time which we can see when we look at Italy's defensive four in 1986 which included, Bergomi, Scirea, Cabrini and Vierchowod four of the all-time greatest ever defenders. More world class defenders than the entire 2014 World Cup has in all teams included in just one team.
I really don't understand why people are desperate to make excuses for Messi when he really doesn't need them. Where does this idea come from that he needs to play in a team at the very top of its game to be successful, and if he doesn't then he can fail and be exempt from criticism? It's as if people think that every great player has played in a team that was consistently at the top of its game in every tournament they played. Do people really think that Brazil in '58, Germany in '74, Argentina in '86 or even a team like France in 2006 were all-conquering with every player at the top of their game and playing brilliant football? Without Pelé in '58 it's entirely conceivable that they could have failed to get past Wales in a tough quarter final never mind the rest of the tournament. Have a look at the state of the pitch that Germany in '74 played in when they came up against Poland in what was essentially the semi-final. It's simply impossible to play at your very best in those conditions and if they had lost that game against a strong Polish team it would have been Poland in the final and not them. Argentina in '86 even with Maradona's moments of genius v England were inches away from taking the game to extra time and every game was a struggle, which is what made Maradona's performances all the more impressive. Zidane dragged them through the knockout stages in 2006 and knitted that team together incredibly well despite their obvious flaws.
People talk about Beckenbauer's Germany and Bayern sides of the early 70s as if they were this miraculous team that just somehow came together, played amazing football and clicked in some inexplicable way. Part of that is true. They were a collection of tremendously talented players and they did click, but like any team they did not always play amazing football and when they struggled to play at their very best, it was these players that drove them to success regardless. It was the likes of Cruyff, Pelé, Beckenbauer and Maradona that were the glue in their teams. Germany in 1972 played with a swagger, verve and even nonchalance that saw them light up the Euros in a way that arguably hasn't been matched since. In 1974 however they weren't this all-conquering German-style total football team, they were efficient and effective and right the way through the tournament they managed to exert their superiority against every level of opposition they came up against - culminating of course in that match against the Dutch. For me it goes without question that without Beckenbauer they simply wouldn't have been able to do that. Despite not being at their best they were always the better team and that is down to having a player like Beckenbauer that simply dominated the opposition.
Messi himself is in a tremendously talented team, it's just that they haven't been able to turn all that talent into a great team. The managers are part of that, obviously, but I don't agree that they're the ones who are solely responsible for it. Brazil sacked their manager less than a year before the World Cup despite winning every one of their qualification games and with only a few months and a handful of games for Zagallo to prepare, a lot of the responsiblity for the performances at the 1970 World Cup actually fell upon the senior players. Carlos Alberto, Pelé, Gérson and co. had a huge amount of influence in the camp and were recognised as an extension of the management team, on and off the pitch. This is similar to what is going on with Argentina now. Sabella, like Zagallo, is reponsible for the organisational side of things but the senior players have an important role in terms of the motivational aspect and how to deal with things on the pitch - tactically, emotionally, physically etc. International management is very different for this reason and it's the reason why you see the likes of Susic, Wilmots or Maradona as international managers and recognised as figureheads of the team - motivators and people who manage the personalities in the group - but not necessarily coaches or tacticians. There are hundreds of international managers who are poor club managers because the expectations and requirements are just completely different. Many international managers are hired in part due to the fact that they were famous ex-players for that nation because that alone gives them the clout and respect needed to bring this selection of players together as a group for this short period of time.
The players at international level therefore have a much greater role in terms of their influence on tactics and how the team expresses itself in the tournament itself. That's where these really great players come to the fore - they're the organisers and leaders as well as the most gifted and influential individuals in the team. That's why people look at international football and the World Cup as something that great players need to conquer. It's got nothing to do with whether the World Cup or the Champions League is the pinnacle of football, it's to do with the fact that international football poses a completely different set of obstacles to overcome. Most of the best players of all time have played in incredibly well-oiled, well-drilled club sides that had few or no flaws and so were able to express themselves fully. You can buy players to fill those gaps in your squad so that there are no severe weaknesses. This is of course true of Messi and Barcelona - when given the platform to play at his very best he is clearly untouchable. In international football you have to deal with lopsided teams and find a way to bind everything together to overcome those issues, and you have to play with a group of players that you only see about once a month outside of international tournaments. The camaraderie, the team spirit, the organisation, the mutual understanding - it all has to come together in a short period of time, and you need these players to help that come to fruition. That's one of the huge fundamental differences to club football. Then of course there's the unique physical issues that each player has to deal with when playing so much football in such a short space of time.
This is the sort of thing that Xavi did. He was a leader of the Spanish side, he was able to exert his influence on the game in 2008, 2010 and 2012. He was played ahead of the double pivot in a position which clearly isn't his best, he played with a chronic Achilles injury and in spite of these obstacles he was able to stamp his mark on the team. In 2012 their strikers were all injured or out of form and yet they still managed to win the tournament relatively comfortably, with Xavi the MOTM in one of the most one-sided finals in history. With Xavi gone they still retain possession brilliantly but they look comparably toothless. He is not the sole reason for that but clearly he was the key cog in their side, the leader and the glue in that side. They have a tremendously talented squad but they are not a great team, and that's why someone like Xavi is so important at this level. He excelled at club and international level in the same way the likes of Pelé and co. did. Up until now I don't think you can say that about Messi. He hasn't been the glue of this Argentina team and he hasn't been able to lead his international side in the way the others did. If anything that has been Mascherano.
People talk about Beckenbauer's Germany and Bayern sides of the early 70s as if they were this miraculous team that just somehow came together, played amazing football and clicked in some inexplicable way. Part of that is true. They were a collection of tremendously talented players and they did click, but like any team they did not always play amazing football and when they struggled to play at their very best, it was these players that drove them to success regardless. It was the likes of Cruyff, Pelé, Beckenbauer and Maradona that were the glue in their teams. Germany in 1972 played with a swagger, verve and even nonchalance that saw them light up the Euros in a way that arguably hasn't been matched since. In 1974 however they weren't this all-conquering German-style total football team, they were efficient and effective and right the way through the tournament they managed to exert their superiority against every level of opposition they came up against - culminating of course in that match against the Dutch. For me it goes without question that without Beckenbauer they simply wouldn't have been able to do that. Despite not being at their best they were always the better team and that is down to having a player like Beckenbauer that simply dominated the opposition.
Messi himself is in a tremendously talented team, it's just that they haven't been able to turn all that talent into a great team. The managers are part of that, obviously, but I don't agree that they're the ones who are solely responsible for it. Brazil sacked their manager less than a year before the World Cup despite winning every one of their qualification games and with only a few months and a handful of games for Zagallo to prepare, a lot of the responsiblity for the performances at the 1970 World Cup actually fell upon the senior players. Carlos Alberto, Pelé, Gérson and co. had a huge amount of influence in the camp and were recognised as an extension of the management team, on and off the pitch. This is similar to what is going on with Argentina now. Sabella, like Zagallo, is reponsible for the organisational side of things but the senior players have an important role in terms of the motivational aspect and how to deal with things on the pitch - tactically, emotionally, physically etc. International management is very different for this reason and it's the reason why you see the likes of Susic, Wilmots or Maradona as international managers and recognised as figureheads of the team - motivators and people who manage the personalities in the group - but not necessarily coaches or tacticians. There are hundreds of international managers who are poor club managers because the expectations and requirements are just completely different. Many international managers are hired in part due to the fact that they were famous ex-players for that nation because that alone gives them the clout and respect needed to bring this selection of players together as a group for this short period of time.
The players at international level therefore have a much greater role in terms of their influence on tactics and how the team expresses itself in the tournament itself. That's where these really great players come to the fore - they're the organisers and leaders as well as the most gifted and influential individuals in the team. That's why people look at international football and the World Cup as something that great players need to conquer. It's got nothing to do with whether the World Cup or the Champions League is the pinnacle of football, it's to do with the fact that international football poses a completely different set of obstacles to overcome. Most of the best players of all time have played in incredibly well-oiled, well-drilled club sides that had few or no flaws and so were able to express themselves fully. You can buy players to fill those gaps in your squad so that there are no severe weaknesses. This is of course true of Messi and Barcelona - when given the platform to play at his very best he is clearly untouchable. In international football you have to deal with lopsided teams and find a way to bind everything together to overcome those issues, and you have to play with a group of players that you only see about once a month outside of international tournaments. The camaraderie, the team spirit, the organisation, the mutual understanding - it all has to come together in a short period of time, and you need these players to help that come to fruition. That's one of the huge fundamental differences to club football. Then of course there's the unique physical issues that each player has to deal with when playing so much football in such a short space of time.
This is the sort of thing that Xavi did. He was a leader of the Spanish side, he was able to exert his influence on the game in 2008, 2010 and 2012. He was played ahead of the double pivot in a position which clearly isn't his best, he played with a chronic Achilles injury and in spite of these obstacles he was able to stamp his mark on the team. In 2012 their strikers were all injured or out of form and yet they still managed to win the tournament relatively comfortably, with Xavi the MOTM in one of the most one-sided finals in history. With Xavi gone they still retain possession brilliantly but they look comparably toothless. He is not the sole reason for that but clearly he was the key cog in their side, the leader and the glue in that side. They have a tremendously talented squad but they are not a great team, and that's why someone like Xavi is so important at this level. He excelled at club and international level in the same way the likes of Pelé and co. did. Up until now I don't think you can say that about Messi. He hasn't been the glue of this Argentina team and he hasn't been able to lead his international side in the way the others did. If anything that has been Mascherano.
Last edited:
you should write for a newspaper Brwned, that's wasted on here.
Excellent post.
I can't fathom, in nowadays game, to see a performance like Maradona's 86. Football has simply changed too much. People should let this GOAT absurdity slide. How the feck are you expecting to reach any kind of meaningful conclusion in a sport that:
--- Changed so much throughout the decades. Players protection, level of professionalism in training... Does anyone see a professional that smokes and drinks regularly and arguably didn't went to a gazillion training sessions get anywhere nowadays (thinking of Socrates here)? Distribution of resources changed dramatically, not too long ago you had guys like Rijkaard signing for Sporting or the best English striker making a career in the likes of Newcastle. Today, it's every top player in a handful of clubs.
--- Is probably the major sport with more variables on top of individual brilliance. Certainly one of the ones where team effort and quality counts the most. It's low scoring nature makes referees more influential than in any other sport. Details like half a centimeter making a difference whether a ball deflects in or out of goal have a lot more impact on final result.
--- Competitiveness itself. It's 60 games per season nowadays, for top players. No exception. They gain millions week in week out to perform for their clubs. National pride isn't the end-be-all. Pelé never got a chance to try this.
This isn't baseball where you can boil it down to stats. Or basketball, where the benchmark is objective and consistent. What do you have to do to be greater than Jordan? Be sufficiently good to have a team built around you (many do), get to the finals, show clutch, and get the MVP, a most often rather objective distinction based on a series of statistically significant stats. Do this more times than he did. Everyone knows what they have to do to beat him. Personal preferences may vary, but there's way less where to argue objectively either way.
Stupid level of discussion more worthy of a facebook or youtube, in spite of how much better people articulate themselves. The end point is flawed, so you're going nowhere with this.
--- Changed so much throughout the decades. Players protection, level of professionalism in training... Does anyone see a professional that smokes and drinks regularly and arguably didn't went to a gazillion training sessions get anywhere nowadays (thinking of Socrates here)? Distribution of resources changed dramatically, not too long ago you had guys like Rijkaard signing for Sporting or the best English striker making a career in the likes of Newcastle. Today, it's every top player in a handful of clubs.
--- Is probably the major sport with more variables on top of individual brilliance. Certainly one of the ones where team effort and quality counts the most. It's low scoring nature makes referees more influential than in any other sport. Details like half a centimeter making a difference whether a ball deflects in or out of goal have a lot more impact on final result.
--- Competitiveness itself. It's 60 games per season nowadays, for top players. No exception. They gain millions week in week out to perform for their clubs. National pride isn't the end-be-all. Pelé never got a chance to try this.
This isn't baseball where you can boil it down to stats. Or basketball, where the benchmark is objective and consistent. What do you have to do to be greater than Jordan? Be sufficiently good to have a team built around you (many do), get to the finals, show clutch, and get the MVP, a most often rather objective distinction based on a series of statistically significant stats. Do this more times than he did. Everyone knows what they have to do to beat him. Personal preferences may vary, but there's way less where to argue objectively either way.
Stupid level of discussion more worthy of a facebook or youtube, in spite of how much better people articulate themselves. The end point is flawed, so you're going nowhere with this.
Last edited:
Very true, very true. People will bicker about who is the best, though. They won't settle for "they were all bloody good in their own time and in their own ways" even though the latter clearly is the case.
defenders with athleticism ≠ skilled defenders
Excellent.
but that's precisely why Xavi is a pretty bad example in my opinion - he wasn't affected by all that like Messi and Ronaldo were/are. he played with many of his own teammates from Barcelona (Pedro, Pique, Busquets, Iniesta, Villa, Fabregas...) and there was also a strong core from Real Madrid (Ramos, Casillas, Alonso...). feck, they even played the same tactics. Spain is pretty unique in that regard and that's why I must disagree with that comparision.
excellent post
anyway, again you are asking messi to do the same the other GOAT players did, when they are great for differente circunstamces
messi is one of the greatest for other reasons, not for the same reasons pele, maradona, distefano or cruyff were
he has played in a top level for over 6 years now and he is still beating record after record
you might say that he didnt play as good this last year and a half, ok, i agree, but look at his numbers of this year and a half and you'll see that they are better than the numbers that Maradona, Cruyff and Distefano ever had in any year and a half
so even injured he scored shitloads of goals, set shitloads of goals for his team mates and is about to play the biggest game of them all
in a team that only scored 8 goals, one of wich was an own goal, another was a set piece goal, but the other ones, four were scored by him and the other two were set by him
@Arruda it is always nearly impossible to actually compare players through-out history and the least bad way to compare them is by comparing them to the other players in their era. I also think you really overate the changes and how they would affect the top players especially between 1986-1990 to 2014.
Maradona faced the best era of top defenders in history and they were allowed to be a lot more dirty without getting booked or free-kicks against them than the defenders currently playing. It is really hard to twist the story to turn it into that Messi had it harder than Maradona did because I don't think that is true at all.
Messi has benefited nearly every change between the eras, the star-player protection from the defenders, the top teams being so much stronger financially in comparison to the smaller teams as Messi never played for a small team.
Even if the modern times has seen the most amount of players and the best facilities and so forth we are still seeing the worst era of defenders in possibly all time. Attackers are scoring more goals than ever as well as Barcelona scores 100 a season while Napoli averaged around 50 a season by that time.
Maradona faced the best era of top defenders in history and they were allowed to be a lot more dirty without getting booked or free-kicks against them than the defenders currently playing. It is really hard to twist the story to turn it into that Messi had it harder than Maradona did because I don't think that is true at all.
Messi has benefited nearly every change between the eras, the star-player protection from the defenders, the top teams being so much stronger financially in comparison to the smaller teams as Messi never played for a small team.
Even if the modern times has seen the most amount of players and the best facilities and so forth we are still seeing the worst era of defenders in possibly all time. Attackers are scoring more goals than ever as well as Barcelona scores 100 a season while Napoli averaged around 50 a season by that time.
You realize that back when Maradona played you would be an outstanding team if you scored 50-60 goals a season and today that would get you nowhere as the top teams are so much more dominant in this era. Back then they were restricted to three players from outside of Italy and the cash difference wasn't as big so facing the worst team of the league wasn't as easy as now where Barcelona and Real with or without Ronaldo and Messi can beat the worst teams with 5-0 without it being odd.
but it seems that handballs were allowed back in time, don't you think it made it easier for him?
one season messi scored more goals than liverpool
thats how good messi is
season 2011/12
liverpool scored 47 goals
messi scored 50 goals -and only in the Liga cup-
I'm not twisting anything with any kind of goal in mind. You're the one imagining an agenda on my post. First thing I mentioned on my post was player protection, do you think I put that in there to twist things in making it look like Messi had it harder? Likewise for the fact that top players concentrate in a handful of clubs. Did I put it there to make it look like Messi had it harder? I may be overstating some things, or not, It's not a well researched opinion, just a gut feeling. I don't think Messi has it harder, and I never did. Just different.
Then I agree with you.
