Can there really be someone better than Messi in modern football?

[Arruda]

Di Maria and Aguero, whom you have funnily failed to mention, are better than the three you mentioned.

I didn't mention Aguero because he's the only player who's consistently been among the best in the world during his time. The other two won't certainly be looked by history as far better than the ones I mentioned. I doubt, among the natural subjectivity of these things, that there is that much between them. Both Valdano and Burruchaga were "player of the year" in their respective leagues in 1986 (Spanish and French), something I doubt Di María or Higuaín will ever accomplish.

I'm not even sure if Di Maria was ever player of the year in Portugal, during his long tenure here.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

These debates always turn extreme, which is why I tend to avoid them altogether.

Argentina '86 was a very well balanced team, and one – as it turned out – that was excellently suited as a backup cast for Maradona.

Napoli was a very good team too.

Maradona's legacy isn't about dragging pub teams to major trophies.

None of that has anything to do with Messi's perceived under-performance for Argentina, though. If anyone suggests that Argentina were so poor that Messi didn't have any kind of platform, they're being disingenuous at best.

As for the "Pelé never played in Europe, so..." argument, it's sheer ignorance and that's all I have to say about it.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Di Maria and Aguero, whom you have funnily failed to mention, are better than the three you mentioned.

They're rubbish for Argentina. That, or they alternate between good, rubbish and injured.

Messi's competition are either the all-time greats like Pele, Maradona etc. or the next one to reach around his level.

None of that has anything to do with Messi's perceived under-performance for Argentina, though. If anyone suggests that Argentina were so poor that Messi didn't have any kind of platform, they're being disingenuous at best.

As for the "Pelé never played in Europe, so..." argument, it's sheer ignorance and that's all I have to say about it.

He's come within a hair's length of winning two major international trophies. In one of them he dragged them to the final. With a little more luck he could have had that one title, or even two. Argetina weren't awful, but they weren't a very good team either. Dysfunctional, mostly. They could have been very successful in recent times, in spite of that. He didn't go on God mode and score 10 goals in either competition but he can't do that in every single competition either. The guy is sort of human.

 

[Arruda]

They're not extreme, they're stupid. I'm in the camp of "you probably can't definitely tell who was better", but I like to play devil's advocate with the suggestions that Napoli winning the Scudetto was an unthinkable thing (so it must have been for Verona or Sampdoria then) or that Argentina was a shit team apart from Maradona (a team that had at least two more players who were considered the best in their leagues in Europe). These kind of assessments are clearly not true, in fact, they're beyond stupid.

That doesn't detract from Maradona's rightful claim to being considered the best ever (among others) but it certainly detracts from some of the inane arguments used to try and make that a non-debate.

 

[Adebesi]

Pelé's era was different. European football wasn't the be all, and end all of club football in those days. The Campeonato Brasileiro was much stronger 50 years ago, than it is now. Before the trend of almost every big South American talent leaving the continent began (late 80s-early 90s), the Brazilian domestic leagues had the likes of Zizinho, Guia, Ademir, Djalma, Nilton, Falcão, Jairzinho, Carlos Alberto, Garrincha, Jorginho, Gérson, Vava, Bellini, Júnior, Zagallo, Zico, Tostão, Socrates, Rivellino, Sócrates playing in Brazil at a level that was close to to, or coincided with their peak; apart from foreign stars.

And Pelé did test himself against the best Europe had to offer. eg. Benfica was probably the strongest team in Europe when he met Santos (or Top 3 at worst) - with players like Simões, Germano, Augusto, Coluna, and a certain 20 year old named Eusébio, who was scoring at the rate of a goal per game. Pelé's Santos tonked them 8-4 over 2 legs (including a 2-5 rout in Lisbon where Pelé scored 3 against the European champions):


Limited sample size, but others vs European teams:

Real Madrid when they had Di Stéfano:

Inter Milan at the height of Catenaccio

2 goals vs Barcelona when they had Czibor and Kocsis

vs Stade de Reims

IIRC, something like 35%+ of Santos' goal vs European teams were scored by Pelé. So he was tested by European clubs.

But the question of whether he could have done it on a cold Wednesday night in Stoke will remain, alas, forever unanswered.

 

[RooneyLegend]

Pele didnt even play club football in Europe did he? Surely he cant be considered the greatest if he didnt test hinsel in the stronge club continent, let alone league.

South American football of the time was every bit as good as European football. That only really changed in the late 80's when European clubs bought all the top south American talent.

 

[Champagne Football]

I can't understand anyone who thinks there was a better footballer than Messi in history..There's been some sensations but Messi edges it every time

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I can't understand anyone who thinks there was a better footballer than Messi in history..There's been some sensations but Messi edges it every time

While I think the comparisons to Ronaldo are amusing given how misplaced they are, I equally don't understand this.

I find it hard to imagine someone better than him, but why can't someone have seen Maradona or Pele and conclude he was as good/better?

 

[129104946]

While I think the comparisons to Ronaldo are amusing given how misplaced they are, I equally don't understand this.

I find it hard to imagine someone better than him, but why can't someone have seen Maradona or Pele and conclude he was as good/better?

I think it's because of how far the sport, and all sports in general, have come since those times.

Now, like never before, there is such an emphasis on developing the best and the greatest athletes. There are actually even degrees now that focus on enhancing and maximizing athletic performance.

I think it's a fair argument to say "if X player (be it Maradona, or Pele, or whoever else) had the same training regiment and nutrition of athletes today then they could possibly be as good as Messi." However, looking at just the evidence we have to work with and the increased health science, fitness, and sports nutrition I find it hard to see how anyone could watch Maradona, or Pele and think the performance they're producing (in the context it's in) is equal or superior to how Messi is playing the current game.

 

[Culero]

In a way "healthy" means "average". For example is a person who is 2.1m tall wants to be an athlete he needs special supplements, diet because his height causes other deficiencies in his body, like with bones and stuff. Messi got HGH in much higher dosages than a body would produce, together with football training back then it resulted no doubt in much improvement of his leg muscles, lower body strength. So it was not just about the height, this medicine did help him to become a better footballer, there can be no doubt about it. I am not saying it's doping or something, but he was aided by current medicine and had he played in other, older era that simply would not be an option.
The development of sports medicine does produce a finer athletes. I've already referenced it, you may look at 100m result progression, it clearly shows that with time athletes run faster and faster. Surely it has little if nothing at all to do with talent, skill, dedication. Of course Bolt surpasses current fellow sportsmen in all that, we would be such a champion if he did not possess incredible skill, but compared to champions of 50s his dominance is supported by modern medicine, drugs. Same for Messi. It' just with athletic and running it's more clear-cut.

Spock, well it does not really Messi or football, but since computer able to generate a data (beauty) from 0s and 1s it's clearly not subjective.

You contradict yourself. So Messi who was clinically diagnosed as GH deficient got GH to combat the deficiency is deemed as getting higher dosage?

In fact to put in a hypothetical situation, picture a diabetic sports person taking insulin to play. Would you consider that doping?

 

[Chesterlestreet]

This is borderline wumming, I'll be the first to admit, but if we're looking at goals alone (which we shouldn't, but there you go – it's certainly something people like to do in these debates), some stats can be mentioned:

All three of Pelé, Maradona and Messi score less frequently for their respective national teams than they do for their club sides (looking at total goals, for all clubs, which we shouldn't do either, so it gets more pointless by the minute here), but the one whose ratio decreases most dramatically is easily Messi:

Pelé: 10% decrease.

Maradona: 29% decrease.

Messi: 45% decrease.

His goals-per-game ratio is close to 0.9 for Barca, and below the 0.5 mark for Argentina.

 

[Invictus]

But the question of whether he could have done it on a cold Wednesday night in Stoke will remain, alas, forever unanswered.

Yes, yes he can.

"I went to watch Stoke v Santos as a young boy in 1969 and I could have sworn that Pele did not play in this game," said Andrew Pimlott back in July last year."Now someone I know reckons I am mistaken and not only did he play but he also scored. Is this true?"

Alas your memory isn't what it was, Andrew.

"A friend of mine who was at the game says that Pele did play, although he doesn't remember if he scored or not," says Mike Lockwood. "He does, remember, nevertheless, that it finished 3-2 to Brazil, and Dennis Smith had a goal disallowed just before half-time when the ref blew a la Clive Thomas when the ball was in the air from a corner, and micro-seconds before Smith powered an unstoppable header into the back of the net".

Carl Andre concurs and is able to add a detail or two. "Pelé didn't just play, he also netted twice in that particular game. Santos won 3-2 and Jimmy Greenhoff scored at least once, maybe twice. I'm not sure."

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2004/sep/22/theknowledge.sport

With Gordon Banks in goals and the ever improving centre back pairing of 'hard men' Alan Bloor and Denis Smith, Stoke's back line looked solid.[1] In midfield Irish winger Terry Conroy had now settled in England and was beginning to show his skill and pace on the wide positions.[1] The improvements were there for all to see and the directors were keen to bring the best to the Victoria Ground and in September 1969 they achieved their aim.[1] Brazilian star Pelé came over with his team Santos to play Stoke in a friendly, Pelé starring in a 3–2 win for the South Americans.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...n-story-of-pele-and-the-santos-touring-circus

 

[Dreadnought]

They're rubbish for Argentina. That, or they alternate between good, rubbish and injured.

Are you talking about Messi?

 

[Chesterlestreet]

He's come within a hair's length of winning two major international trophies. In one of them he dragged them to the final. With a little more luck he could have had that one title, or even two. Argetina weren't awful, but they weren't a very good team either. Dysfunctional, mostly. They could have been very successful in recent times, in spite of that. He didn't go on God mode and score 10 goals in either competition but he can't do that in every single competition either. The guy is sort of human.

Sure, but the fact remains that he's never properly impressed. Very much unlike Pelé and Maradona, who both had truly great tournaments - it's not simply a matter of winning it (you're right - with a bit of luck he could have easily done that), but a matter of having a truly great tournament, one worthy of a player many consider the greatest ever.

Pelé and Maradona both had that - Messi hasn't. I think this is a resonable thing to point out - it doesn't amount to expecting the impossible of him, or to overplaying the importance of the World Cup to a ridiculous extent. It's simply a difference between him and those two others which has to be considered when discussing their relative strengths, weaknesses and merits.

 

[Dreadnought]

I can't understand anyone who thinks there was a better footballer than Messi in history..There's been some sensations but Messi edges it every time

You mean someone who is surrounded by the best players in the world from day one of his career, plays in mostly unfair competition given the financial strength of the other league teams, rarely has any injuries given the lack of physicality his opponents exert, underachieves at international level, is untested outside of his comfort zone and needs 11 games to score his first against an English club and 7 to score against an Italian club (both penalties), is teamed with two of the best forwards in the world at the cost of 200million and is also not as quick and strong a player also capable of using his weaker foot, head it or shoot from distance like the other best, most complete player in the world? Yeah, there may have been quite a few of his kind.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Are you talking about Messi?

Of course not. Rubbish post.

 

[Dreadnought]

Of course not. Rubbish post.

Are you talking about Messi or the post?

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Sure, but the fact remains that he's never properly impressed. Very much unlike Pelé and Maradona, who both had truly great tournaments - it's not simply a matter of winning it (you're right - with a bit of luck he could have easily done that), but a matter of having a truly great tournament, one worthy of a player many consider the greatest ever.

Pelé and Maradona both had that - Messi hasn't. I think this is a resonable thing to point out - it doesn't amount to expecting the impossible of him, or to overplaying the importance of the World Cup to a ridiculous extent. It's simply a difference between him and those two others which has to be considered when discussing their relative strengths, weaknesses and merits.

Which is fine. Messi has an incredible club career while his international career falls short of theirs (whilst still being really good). Everyone doesn't have to match each other in every respect. That would be impossible.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Are you talking about Messi or the post?

Not surprised that simple words and sentences confuse you. Reading lessons didn't go very well it appears.

 

[Adebesi]

Yes, yes he can.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2004/sep/22/theknowledge.sport


https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...n-story-of-pele-and-the-santos-touring-circus

That settles it for me. Pele > Messi

 

[Dreadnought]

Not surprised that simple words and sentences confuse you. Reading lessons didn't go very well it appears.

Gotcha!

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Which is fine. Messi has an incredible club career while his international career falls short of theirs (whilst still being really good). Everyone doesn't have to match each other in every respect. That would be impossible.

Absolutely - yes. That's my take on it too.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Yes, yes he can.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2004/sep/22/theknowledge.sport


https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...n-story-of-pele-and-the-santos-touring-circus

Doesn't count if it wasn't on a Wednesday. No mention of how cold it was either.

Seriously, though, that's a great little story.

 

[Kentonio]

Sure, whatever you like. Weak points, relatively speaking. Maradona didn't win the biggest European club trophy, for instance. Some may consider that a weak point.

No, not a weak point in any way, shape or form. Performing at that level consistently in their day to day footballing lives is about the strongest possible indicator of how good someone is. Maybe they don't have a strong enough mentality to weather the pressure of a world cup or even a CL, so what? Does that diminish the talent they have if they can still perform better than anyone else over a 40-50 game domestic season? Also as pointed out repeatedly, cups are a shitty way to grade a player, as one bad day can mean an exit, even if it wasn't your bad day but your teammates.

Whether any of them can match Messi's consistency over a similar interval is hard to nail down. Messi's career is documented in detail to a far greater extent.

For the likes of Pele and Di Stefano, certainly, but Maradona's career isn't exactly shrouded in mystery.

Anyway, I'm not interested in debating Messi's greatness with you. While you claim not to be a "fanboy" your stance nevertheless seems to be that he is unquestionable - which is fine by me, people will invariably have different opinions on the subject. I have no dog in the fight, to put it like that, I was merely making a point about the World Cup being a legitimate (in my opinion) thing to bring up, just as it's legitimate to point out possible chinks in the other GOAT players' armours.

It just confuses me really. I have no reason to support his claim over any others, I don't like his domestic team, I hear the guy himself is actually quite a lot of a prick, and so on and so forth, but watching him just amazes me every time. He's like nothing I've ever seen on a football pitch before, so I guess the idea of him being compared to previous (or even current) players just seems bizarre. Ah well, different strokes for different folks.

 

[BlueCelery]

He literally plays at a walking pace these days yet is still the best player on the pitch by a country mile. He's arguably the best goalscorer, dribbler & passer of all time. No other player in the history of football has ever been elite at all 3 skills at the same time.

 

[FCBarca]

"Like Pep says: 'Messi dominates every aspect of the game.' We will never see something like that again.

We will never see a player like Leo not because of what he can do but because of the time he has been doing it for.

Leo has an unusual winning character of a person who not only likes what he does, but who is a perfectionist that never has enough.."

- Xavi

 

[Spock]

@Vilev

"Well i severely doubt anybody here has actually seen Pele play as much as Messi. Even just a lot. Which is your other problem if you want to talk about an objective decision. Actually it's definition of subjective. You base your assessment of Messi and Pele on your personal experience, not real facts and you allow your perception to guide your judgement. The fact is you only saw how many, maybe 30 matches of Pele, i think it's a fair approximation, you know almost nothing about how he played outside of his Brazil national team performances, especially in his peak years and you compare that with more that a 200 matches of Messi. Your data sample is simply biased."

I probably only watched about 20 matches where Pele played (not including his days with the Cosmos) -- we had something called "closed circuit" in Los Angeles in the late 1960s where you'd watch international matches at the Olympic Auditorium, which was great stuff but no exists due to the ubiquity of TV and now the Internet. Messi, well over 100 and maybe 200. On standard TV, of course.

But if you actually deny that 20 matches is enough to base a reasonable conclusion then you miss the whole concept of sampling and probabilities. In science, and in the social sciences, one can take a representative sample and draw reliable conclusions about the population as a whole (within a margin of error, etc.). Science as we know it could not exist without this concept. 20 matches is more than enough to base a reliable opinion of Pele's true ability.

I have not watched every single one of Messi's matches but I've watched quite a few and from what I have seen I argue that he's a fantastic footballer and it's a very good bet that he performed brilliantly in the matches I did not watch him play. Of course I watched fewer matches involving Pele and I acknowledge right now I completely missed those years when he was between the ages of 18-26, that time span of Messi's career that we've all seen. In other words, I missed what were probably Pele's peak years. I can't be sure exactly when Pele hit the peak of his career but those of us old enough to have seen him when he was in late 20s know that Pele has few peers who have ever played the game. We'll see how Messi plays when he's 30, 31, but we know how Pele performed at 30. And he still looked pretty good in his late thirties, but those were his NASL days so let's forget about that.

But at least you recognize the concept of sampling and you rely on bias as evidence of clouded judgment. Bias is indeed a factor that clouds all of our judgment when comparing footballers. When a striker scored a great goal we viewers are going to be biased in favor of recognizing the genius of the goal scorer himself and not the excellent build up play or final ball that led to the goal. Such is life. But that's why I'm comparing Pele, Maradona and Messi to each other and not to Zidane and Beckenbauer, who played different positions. There are other kinds of bias (such watching a footballer when you're a kid and not an adult or with your favorite team versus a player for a team which you despise) and there's not too much we can do about that. But no one except you argues for scientific precision when making these assessments. I've written before that Pele v Maradona v Messi may be an unresolvable debate. I watched all three live (Pele: as a kid, Maradona: then as a young adult, Messi, as a middle-aged man) and can only offer my opinion that Messi was the greatest of those three.

But surely we can agree, notwithstanding the different eras that Pele and Maradona played in that both were substantially superior to Rooney, Giroud and Diego Costa. I only make this point to set aside the objection that it's impossible to judge players across different eras.

 

[goin4glory]

Not unless you start making it common practice to inject growth hormones into kids knees.

 

[NYC]

Going forward??

Yes, every generation will have their own heir. Rules change, players change and a new breed will dominate. No federation or media will harp on the past being the past, but rather the present to generate money and popularity...
Kids will forget about this generation of players and have their new hero that they have access to see on a weekly basis.

Messi is definetely best player in his generation though.

 

[VorZakone]

Is there any 17/18/19 year old out there that looks like he can become as good as Messi? Neymar is already 24 and will never be as good as Messi.

 

[Atay]

I would be better than Messi if I was injected with horse growth hormones . Joking aside I doubt there will be for a few generations yet, unless his kids inherit the horses.. sorry I mean fathers genes.

 

[mu4c_20le]

He literally plays at a walking pace these days yet is still the best player on the pitch by a country mile. He's arguably the best goalscorer, dribbler & passer of all time. No other player in the history of football has ever been elite at all 3 skills at the same time.

Behave.

 

[Man of Leisure]

The answer to the OP is a resounding no. How's that possible if you can dribble, pass, and shoot better than anyone else in the game? Never mind that he's beloved, plays for one of the biggest clubs in the world, and won everything at club level.

 

[3KDré]

I actually cannot understand people who say Ronaldo is better. Ronaldo relies purely on his teammates, he is nothing without a great set up. Ronaldo's name is the only thing that puts him 'up there with the best' of today's game. Messi is just superior. Not many can do what he does.