Leo Messi

[Wan]

People rate him because of that and his performances for us.
Surely you're not that stupid?

 

[kanchelskis14]

People rate him because of that and his performances for us.
Surely you're not that stupid?

I know that. But people dismiss the likes of Messi and Tevez' achievements as inferior to Rooney's largely due to his international achievements, largely in the Euros. If he is crap at the World Cup, is he no longer the 'real deal'.

 

[wancolos]

Bollocks

 

[scalisto]

I know that. But people dismiss the likes of Messi and Tevez' achievements as inferior to Rooney's largely due to his international achievements, largely in the Euros. If he is crap at the World Cup, is he no longer the 'real deal'.

Achievements

Messi: One World U-20 Cup. Top scorer, voted best player

Tevez: One South American U-20 Cup, 2 Argentine league titles, 1 Libertadores, 1 Intercontinental Cup, 1 Brazilian league title, Olympic champion.

Rooney: 1 Carling Cup.

 

[wancolos]

There is really no doubt that Rooney is better then both Messi and Tevez.

If Rooney was up against those Lego defenders in the Spanish league we would bang in shitloads of goals.

How do you think Messi/Tevez would have done if he was up against the English defenders and the English style of football?

 

[kanchelskis14]

There is really no doubt that Rooney is better then both Messi and Tevez.

If Rooney was up against those Lego defenders in the Spanish league we would bang in shitloads of goals.

How do you think Messi/Tevez would have done if he was up against the English defenders and the English style of football?

I hate when people say stuff like that. Since when did English football become 'the standard'? Generally, Spanish and Italian teams are more successful than ours at club level, and South American national teams and other 'flair' sides are better than 'one major trophy' England.

So why does a players ability to succeed in England determine whether or not they are the real deal? In the last decade, Madrid have been more successful than the entire English league in Euro tournaments, yet one of their players would get laughed at as inferior to an English player as he may not make it here.

It annoys me when we get linked with some of the world's most gifted players and we ridicule them that they may not make it here. It is more of a ridicule to English football than to the player if we are discussing the posibility of whether Ronaldinho or Messi will make it here. What kind of football do we play then if players that are pretty much better than any British player can't play in our league? We should be ashamed that Ronaldinho wouldn't shine in our league, yet the bulldozing strikers like Jason Roberts or James Beattie get loads of goals and 'are made for it'. It indicates that we play an inferior QUALITY of football, and perhaps make up for this lack of genuine quality with physical attributes.

In summary, i reckon we all use English football as the standard of judging teams and players who come from regions that generally produce better teams and players than us, which is obviously wrong. Instead of ridiculing Pirlo for needing time on the ball, we should look at say, Nicky Butt, and ridicule him for not being able to be effective in a league where he is required to spend a lot of time on the ball.

Some say Xavi isn't 'strong enough' etc to make it in England. However, when England last played Spain, Xavi ran rings around England's midfield. It is our physical approach that should be ridiculed and until it is proven that the British approach to football is more successful than the continental approach, British football can't be the standard in my view.

 

[Namliam]

I hate when people say stuff like that. Since when did English football become 'the standard'? Generally, Spanish and Italian teams are more successful than ours at club level, and South American national teams and other 'flair' sides are better than 'one major trophy' England.

So why does a players ability to succeed in England determine whether or not they are the real deal? In the last decade, Madrid have been more successful than the entire English league in Euro tournaments, yet one of their players would get laughed at as inferior to an English player as he may not make it here.

It annoys me when we get linked with some of the world's most gifted players and we ridicule them that they may not make it here. It is more of a ridicule to English football than to the player if we are discussing the posibility of whether Ronaldinho or Messi will make it here. What kind of football do we play then if players that are pretty much better than any British player can't play in our league? We should be ashamed that Ronaldinho wouldn't shine in our league, yet the bulldozing strikers like Jason Roberts or James Beattie get loads of goals and 'are made for it'. It indicates that we play an inferior QUALITY of football, and perhaps make up for this lack of genuine quality with physical attributes.

In summary, i reckon we all use English football as the standard of judging teams and players who come from regions that generally produce better teams and players than us, which is obviously wrong. Instead of ridiculing Pirlo for needing time on the ball, we should look at say, Nicky Butt, and ridicule him for not being able to be effective in a league where he is required to spend a lot of time on the ball.

Some say Xavi isn't 'strong enough' etc to make it in England. However, when England last played Spain, Xavi ran rings around England's midfield. It is our physical approach that should be ridiculed and until it is proven that the British approach to football is more successful than the continental approach, British football can't be the standard in my view.

That is a surprisingly good post.

To say Rooney is definitely better than Tevez and Messi is silly.

 

[Mozza]

I hate when people say stuff like that. Since when did English football become 'the standard'? Generally, Spanish and Italian teams are more successful than ours at club level, and South American national teams and other 'flair' sides are better than 'one major trophy' England.

So why does a players ability to succeed in England determine whether or not they are the real deal? In the last decade, Madrid have been more successful than the entire English league in Euro tournaments, yet one of their players would get laughed at as inferior to an English player as he may not make it here.

It annoys me when we get linked with some of the world's most gifted players and we ridicule them that they may not make it here. It is more of a ridicule to English football than to the player if we are discussing the posibility of whether Ronaldinho or Messi will make it here. What kind of football do we play then if players that are pretty much better than any British player can't play in our league? We should be ashamed that Ronaldinho wouldn't shine in our league, yet the bulldozing strikers like Jason Roberts or James Beattie get loads of goals and 'are made for it'. It indicates that we play an inferior QUALITY of football, and perhaps make up for this lack of genuine quality with physical attributes.

In summary, i reckon we all use English football as the standard of judging teams and players who come from regions that generally produce better teams and players than us, which is obviously wrong. Instead of ridiculing Pirlo for needing time on the ball, we should look at say, Nicky Butt, and ridicule him for not being able to be effective in a league where he is required to spend a lot of time on the ball.

Some say Xavi isn't 'strong enough' etc to make it in England. However, when England last played Spain, Xavi ran rings around England's midfield. It is our physical approach that should be ridiculed and until it is proven that the British approach to football is more successful than the continental approach, British football can't be the standard in my view.

Bollocks, we play great football, you'd better be prepared to fight to play it

 

[Fortitude]

I hate when people say stuff like that. Since when did English football become 'the standard'? Generally, Spanish and Italian teams are more successful than ours at club level, and South American national teams and other 'flair' sides are better than 'one major trophy' England.

So why does a players ability to succeed in England determine whether or not they are the real deal? In the last decade, Madrid have been more successful than the entire English league in Euro tournaments, yet one of their players would get laughed at as inferior to an English player as he may not make it here.

It annoys me when we get linked with some of the world's most gifted players and we ridicule them that they may not make it here. It is more of a ridicule to English football than to the player if we are discussing the posibility of whether Ronaldinho or Messi will make it here. What kind of football do we play then if players that are pretty much better than any British player can't play in our league? We should be ashamed that Ronaldinho wouldn't shine in our league, yet the bulldozing strikers like Jason Roberts or James Beattie get loads of goals and 'are made for it'. It indicates that we play an inferior QUALITY of football, and perhaps make up for this lack of genuine quality with physical attributes.

In summary, i reckon we all use English football as the standard of judging teams and players who come from regions that generally produce better teams and players than us, which is obviously wrong. Instead of ridiculing Pirlo for needing time on the ball, we should look at say, Nicky Butt, and ridicule him for not being able to be effective in a league where he is required to spend a lot of time on the ball.

Some say Xavi isn't 'strong enough' etc to make it in England. However, when England last played Spain, Xavi ran rings around England's midfield. It is our physical approach that should be ridiculed and until it is proven that the British approach to football is more successful than the continental approach, British football can't be the standard in my view.

In some parts you're right, but the main premise of your view is wrong...as England is the most decorated big league in Europe and has the most CL winners despite being out of Europe for 5yrs AND having to reacclimatise for a huge chunk of the 90's as well as enticing top class foriegn talent to a league that was 5yrs behind the pace of mainland Europe.

The line you draw is a bit too black and white. The Italian league is slow, the players are not as fit and the attitude tactically to the game is entirely different to the mentality of the English game. The same goes for the Spanish league being a polar opposite to the stifling tactics seens in Italy or the gung-ho approach seen in England... in other words, each league creates players perfect for their own football, but not so effective when they travel.

Spaniards are notriously shite in the stifling conditions of Serie A..Mendieta being the best example, ever. He was one of the best midfielders in the world when he went to Lazio...they paid £30m for the guy, he was a fecking disaster in the staid conditions of that league...so much so that he's never recovered and is playing at the shithole known as boro. Jose Mari is another and there are loads more...not since Luis Suarez has a Spaniard shown the same brilliance in Italy as he did in Spain... that says a lot about the differences in the leagues and doesn't match well with your premise that it is only the English game that is out of place cross-continent.

You're effectively talking about the top imports making those leagues what they are and not the natives of the land. That's definitely the case with Spain and it matches Italy and England to an extent. Beings as Spain is the favoured 'star' destination it's their home talents that suffer the most.

Spaniards, or mostly players who have been in La Liga for a number of years are just not used to true physical contact...they hate it and it is a weakness no matter what you say. The Spanish league used to be rough as houses a fekkin tough league with a number of it's own true hardmen to go with the finesse of the skill players (that's why Suarez was so succesful in Italy - Spain was just as tough back then) the hardmen have been phased out and La Liga has an inherent weakness because of it. German teams love playing against Spanish. It's not a coincidence..

You mention the talents of these leagues, but on further analysis it is the South Americans that make La liga what it is. They wont come to England becuase it's cold, not because it's overly physical..have you seen the Brazilian and Argentine leagues? They are tough, tough leagues. Why would you play in England when you can have the creature comforts of Italy and Spain? It's not the football that puts them off, which you seem to allude to, but the conditions, which are far removed from where they were raised, usually

It's the South Americans plus the players from France, Holland, Portugal and Africa that determine the style of play of most top continental teams with a smattering of Scandinavians or the odd Eastern block player. An influx of any particular set of nations is going to change the style of play exponentially. Look at Barca...not a single Spaniard/Catalan in their attack or back up! Xavi out and Iniesta barely gets a sniff and it becomes a forigen all-star attack. If England wants to match the sides you think are more technical (outside of Barca they generally aren't) in Spain/Italy then the top talents from the aformentioned country's need to be lured and moulded into the English game and mixed with the best British talents..funnily enough it's just what Arse, the dips, the rents as well as us do and will continue to do whenever we get the chance to purchase players from the aformentioned nations at the start of this paragraph.

 

[kkcbl]

I hate when people say stuff like that. Since when did English football become 'the standard'? Generally, Spanish and Italian teams are more successful than ours at club level, and South American national teams and other 'flair' sides are better than 'one major trophy' England.

So why does a players ability to succeed in England determine whether or not they are the real deal? In the last decade, Madrid have been more successful than the entire English league in Euro tournaments, yet one of their players would get laughed at as inferior to an English player as he may not make it here.

It annoys me when we get linked with some of the world's most gifted players and we ridicule them that they may not make it here. It is more of a ridicule to English football than to the player if we are discussing the posibility of whether Ronaldinho or Messi will make it here. What kind of football do we play then if players that are pretty much better than any British player can't play in our league? We should be ashamed that Ronaldinho wouldn't shine in our league, yet the bulldozing strikers like Jason Roberts or James Beattie get loads of goals and 'are made for it'. It indicates that we play an inferior QUALITY of football, and perhaps make up for this lack of genuine quality with physical attributes.

In summary, i reckon we all use English football as the standard of judging teams and players who come from regions that generally produce better teams and players than us, which is obviously wrong. Instead of ridiculing Pirlo for needing time on the ball, we should look at say, Nicky Butt, and ridicule him for not being able to be effective in a league where he is required to spend a lot of time on the ball.

Some say Xavi isn't 'strong enough' etc to make it in England. However, when England last played Spain, Xavi ran rings around England's midfield. It is our physical approach that should be ridiculed and until it is proven that the British approach to football is more successful than the continental approach, British football can't be the standard in my view.

The irony is that Bolton is criticised by the same people for playing direct, physical football!

And to add to your point, I didn't see the Rushes & Linekers setting the European Leagues on fire..

 

[Mithun]

yeah but Bolton also play some nice football other than simply physical football. There is a lot of varied talent throughout the side and good players!

 

[Namliam]

yeah but Bolton also play some nice football other than simply physical football. There is a lot of varied talent throughout the side and good players!

Can I just ask why you end all your posts with an exclamation mark?

 

[kkcbl]

yeah but Bolton also play some nice football other than simply physical football. There is a lot of varied talent throughout the side and good players!

I wasn't being critical of Bolton, a team which I enjoy watching - my criticism was directed at those who claim they're merely a physical, direct, high-ball pumping side.

 

[Fearless]

I think it's a very bold statement saying that English football is the barometer for the entire sport.

While the Premiership may well be the most 'physical' league, it certainly is not the most successful in terms of spewing out club or - obviously - national teams.

Furthermore, how many English players have really struck gold while playing in Seria A or La Liga?

If our best toughnuts can reign supreme in the Premiership why is it they become bit part players in the other leagues when the reverse isn't true?

 

[Fortitude]

I think it's a very bold statement saying that English football is the barometer for the entire sport.

No one said it was, but as things stand no nation has more Champions League trophies than England. Is the CL not the barometer for top clubs in Europe?

While the Premiership may well be the most 'physical' league, it certainly is not the most successful in terms of spewing out club or - obviously - national teams.

What, you mean like say... a none world cup winning nation like Spain who spectacularly fails at every world cup and has all but one of it's Champions Leagues successes through Real Madrid and its constant stream of foriegn talent who would have been successful wherver they went and owe none of their talent to RM's set-up?

Furthermore, how many English players have really struck gold while playing in Seria A or La Liga?

The ratio of top English (and not British) players who have actually gone to Serie A or La Liga is minute. So you barely have a leg to stand on with such a naive statement.

If our best toughnuts can reign supreme in the Premiership why is it they become bit part players in the other leagues when the reverse isn't true?

Give examples of players who have left Spain and been successful elsewhere or even played to the same standard they had in La Liga. Or even great Italin successes outside of Serie A...

 

[Fortitude]

The irony is that Bolton is criticised by the same people for playing direct, physical football!

And to add to your point, I didn't see the Rushes & Linekers setting the European Leagues on fire..

Lineker was used as awinger by Cruyff at Barcelona...does Lineker strike you as a winger?

Rush was homesick and hated life in Italy, hardly condusive to prodcuing on the pitch.

 

[Spoony]

Generally, Spanish and Italian teams are more successful than ours at club level,

English teams have won more European trophies than clubs from those two countries.

 

[Spoony]

Lineker was used as awinger by Cruyff at Barcelona...does Lineker strike you as a winger?

Rush was homesick and hated life in Italy, hardly condusive to prodcuing on the pitch.

English players hardly move abroad. Even historically, I think you'll find it's never been the norm. John Charles I think was one of the first. Same goes for the Italians until recently.

 

[Fortitude]

English players hardly move abroad. Even historically, I think you'll find it's never been the norm. John Charles I think was one of the first. Same goes for the Italians until recently.

I know. I said as much further up. Just dispelling the myths in this thread and didn't include Charles because he's Welsh.

 

[Spoony]

I know. I said as much further up. Just dispelling the myths in this thread and didn't include Charles because he's Welsh.

Should've said British.

And your long post above, is good.

Any Spanish players that have been a success abroad? can't think of many. I think Spain's another nation that always keeps hold of it's own players. . .again until recently, though.

 

[Mozza]

Players move leagues for money, the English, Italians and Spanish don't need to.

 

[Spoony]

A lot of Spaniards and Italians have moved abroad recently though. Usually the ones that can't get into the big sides, instead end up at mediocre clubs, on good salaries.

Reyes and Mendiete are good examples of highly rated Spanish players that didn't make the grade abroad, despite the hype and huge transfer fees.

 

[TheRedFlag]

I thought this thread could get messi...

 

[Fortitude]

Should've said British.

And your long post above, is good.

Any Spanish players that have been a success abroad? can't think of many. I think Spain's another nation that always keeps hold of it's own players. . .again until recently, though.

I can't think of many, Luis Suarez is the standout as he was massive for Inter Milan in the 60's and spearheaded them winning the European Cup twice and being a continental powerhouse.

It's all about money and it's only now that wealth is even across the leagues so it'll be more about personal preference in the future but sadly the English weather will always put off those players from hotter climates. We stand a reat chance with Europeans outside of Iberia and the players from home nations that are strong (Italy and Spain)

Spain(Real Madrid) were dominant in the 50's and early 60's because of their money. They bought all the top world talent of the time and made a legacy for themselves. Then Italy did the same in the 60's and the 90's. If wasn't for the ban English teams suffered things would have been very different now.

I have more respect for those clubs who dominate or win the EC off their own backs whilst not spending a shedload of cash and intergrating their own academy talent into the mix with players they've bought. Benfica in the early 60's, Celtic, us in '68 the great Ajax and Bayern teams of the 70's even the dips to an extent.

 

[kkcbl]

Lineker was used as awinger by Cruyff at Barcelona...does Lineker strike you as a winger?

Rush was homesick and hated life in Italy, hardly condusive to prodcuing on the pitch.

Firstly, I was just using those 2 as examples - the fact is that most of Britain's exports flopped or didn't do their price-tags justice when they played in the Italian or Spanish Leagues.

And whatever excuses you're giving for those two players' failure, the fact is that they flopped/didn't do justice to their reputations.

By your logic, the Cisses of the EPL can blame 'wrong positioning' for their flop displays or the Klebersons can blame home-sickness!

 

[Fortitude]

A lot of Spaniards and Italians have moved abroad recently though. Usually the ones that can't get into the big sides, instead end up at mediocre clubs, on good salaries.

Reyes and Mendiete are good examples of highly rated Spanish players that didn't make the grade abroad, despite the hype and huge transfer fees.

Yea, the very best English, Italian and Spanish players simply don't move. And it's usually disastrous when they do. Look at Owen, even though he scored a bucketload he was treated like a spare part. Mendieta (who was top drawer around 2000) went to Italy for £30m and destroyed his own career.. I'm sure these top talents are wary of that.

Also, players like Gilardino publicly stated he was wary of moving away from Italy in case he got frozen out of the Italian NT. That scares the bejesus out of Italian players. And the Spanish ones really don't fancy the cold and harsh English game or the negativity of the Italian game. Stalemate.

 

[Spoony]

Spain(Real Madrid) were dominant in the 50's and early 60's because of their money. They bought all the top world talent of the time and made a legacy for themselves. Then Italy did the same in the 60's and the 90's. If wasn't for the ban English teams suffered things would have been very different now.
.

Said it before, they're as bad as Chelsea. They did what Chelsea are doing now, in the 50's. Franco was an utter cnut. Not a club I respect, if I'm honest.

 

[Fortitude]

Firstly, I was just using those 2 as examples - the fact is that most of Britain's exports flopped or didn't do their price-tags justice when they played in the Italian or Spanish Leagues.

And whatever excuses you're giving for those two players' failure, the fact is that they flopped/didn't do justice to their reputations.

By your logic, the Cisses of the EPL can blame 'wrong positioning' for their flop displays or the Klebersons can blame home-sickness!

Yes...that's why John Charles is a legend at Juventus to this day... genius. Or Mcmanaman scoring a goal in a CL final for none other than Real Madrid. Or Owen going to Spain and being prolific and still being frozen out of the team.

If you don't know what you're talking about you shouldn't make bold statements that expose your ignorance. So don't spout 'facts' unless you want me to make you look stupid.

 

[Fortitude]

Said it before, they're as bad as Chelsea. They did what Chelsea are doing now, in the 50's. Franco was an utter cnut. Not a club I respect, if I'm honest.

I'm with you. Dirty cnuts that lot and they have the backing of a fecking government!!

 

[Spoony]

Yes...that's why John Charles is a legend at Juventus to this day... genius. Or Mcmanaman scoring a goal in a CL final for none other than Real Madrid. Or Owen going to Spain and being prolific and still being frozen out of the team.

If you don't know what you're talking about you shouldn't make bold statements that expose your ignorance. So don't spout 'facts' unless you want me to make you look stupid.

Platt did really well in the Serie A, suprisingly.

 

[Fortitude]

Platt did really well in the Serie A, suprisingly.

Forgot about him. I do believe if the very best did move around as an influx, they'd not have much problem in another league, but there is next to no incentive for a top class player to leave his home nation unless he fancies the cultral aspect of another country or wants to prove he can handle a different style of football.

 

[vijay]

That is a surprisingly good post.

To say Rooney is definitely better than Tevez and Messi is silly.

Rooney is one of the best young players around on par with Tevez or Messi

We should leave it there.

 

[wancolos]

I hate when people say stuff like that. Since when did English football become 'the standard'? Generally, Spanish and Italian teams are more successful than ours at club level, and South American national teams and other 'flair' sides are better than 'one major trophy' England.

Defenders in Spain are shite and poofs hence, it's easier for a striker to succeed in Spain.

It's not that difficult to grasp actually.

 

[Namliam]

Defenders in Spain are shite and poofs hence, it's easier for a striker to succeed in Spain.

It's not that difficult to grasp actually.

That applies even more so to defenders in England. Perhaps not poofs, but on the whole, undoubtedly shite.

 

[wancolos]

No it doesn't.

 

[Fortitude]

That applies even more so to defenders in England. Perhaps not poofs, but on the whole, undoubtedly shite.

As Morientes, who was very good in Spain, has proven?

 

[vijay]

Defenders in Spain are shite and poofs hence, it's easier for a striker to succeed in Spain.

It's not that difficult to grasp actually.

This season Messi had attracted more fouls than Ronaldinho.

 

[wancolos]

This season Messi had attracted more fouls than Ronaldinho.

Erm....and?

 

[wancolos]

Diego Forlan

I rest my case.

 

[vijay]

Diego Forlan

I rest my case.

Peter Crouch and Heskey.