Revisionist history
Pretty sure in 10 years time, some people are going to say Iniesta was considered the best player in 2008-11 Barcelona, and back that up with quotes from Rooney.
Last edited:
The Greatest Footballer of All Time
- Thread starter Moby
- Start date
Pretty sure in 10 years time, some people are going to say Iniesta was considered the best player in 2008-11 Barcelona, and back that up with quotes from Rooney.
To be fair, I can’t think of any players from the past who had scored 102 goals and 41 assist for his country in top level. Closet one is Puskas (84 goals) who was playing in the high scoring era with little emphasis on defence. Next is Pele (77 goals), who was by far GOAT at international level. Sure you can use the goal per game ratio, but bear in mind Ronaldo was playing for inferior team, and out of 170 games he played, probably over 40 of them are played in midfield winger position. So you are basically comparing the end products of midfield winger to forward player in many games. And of course Ronaldo and Messi did it in more games played, but that is only possible as they managed to maintain themselves at very top level for so many years, which is the most difficult thing in football, so all credits to them.
Last edited:
To be fair Pele has maintained at very high level for so many years too. (From 1958 to 1970). Ballon D’or has given him “honorary” Ballon D’or 7 times (revisit Ballon D’or winner if also include player from SA), for year 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 70.
Also the fact that Santos made a lot of money by ditching the actual competitions, and going on tours in Europe, Asia and US. Which is the reason why Santos stopped winning CL or even competing. His career trajectory is quite different. Most of his friendlies were more competitive than actual competitive matches.
I don't doubt dude would have won 12 straight POTY if he and his team were serious about competition than money during the mid to late 60s.
No doubt about that. Before Messi, the debate had always been Pele v Maradona and for me it was easy call: Pele.
But it’s now Pele v Messi. The case for Pele remains very strong.
The problem is, many of us haven't seen Pele played before, his football is about 50-60 years ago, we have no idea how good Pele peak really was (unless you are already 70-80+ year old, who has watched a lot of live football during Pele era) , all we have here is his limited footage. And as we all know, many players could look great in youtube footage, its not the same as watching full 90 mins every week, it really hard to tell.
So what we only have here are his stats and achievements. In terms of those, Pele has been unrivalled for almost half a century, not until we have Messi and Ronaldo, who matched him in every stats and measurable forms of achievements, but that's only for club career.
As for international football, Pele is in the league of his own, on paper theres simply no players who could compare with him. But if we put Messi and Ronaldo in Brazil golden era (1958-1970), and put Pele in Messi Argentina or Ronaldo Portugal in the modern time, would the situation be reversed? One could only imagine.
Zidane didn't lead France to anything.
He was red carded in 98 in the match France played against Saudi Arabia. France got through to the final, by winning some very tough matches, without needing him at all. They had a brilliant defense comprised of Blanc, Dessailly, Thuram and Lizarazu, and only conceded 2 goals. Zidane simply scored 2 headers in the final against a Brazil that was in disarray because Ronaldo's convulsion prior to the final.
It was similar in 06. Zidane just had a big game against Brazil. He played average in the group stage against Switzerland, South Korea. France won the last group game against Togo without him. In the KO stage, against Spain and Portugal, the likes of Vieira and Thuram played better than him. And we all know what happened in the final.
His overall performance in 98 and 06 is way below what Pele did in 58 and 70.
Aguero can definitely fit in the Brazil sides, he's a word class striker.
And it's also not hard to imagine swapping Messi for Pele and Pele leading Argentina to a World Cup.
Pele's decline after the age of 30 is irrelevant. He already had 12-13 years at the very top by then, that is more than enough. And in that time span, he won all there is to win.
And Messi is not exactly in his mid 30s, he's just 33 and it is quite clear for everyone to see he is not the same player as he used to be.
We can also see that Messi has failed to replicate his Barcelona feats somewhere else. He hasn't managed to win a single major trophy with Argentina. I'm sorry my friend, but no matter how good someone is, he can never be the GOAT when he has never managed to win anything at international level.
I agree with you, but there is just one point that's worth addressing: being the greatest doesn't mean you are better than anyone else, it just means your achievements are better/greater.
That argument is close to worthless the moment you understand that football is a team sport, and trophies won are the results of the hard work and effort of 50+ people. Thats why they are called "clubs". Coaching, hiring staff, scouters, president, boards, etc. Any of them can decide the fate of a club by simply making a mistake or by making a good/great choice.
Messi playing up front cant control what his keeper does, or the mistakes from a leftback etc. If a goalkeeper has the perfect season and doesnt concede a single goal on all competitions, making all kinds of crazy saves etc but his team doesnt score goals either, then thats a midtable team and also team getting eliminated at group stages of competitions.
A player doesnt need to win everything to be considered the greatest, or you are ruling out 98% of players since the day they are born, and that is illogical.
True, Messi can't control what his teammates do, but he can control what he does. And we have all seen that he can't perform to the same level with Argentina.
He has played in 4 World Cups and he has not managed to score a goal after the group stage in either of those 4 World Cups.
He has failed to show up in the most important game of his life, the 2014 World Cup final. He has crumbled every time there was pressure on him to deliver for Argentina.
I never said a player needs to win everything, I simply said that a player needs to be successful and win major trophies both at international level and at club level. Now, if Messi was playing for a very weak national team like, say Bosnia, then nobody would fault him for failing at international level. But the thing is he doesn't, he plays for one of the greatest footballing nations in history, and he has been surrounded by world class teammates at his national team.
I’m not sure what you mean by this, can you please elaborate?
If Messi can torch 5 or 6 defenders and he's not a "system player", then how come he can't do that with Argentina and win them trophies ?!?
I never said R9 had Messi's longevity, I was just comparing them prime vs prime.
Pele also won the World Cup and performed brilliantly in 58, especially when you consider the fact that he was just 17 at the time.
First of all, the fact that Muller scored more goals does not make him the better player.
And second of all, Pele was still the best player on that Brazil squad.
Pele was also the best player in his era by a considerable distance, so I don't see the point you are trying to make.
That may be so, but in many ways football was harder back then. The rules did not protect offensive players, there weren't even yellow and red cards up until the 1970 World Cup. The pitches and equipment was also a lot worse, the training and nutrition not as good etc.
Did you ever consider the fact that rough and muddy pitches, with heavier balls and boots made it a lot harder to control the ball and play at such a fast pace ?!
We do have more than stats and accomplishments to consider. I was a kid during his years but never got to see him play live. What I do very clearly remember is just what a huge global sports star he was and even had a profile in the US before he went there to play. Just remember football in the US in the 50's to 70's really wasnt of any consequence. We also have a lot of material that spoke of his influence around the globe, some of it mythical such as the story of a war going into ceasefire so soldiers could watch him play. The point being that he was such a big name those sorts of myths appeared.
Stats and accomplishments only tell part of the story.
BTW I personally dont think we can have one GOAT, the game has too long a history now and for me there are 4 or 5 that all sit pretty much equal at the top.
Messi is still the top scorer with argentina, top assister, top rated player, etc. Just as with Barcelona, he's by far the best. His team failing to win tournaments is the combination of several factors, including both his entire team's performance AND the other elite team's performances.
Its not Tennis. There isnt a single player in history of football that has won anything by himself. CR7 didnt, Maradona didnt, Pele didnt and certainly R9 didnt.
Messi is simply the top scorer cause he has played far more matches than other Argentinian ATG's. Batistuta still has a better goals per games ratio.
Also worth mentioning that out of the 71 goals Messi has scored for Argentina, 34 were in friendlies. That's roughly half of them.
Also, his stats for Argentina are not as impressive as his stats for Barcelona.
He is the main man to blame for Argentina not winning a trophy cause he has failed every time there was pressure on him.
World Cup failures:
- In 2010, Messi scored ZERO GOALS the entire tournament.
- In 2014, Messi couldn't do anything after the group stage. Combined, he had ZERO goals and one measly assist against Belgium in the QF, Holland in the SF and Germany in the final. In that final, he had a 1v1 chance against Neuer in the 2nd half when the score was 0-0. He missed, yet countless and Messi fans and apologists blame Higuain for Argentina not winning that World Cup. He was awarded the WC golden ball as a consolation prize when it was quite clear to everyone James Rodriguez was the one who deserved it.
- in 2018, Messi missed a penalty against Iceland. And here's the best part: Iceland'd goalkeeper works as a film director. Because of his miss and his weak performance against Croatia, Argentina had to play France in the next round instead of easier opposition.
- in the 4 World Cups he's played in, he hasn't managed to score a single goal in the knockout stage, and you're just gonna sit there telling me this guy is the GOAT ?! HELL NO, NOT IN A MILLION YEARS !!!
Copa America failures:
- In 2015, Messi went missing in the final;
- in 2016, he missed the penalty in the shootout in 2016. Then he retired, showcasing his mental weakness under pressure once again.
- in 2019, Messi went through the entire tournament with ZERO goals from open play. He was well below par against the likes of Colombia, Paraguay, Qatar and Brazil.
They didn't win it by themselves, but they sure were the main reason their teams won.
I've already mentioned this in a previous post on this thread, but I have no problem repeating it:
In determining who is the "best", you only have to look at one factor: peak form/ability.
In determining who is the greatest, one needs to take into account an extra 2 factors, not just peak form.
The 3 factors are:
1. achievements (trophies won at international and club level, records set, longevity, etc). This is the most important factor.
2. peak form/ability
3. impact on the sport.
Messi cannot lay claim to the title of GOAT cause he's hasn't achieved anything at international level.
Kudos for delivering such nonsense with such passion.
I respect your perspective, but since we can't really prove any of these points one way or the other I'll just give you my opinion, which is based solely on my observation. To be fair, I should reveal my bias: I am old enough to have watched Pele live and revere him as I revere Muhammad Ali as a boxer and Kareem Abdul Jabbar as a basketball player -- and both, all three actually -- as men who transcended sport. Again just my opinion, but whereas we can honor Messi as a football genius (and rank him highly, wherever that may be), Pele eclipses Messi off the pitch and every other footballer I can think who has ever lived.
With that, here are my responses to each of your points.
I dismiss as absurd the claim that Messi is a player.
R9 prime v Messi prime? I'd still give the edge to Messi but will concede that it's close.
Pele was brilliant at the 58 World Cup. Messi was 19 when he made his WC debut in 2006 and made a notably positive, but limited, impact. The Argentina NT coach at the time was heavily criticized for not using Messi , who by that age was already astonishing in his brilliance.
No, Muller was not a better player than Pele in 1970, but he was the better player in the 1970 World Cup. And after 1970 (Muller was born 5 years after Pele), Muller blew Pele away for the next 5 seasons. As for the Brazil national team, which I watched with my dad (we're from Mexico), all the talk was about whether Pele would get a third WC trophy, but I can tell with first hand knowledge it was Jairzinho that everyone was talking about. By 1970, Pele had taken on iconic status but as brilliant as he was, Jairzinho had become Brazil's most feared player. But if you were to ask me who was the leader of the 1970 Brazil team, it was clearly Pele.
What do you mean "by his era"? The entire span of years 1958 and 1970? Then of course Pele. By near the end of that era, Jairzinho. And at the beginning of that era, Garrincha. And at the end of his era, 1970, Muller had eclipsed Pele as a goal scorer, but it is true that scoring goals isn't everything.
Football "harder" in the 1960s than in the 2010s? The pitches were muddier, the ball was heavier, defenders were more brutish, training and nutritional regimens aren't what they are today, and of course players themselves are paid vastly more today and live in greater comfort. But todays opponents run on the same pitch as Messi, use the same ball and everything that Messi gets to enjoy his opponents get to enjoy as well. Well, Messi's opponents don't earn what he earn, but at some point it doesn't matter how much more you take home. So it's true we can't know how Pele might have performed in 2015 any more than can know how Messi might have performed in 1970. Football is pretty hard today. The scouting and tactical preparation opponents have in their quiver vastly exceeds that of the 1960s. Opposing defenders are vastly better athletes and are much better on the ball than they were in that era, except for a few like Beckenbauer. Messi went up against Rio Ferdinand and Nemanja Vidic in their prime and destroyed them. I'd like to know the names of defenders in the 1960s whom Messi would be unable to cope with.
Don't get me wrong. Pele is beyond all debate one of the greatest professional athletes of all time in any sport. He, along with Ali and Jabbar, are humanitarians of the highest order, the Abraham Lincolns of sport in terms of what they accomplished in sport and in life for the people. When Maradona recently died I knew we lost a legend of the game, but when Pele passes away I will be sick to my stomach with grief that i know won't be the case when Messi goes (I doubt I will see that day), but if the question is who between Pele and Messi was the greater footballer, 5 or 6 years I would have said Pele, but now it simply is Messi.
That's what all Messi fanboys say when they have no arguments.
That just confirms that you don't pay attention to arguments. Because if you did you'd know that I was of the same opinion as you regarding R9 and actually argued against Messi in the Ronaldo vs. Ronaldo thread.
But your arguments are simply trash. Superficial and boring. One can see that you never bothered building your own opinion. Messi has actually performed very, very well for Argentina, like it or not.
He is right though. Just performing very well (debatable, but that's irrelevant) is not enough when you are talking GOAT level. He's well beyond the Zidanes of the footballing world and we are now comparing him against a handful of the best players in history. In that company, the fact remains he has never done what matters, i.e scoring and creating, when it matters for Argentina and you can't lay claim to be better than the likes of Maradona and Pele if you have not done that.
I know it's an unpopular opinion but that's simply not true. He did perform for Argentina and he did so to the level he showed for Barcelona. People always underestimate the influence a good team has on a player, no matter if his numbers are particularly great or particularly bad for a team.
I mean, watch a compilation of his highlights for Argentina. There are enough mindblowing plays for two international careers at the absolutely highest level.
The reactions to his player of the tournament in 2014 are kind of symbolic for the reception of his Argentina career. If you watch every scene of him and the only other player worth a mention regarding this price, Arjen Robben, then Messi clearly had the better tournament. Nobody else came close. Yet the award is criticized because Messi didn't maintain a goal per game ratio. It's ridiculous, really.
With your logic a player born in let's say Ireland, Bosnia, Norway, Austria etc. can never be the GOAT because their National teams aren't good enough. You're not a better footballer because you're born in Brazil, Argentina or any other country capable of winning international tropies. For me, being the GOAT footballer has to be about your abilities as a footballer, not how much your NT has won in your era. That said, you could argue that Argentina (2008-2020) should be doing better with that squad and tradition with the best player in the world in their team, and should be relevant when evaluating Messi's career.
I also find it very funny when people not born in the 40s or before and being matchgoing fans back then tries to make strong cases about players they have never seen live who dominated in the 50s, 60s and 70s, based on 5 min highlight reels and stories from old pundits. For a player like Pelè for instance, if you are old enough and was into football back then, it was impossible to watch any South American football from Europe. Other than some televised minutes of WC football every 4 years, there was nothing but rumours and hype for anyone but the matchgoing fans of Santos to judge him on really. He was obviously a fantastic player with a incredible career, but I would argue that extremely few on nowadays online footballforums has seen him play besides a few clips of highlights or knows how good he really was.
Like i say, we're not comparing him against players like Robben here. He is the best player in this generation and he should be the best player in every tournament in this generation, and that he hasn't done that even once is a blight on his career. Players like Robben can get away with highlights, having a positive influence on the team, and other meaningless things like that. Nobody will ever consider Robben one of the greats. On the other hand, players like Maradona and Pele are the greats, because they scored the important goals that won the important games. Messi's failure to do that keeps him a peg below them.
Last edited:
If you're counting him, you should probably add that he had to flee his country after the revolution in 1956, aged only 29. Same goes for Kocsis with 75 goals in 68 caps at the age of 27. Even though 50's were an extremely attacking-friendly era and they were playing for arguably the greatest international side ever assembled.
Where does Di Stefano rank?
I'm sorry, but this is just too much result oriented thinking for my liking. And that's typical for the assessment of WC performances to be honest. Take R9 for example, one of my top four players of all time alongside Messi, Maradona and Pele and all in all probably my favourite player in history togethter with Ronaldinho. His 2002 WC is generally seen as one of the best performances at a world cup in living memory. I recently rewatched highlights of his games and this wasn't the unstoppable force of nature of his Inter and Barca days. I rarely saw any highlight that really impressed me. That was a performance that somebody like, I don't know, Trezeguet, Vieri or van Nistelrooy also have pulled off in a functioning team and the only reason it gets mystified as it does is because a) it was Il Fenomeno and b) Brazil won the tournament. Messi in contrast didn't score as much in 2014 and he didn't win the tournament but he was the main creative outlet of his team. I'd say almost every dangerous attack ran through him but that's not really capturing it - if there was a goal scoring chance, he almost always was the player that made the most difficult and most decisive play, may it be a dribble or through ball.
But his performance gets belittled because he didn't score enough for average joe while R9 gets lauded although he played like a pure goal scorer in that tournament, not like the player that rightfully earned the nickname. It's similar to CR7 in his latest CL wins. He already made a name of himself during his United and early Madrid days, playing like a young god. Because of that it is enough to score goals, even if the overall game isn't up to his former standards.
Your arguments are a bit too intangible for me. This is a knockout tournament in a sport that is not only played by 22 individuals but also in it's design very "prone" to randomness and luck. Even more so in the less structured environment of somehwat improvisationally assembled international squads. I think your estimation of the influence a single player has on the outcome of the tournament is very, very off. You're underestimating the factor of luck/coincidence extremely and assign too much importance to the last contact in a sequence of play that lead to a goal.
Last edited:
The thing you miss is that the greats ALL have one tournament where they have stood out and made their legacy. As long as they played for a half competent national team they have all done something special, regardless of randomness and luck. Pele, Maradona, R9, Beckenbauer, Cruyff, Zidane, Platini, Garrincha, Muller. They all have at least one tournament where they stood out. The very best players have the ability to elevate everybody around them, Messi is pretty much the only one who doesn't. As brilliant as he is, he needs the team to elevate him.
He was rank 3rd or 4th before Messi and Ronaldo came into the scene. He was the most successful club player ever.
I guess he is now rank 5th or 6th.
Yes, that is what I meant: 1958-1970. I pointed that out to show that Pele also had great longevity, not just Messi and CR7. 12 years at the top is more than enough.
Basically all the top defenders back then. And it's not about him not being able to cope ability wise, it's about him not being able to cope with the tackles. He'd spend more time injured than on the field actually playing.
It baffles me how can you keep saying that when he hasn't been able to win a single major trophy with Argentina.
Brilliant post. That is the point I was also making. He simply isn't able to drag them after him.
None of them dragged their teams, the games are all there now. You can watch them. Messi in 2014, even as unimpressive as he seemed, was more influential than any of the players listed. For me, its the trio of Messi Pele and CR7 in no particular order in the first tier.
personally I can't name anyone for goat, to be goat, this player must be able to dominate and carry his team in any era which no one can prove.
GOAT should changed GOHT (Greatest of his time)
GOAT should changed GOHT (Greatest of his time)
I regret that you’re baffled.
Football is a team sport. Individual players don’t win trophies, teams do. Going back to Zidane, the great French footballer won a WC trophy, but no serious observer of the game would argue that Zidane (or Bobby Moore or Paul Pogba, both of whose teams won WC trophies) was a superior footballer to Lionel Messi.
We rightly honor Pele and anyone who argues Pele > Messi has a very strong argument, but there are many among us now who see what Messi has done and witnessed a player whose ability on the ball is superior to even that of Pele.
The statement above is a matter of opinion amd reasonably debated. But what’s not debatable is that from the age of 30 on in their respective careers, Messi blows Pele away. We can still to this day confidently say that Messi at 33 is the greatest footballer on the planet (some might say Ronaldo, to be fair) and going very strong but when Pele hit 31 he had easily been eclipsed by Muller, Cruyff and Beckenbauer and was a no longer a factor at the highest level of football.
This is my sentiment exactly. How can people weight an international tournament occurring once every four years that is a month long over a club career that happens most of the year. Messi has shown a level of consistency and excellence that no other player has previously shown. I agree that he should have done more internationally, but the idea of an international tournament being that significant is delusional, especially when making the case for someone like Ronaldo ( CR7). I feel these GOAT conversations are built on storylines written in books that are summarized so they can fit a few pages. That concept used to make sense as there weren't many players who could consistently perform at such a high level. Messi and Ronaldo are the only two recent players ( post 1980) who have presented a series of books rather than simply a summary. Almost every season of their careers have been amazing and would surpass any season of the majority of candidates in the top ten. Yet people try so hard to summarize their story despite the level of detail it has. We have more platforms now and can watch players both from the past and now with statistics, in game analysis etc. The games are there to be seen. It no longer has to be a story like it was in the past where pundits would tell you how great a player should be considered. Yet people still choose to use story lines and watch highlights despite the information available to them. World cups used to matter as much as they did because most people did not have access to other leagues and can only view a player based on what they saw in those tournaments. The continental club tournaments were not as televised and the domestic leagues were hard to watch. We have access to these tournaments now. Many people are still going off of what players in the 70's or 80's or even 90's said, despite the fact that even they didn't watch the former players as much as the players playing now. Add that to the usual doses of "my generation bias", you see this all the time in sports like basketball. Maybe if people weren't simply fed a story, Cruyff's failure to win a world cup would not have hampered how he's perceived against Pele and Maradona. Maybe Di Stefano would be considered an even greater player. Maybe players like Squilacci and Paolo Rossi would not be as overrated as they are. Or Platini would rightly have been considered better than Zidane ( Zidane wasn't even great in the 98 World cup). A lot of these players could only perform at peak value for less than 5 years, we had 2 players do it for more than 10, possibly even 15 years...yet people have used science, goal inflation ( in spite of peer comparisons) and international tournaments to diminish their contributions in favor of storytales.
Messi has elevated those around him for years. He has done this with Barcelona so frequently that its almost a cliche. The fact his Argentinian side hasnt been great at a WC shouldnt be held against him. So many view the Champions league as where the worlds best football is played, Fergie being one of them so I cant see how his National team not competing there being significant given his Champions league records. Messi has absolutely helped elevate his Barcelona team, there are countless times he was the difference.
Has he? He's always been the best player in a very good team that was set up to elevate him to his very best. That's not quite the same.
No, I'm not missing it because it's simply not true. Not every great player had a great WC, not even the selective few you mentioned. You're moving the goal posts in a single line, IMO. But even if you didn't and what you said actually was true, it doesn't mean much because your argument is still illogical. It may be appealing to many but it is illogical, no matter how you put it.
Yes, those players have national tournaments that their team's effort resulted in a trophy, but not all of those you listed had great performances, and only a few of them had "iconic" performances. Messi has had some good/great performances as well, but simply his team hasnt won the trophy so he doesnt make it to that list. Lets not forget he won the golden ball in 2014, but im sure you wont "accept" that as a deserved trophy because it doesnt fit in your narrative.
At the end of the day you are beating on a dead horse. Winning a world cup cant ever be decided by a single player, elite players prepare themselves for their entire lives, coaches prepare themselves for their entire lives, they come up with specific plans for every game, every player, every situation, etc. No player has ever or will ever win a football tournament by himself.
And by the way, those players you listed, while having more success with their national teams, none of them even have 1/4 of the success Messi has had with club football, none of them have close to his individual records, individual trophies, etc. So in the end, it more than evens out. Except for Pele maybe, but thats a whole different argument.
Messi's inability to be a difference maker in a final with Argentina does weight pretty heavily against him, considering he played four
We can big up CL all we want but the WC still remains by far the biggest and most prestigious tournament in the sport. The biggest stage of all. And Messi just doesn't have the record to stand up against Pelé or Maradona. We can talk consistency all we want, but if you had to win one game with your life on the line and you had the choice of one of Messi, Pelé or Maradona to be on your team, you wouldn't pick Messi
We can big up CL all we want but the WC still remains by far the biggest and most prestigious tournament in the sport. The biggest stage of all. And Messi just doesn't have the record to stand up against Pelé or Maradona. We can talk consistency all we want, but if you had to win one game with your life on the line and you had the choice of one of Messi, Pelé or Maradona to be on your team, you wouldn't pick Messi
Last edited:
Considering this thread directly compares Messi with Pelé, how is it a whole different argument?