Rank Maradona, Messi, Pele and Ronaldo

[antohan]

But they also played vs stronger competition across Europe including oil rich clubs so it balances out.

No, it doesn't. As I said, both Messi and PRonaldo spent almost their entire career in one of the Top 5 (often top 3) SQUADS in the world. That's nothing like what you had at Napoli, which faced three much stronger squads in Italy alone.

Just so we are clear, I have Messi, Maradona and Pelé up there, with various caveats on when/why I'd take one or the other. I can see why you could think Messi is best, but more trophies than Diego isn't the reason.

Barcelona were one of the top 2 in Spain when Maradona joined so why could he not lift them to more titles like Messi did? The season after Maradona left they won La Liga with Venables and the flying Scotsman Archibald

Meh. Firstly, it's not peak Maradona. Both Platini and Zico were better at the time. Second, when it wasn't Maradona injured it was Schüster. Thankfully Maradona's career wasn't ruined the way Schüster's was. I vaguely remember there was -as usual- some aggro with the club politics (an area where Messi certainly scores major brownie points, even if it technically isn't about playing football).

Also what about Argentina? Messi got them to 2 world cup finals (including a win) and 3 x Copa America finals (including one win).

Maradona got to 2 world cup finals (1 victory) and no Copa successes (think 4th was his best finish)

I think Maradona only played two Copas (87 and 89, not 83) and was unlucky to be suspended for the two wins in 1991 and 1993.

I rate Maradona's international career higher than Messi's. I don't think any Argentinian who witnessed both would disagree, not even now excited as they naturally are.

 

[Stacks]

There weren't any "super teams" around of the kind that later emerged in the post-Bosman era.

You want to compare Diego's Barcelona to Messi's?

Okay, by all means - but that won't make a blind bit of difference with regard to the actual point. Barcelona was (relatively speaking) a money bags team in the 70s and 80s, and regularly recruited top players from other leagues. It was on a completely different scale to what happened post-Bosman, though. They were never anywhere near having a genuine "super team" of the kind Messi played in.

As for the actual point - that is simple: both Messi and Ronaldo spent their prime in "super teams". And this is important to consider in an historical context - it's hardly an irrelevant factor when comparing players in the "GOAT" discussion.

But then Diego did not face super teams in Spain or Europe either. I have seen Gerd Muller lead Bayern in the late 70s, Van Basten lead Milan in the late 80s/90s, Dalglish lead Liverpool to massive success why could Diego not lift Barcelona to a period of sustained success domestically and abroad? They were a strong team with the supposed worlds best player.
I don't even like the term super team as what does it even mean? I have never heard it used in football.

There are always top sides and lesser sides in every era. Liverpool dominated in the late 70s/80s so were they are super team? surely it is determined by your results/success?

 

[Demyanenko_square_jaw]

Maradona had illness/injury issues at Barca, he missed many of their European and league games, was getting into feuds with club management and it culminated in the 84 cup final brawl that he was in middle of. He wanted to move after that.

He was also there during a relative poor time for Spanish football talent (late 70s early 80s), it started to improve again just as he moved with the emergence of the quinta del buitre and better 90s generation. That Barca squad is quite a lot weaker than the likes of Beckenbauer/Muller Bayern, Liverpool and Van Basten Milan. Those teams were successful during great domestic era's and Milan are arguably an early example of the "super team" with italy so strong at the time defensively and adding the Dutch attack. maradona basically caught the end of a quite limited spanish generation. the Spanish talent around him was always going to make it very tough to be a Bayern, Milan or even Liverpool level team during those seasons he played, even if he could probably have won a european trophy had he stayed fit.

i think watching old games, that in general Spanish football imo punched quite a lot above its talent level in european/international competition during that time. It had a lot of solid, mentally tough, streetwise and brutal players that fit in extremely well with the bad pitches and lenient reffing of the time, but technically the spanish players often seemed solidly behind even countries that weren't doing as well in club football like Yugoslavia, ussr. at least as far as top 11-23 player national squad level goes. you could see that in the way the teams relied in their few foreign stars for adding the decisive class, or in the way they usually played internationally, grinding out games with huge workmanlike effort and savagery.

 

[RedRonaldo]

You have a bizarre way of interpreting things of course 84 goals in 85 games is a better goal rario than 118 in 196 games and also performance wise Puskas taking Hungary to a World Cup final where he also won the best player of the tournament(Golden Ball) is better than CR7 who hasn’t even scored a knockout goal in the WC.

The Euros wasn’t even the Euros we know today in Puskas time and the 1960 version had only 4 teams playing it,

Even in regards to the ballon d’or you keep mentioning the year Puskas won the golden ball and finished second in World Cup, the trophy had not even been in existence this is why it’s best to use context when discussing things and actually try get an understanding of different eras to the best you can.

Not only was the award coming to prominence on the tail end of his career from 60-62 there were years where he probably could have won it, but lost out to Suarez Sivori and Maspost none of these players being considered greater than him generally(despite their ballon dor wins and being probably top 20-30 players of all time.

It’s odd because I feel
Like something about Ronaldo which makes his fans who argue tooth and nail for him iq shrink, it’s bad enough to pretend he was on Messi level for 10 years but to think Puskas and Di Stefano can’t be argued to be just as good because of ballon dor wins is just as bad.

Yeh because scoring ratio back in the old days with more attacking setup are just comparable to modern football with far more advance defensive tactics. And of course striker is comparable to winger too in terms of goalscoring ratio.

What a great observation.

And apparently best players award (or Ballon D'or) doesn't applies to Puskas era at all?

Lets just have a background check: (during his most active years from 1945 to 1964)

Puskas:
1950 - Hungarian footballer of the year
1960 - Ballon Do'r 2nd place

From 1945 to 1956, he only won Hungarian footballer of the year once (only won once on 12 occasions, among other lists of winners such as Balogh, Deak, Szusza, Marksteiner, Kisperter, Grosics, Palotas, Bozsik, Hidegkuti, Kocsis).
From 1956 to 1964, he only finished 2nd place in Ballon D'or once (loss on all 9 occasions, among other lists of winners/runners up such as Matthews, Di Stefano, Kopa, Suarez, Sivori, Masopust, Yashin, Law, Wright, Edwards, Rahn, Fontaine, Carles, Seeler, Haynes, Eusebio, Schnellinger, Rivera, Greaves Amancio etc)

That's cover his whole career, great longevity though, 21+ years active in football, but only won his country's footballer of the year once, and finished 2nd in Ballon D'or once too, with those other names listed above all share similar or better recognition among their peers over same period of time.

Look, Puskas is an all time great goalscorer, and has amazing longevity (probably all time best longevity too). It is mainly his goals and longevity which put him among all time greats. But he was never ever even considered as best player in the world during his era, not even once! There are around 30 names there (as I listed above) who shared similar or better honours than him during his active years. So lets have some perspective here.

 

[mshnsh]

Spain won the World Cup and the Euros largely being Barcelona without Messi.

Spain were boring AF, the tiki taka Spain played during their successful period was essentially defensive; they won most of their games 1-0. Barcelona were much better because they had Messi. Anyway, It isn't like Messi used to stand in offside positions waiting for the ball or played as a poacher. Many of the goals he scored at Barcelona were created by his own magic and he also created goals for others directly (by assisting) or indirectly (by playing a main role in the build up to the goal).

And Messi won the WC (in addition to 1 final) and Copa America (plus 3 finals) as the main protagonist with players nowhere near the caliber of any of the Spanish players which essentially puts an end to the myth that he needed those level of players to perform/win a big trophy.

 

[Gehrman]

The blue print for the spain 2010-2012 was definitely barca but they had Ramos, Torres, mata, Alonsi, david Silva, Fabregas and probably a few others ive forgotten as well. And yeah they were boring as feck.

 

[ScholesyTheWise]

Well well, another thread in which to say that Ronaldo was never on Messi's level.
(Seeing as a big chunk of this forum is under 40 and therefore never saw Pele or Maradona live, they are just lumped into the 1st, 2nd or 3rd place).

I'm happy to join the party, but surely we have already existing threads where we can laugh at Ronaldo's demise?

 

[antohan]

Spain were boring AF, the tiki taka Spain played during their successful period was essentially defensive; they won most of their games 1-0. Barcelona were much better because they had Messi. Anyway, It isn't like Messi used to stand in offside positions waiting for the ball or played as a poacher. Many of the goals he scored at Barcelona were created by his own magic and he also created goals for others directly (by assisting) or indirectly (by playing a main role in the build up to the goal).

And Messi won the WC (in addition to 1 final) and Copa America (plus 3 finals) as the main protagonist with players nowhere near the caliber of any of the Spanish players which essentially puts an end to the myth that he needed those level of players to perform/win a big trophy.

For your own sanity, you should stop replying to imaginary arguments.

 

[Andrade]

A)Bold to claim I can't read coming from someone who has done nothing in this discussion except replying on imaginary points no one made (including in this post as we'll come to it later).







B) Just because I think Ronaldo deserves his spot as one of the top 5 best in history doesn't mean I'm a Ronaldo fan. Learn how to stick to the point of discussion and don't drift wide with nonsense about classifying the people you're talking to. I can defend a player or think he's great without being a fanboy of him. As I said, I'm not arguing that Ronaldo is better than Messi, Maradona or Pele, I'm arguing against the concept that he doesn't belong in such conversations.







C) Prior to 2022, Messi scored 6 goals in 19 matches in World Cup, all of them came in group stage and they came against Serbia, Bosnia, Iran and Nigeria. His only contribution in the KO stages were one assist for Di Maria in 2014. While I don't actually argue against the concept Messi performed better than Ronaldo in World Cup, you made a meal out of Ronaldo's performance and lack of memorable goals in World Cup when you can apply the same nonsense about lack of KO goals and contribution in knockout stages for Messi. It's just nonsense, because guess what ? All goals eventually matter. That's the point.















As I said before, saying a player performed well or not away from the stats is subjective. Did Messi perform better than Ronaldo even before 2022 ? Yes, that's true. Did Ronaldo suck in his career in World Cup ? No, he wasn't brilliant but he wasn't awful either. If you want to talk from numbers perspective, both of them had pretty close stats prior to 2022 which gave the edge to Messi :















https://www.messivsronaldo.app/international-stats/world-cup-stats/















Anyway, this isn't to get one against Messi but to just prove the KO goals argument is a forced argument which you can twist and apply on Messi if you want and you'll end up with the same results.































Muller had a career that spans about 20 years, so you're basically comparing 20 years to 10 ? Of course the earlier stages on Ronaldo when he was a winger and not scoring much will affect the ratio. Ultimately Ronaldo had more goals than games when he was playing for Real Madrid and when he started moving centrally.































Is that paragraph for real ? I have never read more bollocks argument than this one. They played small teams in the group stages..so? Ultimately to win the damn tournament they'll have to defeat the other superclubs who spent ton of money on their teams as well, and to defeat them you'll have to have your superstars shine in these games.















Real Madrid's run in KO stages when they won it 3 times in a row was : Roma, Wolfsburg, Man City, Atletico, Napoli, Bayern, Atletico, Juventus, PSG, Juventus, Bayern and Liverpool. Out of those only 2 or 3 clubs have lower spending power than Madrid : Roma, Wolfsburg and Napoli. Otherwise they have only been facing top clubs with ton of money and the best teams in these stages, but no, let's ignore these runs and focus on the games in group stages and that these pad stats and made it easier to score goals ? Absolutely ridiculous take.















And since you value the KO stages goals than the group that much, why are you ignoring the fact Ronaldo scored ton of goals against most of these top clubs in the 3 wins in a row run Madrid had ?































I'm convinced that you really can't read.















No one said that. I'm saying Ronaldo joined a team who was mostly bad for a long time and were starting a huge rebuild. He didn't jump into a superstar team dominating Europe and La Liga. He joined a team at a period in which Barca was dominating the league and champions of Europe, a time when Madrid were rebuilding themselves to return to the top spot. They weren't winning left, right and center, so to claim his success was due to playing in a superteam was ridiculous. At this point United was far better and more stable team than Madrid.















Modric is a great player who helped Madrid won these trophies as well, yeah, so ? Xavi and Iniesta also were great players who helped Barca won all these trophies, it wasn't Messi show only as much as it wasn't Ronaldo's show...guess that's how football work, eh ? You don't win trophies by having one great player surrounding by average to good players only. You have a top team who can challenge top teams and of course ultimately having a player like Messi and Ronaldo in your attack gives you the edge in tight situations.















It's simply an irrelevant point to throw in the discussion as I said it's no different from Messi haters claiming his success was due to Xavi and Iniesta because they failed to win CL after they left Barcelona. It lacks the basic concept of the fact it's a team sport and not Tennis.

A)

A)Bold to claim I can't read coming from someone who has done nothing in this discussion except replying on imaginary points no one made (including in this post as we'll come to it later).

B) Just because I think Ronaldo deserves his spot as one of the top 5 best in history doesn't mean I'm a Ronaldo fan. Learn how to stick to the point of discussion and don't drift wide with nonsense about classifying the people you're talking to. I can defend a player or think he's great without being a fanboy of him. As I said, I'm not arguing that Ronaldo is better than Messi, Maradona or Pele, I'm arguing against the concept that he doesn't belong in such conversations.

C) Prior to 2022, Messi scored 6 goals in 19 matches in World Cup, all of them came in group stage and they came against Serbia, Bosnia, Iran and Nigeria. His only contribution in the KO stages were one assist for Di Maria in 2014. While I don't actually argue against the concept Messi performed better than Ronaldo in World Cup, you made a meal out of Ronaldo's performance and lack of memorable goals in World Cup when you can apply the same nonsense about lack of KO goals and contribution in knockout stages for Messi. It's just nonsense, because guess what ? All goals eventually matter. That's the point.



As I said before, saying a player performed well or not away from the stats is subjective. Did Messi perform better than Ronaldo even before 2022 ? Yes, that's true. Did Ronaldo suck in his career in World Cup ? No, he wasn't brilliant but he wasn't awful either. If you want to talk from numbers perspective, both of them had pretty close stats prior to 2022 which gave the edge to Messi :



https://www.messivsronaldo.app/international-stats/world-cup-stats/



Anyway, this isn't to get one against Messi but to just prove the KO goals argument is a forced argument which you can twist and apply on Messi if you want and you'll end up with the same results.







Muller had a career that spans about 20 years, so you're basically comparing 20 years to 10 ? Of course the earlier stages on Ronaldo when he was a winger and not scoring much will affect the ratio. Ultimately Ronaldo had more goals than games when he was playing for Real Madrid and when he started moving centrally.







Is that paragraph for real ? I have never read more bollocks argument than this one. They played small teams in the group stages..so? Ultimately to win the damn tournament they'll have to defeat the other superclubs who spent ton of money on their teams as well, and to defeat them you'll have to have your superstars shine in these games.



Real Madrid's run in KO stages when they won it 3 times in a row was : Roma, Wolfsburg, Man City, Atletico, Napoli, Bayern, Atletico, Juventus, PSG, Juventus, Bayern and Liverpool. Out of those only 2 or 3 clubs have lower spending power than Madrid : Roma, Wolfsburg and Napoli. Otherwise they have only been facing top clubs with ton of money and the best teams in these stages, but no, let's ignore these runs and focus on the games in group stages and that these pad stats and made it easier to score goals ? Absolutely ridiculous take.



And since you value the KO stages goals than the group that much, why are you ignoring the fact Ronaldo scored ton of goals against most of these top clubs in the 3 wins in a row run Madrid had ?







I'm convinced that you really can't read.



No one said that. I'm saying Ronaldo joined a team who was mostly bad for a long time and were starting a huge rebuild. He didn't jump into a superstar team dominating Europe and La Liga. He joined a team at a period in which Barca was dominating the league and champions of Europe, a time when Madrid were rebuilding themselves to return to the top spot. They weren't winning left, right and center, so to claim his success was due to playing in a superteam was ridiculous. At this point United was far better and more stable team than Madrid.



Modric is a great player who helped Madrid won these trophies as well, yeah, so ? Xavi and Iniesta also were great players who helped Barca won all these trophies, it wasn't Messi show only as much as it wasn't Ronaldo's show...guess that's how football work, eh ? You don't win trophies by having one great player surrounding by average to good players only. You have a top team who can challenge top teams and of course ultimately having a player like Messi and Ronaldo in your attack gives you the edge in tight situations.



It's simply an irrelevant point to throw in the discussion as I said it's no different from Messi haters claiming his success was due to Xavi and Iniesta because they failed to win CL after they left Barcelona. It lacks the basic concept of the fact it's a team sport and not Tennis.

A) Only an extreme Ronaldo fan would spend this long arguing about something that no one said, ie that he doesn't belong in these discussions. I don't know who you think said that but I certainly didn't. Hence, Ronaldo fan.

B) Please stop hiding behind Messi. Yes he hadn't scored that many goals in the WC prior to 2022, now he is 4th all time with 5 KO goals and several assists (remember those? The things that CR couldn't achieve in the KO rounds either despite being a 'wing-forward' for as long as you claim?). Yes you could apply the no KO goals to Messi (which he got criticised for), now you can't. Ronaldo remains the only great player to fail in this aspect and he's also had more chances than anyone else.

D) I'm sure Muller had more goals than games in his best period too so I'm not sure why you keep going on about this. Oh, and he played for 18 years, not 20, and only 16 years in top level European football. Please get your facts right.

E) Re the Superclub thing, you clearly don't understand a single thing I've said. CR has played 1100 games and you've highlighted about 20 of them to 'prove' that his career was all 'superclub v superclub'. In order to get you to understand the simple point I'm making re Modern superclubs, I'll ask you a question: OF THE TOP TEN MOST DECORATED PLAYERS IN FOOTBALL HISTORY, ALL BUT ONE PLAYED THEIR CAREERS AFTER 1990 AND MOST IN THE 21ST CENTURY. WHY DO YOU THINK THIS IS?

 

[mshnsh]

I think football has tiers probably because comparing across eras is impossible. All the eras had their pulses and minuses.

Messi/Pele/ Maradona belong to tier one for their ability and achievements.

Cristiano/Di Stefano/Cruyff/Backenbauer/ R9/ Platini/ Puskas/ a few of Pele's teammates in the Brazil team for me are tier two.

Zidane/Xavi/Iniesta/Modric/R10/Baggio/Van Basten/Muller/Rivaldo are probably tier 3

As egotistical and as big an asshole as Cristiano is, you cannot overlook his achievements and longevity. His main imitation has always been his relative lack of ability.

 

[ScholesyTheWise]

I think football has tiers probably because comparing across eras is impossible. All the eras had their pulses and minuses.

Messi/Pele/ Maradona belong to tier one for their ability and achievements.

Cristiano/Di Stefano/Cruyff/Backenbauer/ R9/ Platini/ Puskas/ a few of Pele's teammates in the Brazil team for me are tier two.

Zidane/Xavi/Iniesta/Modric/R10/Baggio/Van Basten/Muller/Rivaldo are probably tier 3

As egotistical and as big an asshole as Cristiano is, you cannot overlook his achievements and longevity. His main imitation has always been his relative lack of ability.

If it's not Rivaldo who you also listed, who is it then?
Romario maybe?

Never knew there was another R(#).

 

[Stacks]

No, it doesn't. As I said, both Messi and PRonaldo spent almost their entire career in one of the Top 5 (often top 3) SQUADS in the world. That's nothing like what you had at Napoli, which faced three much stronger squads in Italy alone.

Just so we are clear, I have Messi, Maradona and Pelé up there, with various caveats on when/why I'd take one or the other. I can see why you could think Messi is best, but more trophies than Diego isn't the reason.


Meh. Firstly, it's not peak Maradona. Both Platini and Zico were better at the time. Second, when it wasn't Maradona injured it was Schüster. Thankfully Maradona's career wasn't ruined the way Schüster's was. I vaguely remember there was -as usual- some aggro with the club politics (an area where Messi certainly scores major brownie points, even if it technically isn't about playing football).


I think Maradona only played two Copas (87 and 89, not 83) and was unlucky to be suspended for the two wins in 1991 and 1993.

I rate Maradona's international career higher than Messi's. I don't think any Argentinian who witnessed both would disagree, not even now excited as they naturally are.

fair enough about the Barcelona injuries, I am kind of playing devils advocate here.


But that is part of my issue with the Maradona conversation especially with his accolades internationally. It seems nostalgia because of his 86 heroics. Did not even score in the 1990 world cup. Messi legit had Argentina competing for honours more frequently and won more, along with being their top ever scorer with nearly 100 goals and 50 assists yet Maradona has the better international career? How sway, how? I feel what goes against Messi is that he is considered Spanish and never connected with his home country the way Diego did. In any other Nation, Messi would have the greater international career

 

[el3mel]

A) Only an extreme Ronaldo fan would spend this long arguing about something that no one said, ie that he doesn't belong in these discussions. I don't know who you think said that but I certainly didn't. Hence, Ronaldo fan.

B) Please stop hiding behind Messi. Yes he hadn't scored that many goals in the WC prior to 2022, now he is 4th all time with 5 KO goals and several assists (remember those? The things that CR couldn't achieve in the KO rounds either despite being a 'wing-forward' for as long as you claim?). Yes you could apply the no KO goals to Messi (which he got criticised for), now you can't. Ronaldo remains the only great player to fail in this aspect and he's also had more chances than anyone else.

D) I'm sure Muller had more goals than games in his best period too so I'm not sure why you keep going on about this. Oh, and he played for 18 years, not 20, and only 16 years in top level European football. Please get your facts right.

E) Re the Superclub thing, you clearly don't understand a single thing I've said. CR has played 1100 games and you've highlighted about 20 of them to 'prove' that his career was all 'superclub v superclub'. In order to get you to understand the simple point I'm making re Modern superclubs, I'll ask you a question: OF THE TOP TEN MOST DECORATED PLAYERS IN FOOTBALL HISTORY, ALL BUT ONE PLAYED THEIR CAREERS AFTER 1990 AND MOST IN THE 21ST CENTURY. WHY DO YOU THINK THIS IS?

A) Out of respect for the person I'm talking to, I have to reply. Has nothing to do with being a fan of anyone. Leaving in the middle of discussion is rude.

B) There's no doubt Messi had better World Cup career than Ronaldo. No one is arguing otherwise. I'm just proving the KO stages goals is nonsense as a parameter.

C) Alright ? 16 years as a striker vs 10 years as a striker. That's 6 whole year difference, in which Ronaldo was playing in a different position. Still, will affect the stat. The point is when he started to move centrally, his goals to games ratio got a huge boost.

D) It's absolutely ridiculous that you actually believe old players didn't face teams with inferior budget and players as much as today. That reminds me of people claiming Sir Alex didn't spend that much money before when United were breaking records for the prices all the time. Just the amount of money spentchanged.

Ultimately to win all these trophies you have to defeat superclubs, and you defeat them you have to have your top players perform well and score, which is what Madrid and Ronaldo did. If Ronaldo was just racking goals against shit teams and not efficient against the other superclubs, his stats wouldn't have been as good and Madrid wouldn't have won nothing.

The difference in trophies number is mostly due to the increased number of minor trophies now in comparison to before. Now you win the CL, it means you have UEFA Super Cup + FIFA Club World Cup mostly in your pocket, so that's 3 trophies in one shot. If you win CL 5 times, you'll most probably end up with 15 trophies with all the minor ones combined. It's not because current clubs face teams with inferior budget in the majority of the run.

 

[vangagal]

If it's not Rivaldo who you also listed, who is it then?
Romario maybe?

Never knew there was another R(#).

Pretty sure its Ronaldinho.

 

[Andrade]

A) Out of respect for the person I'm talking to, I have to reply. Has nothing to do with being a fan of anyone. Leaving in the middle of discussion is rude.



B) There's no doubt Messi had better World Cup career than Ronaldo. No one is arguing otherwise. I'm just proving the KO stages goals is nonsense as a parameter.



C) Alright ? 16 years as a striker vs 10 years as a striker. That's 6 whole year difference, in which Ronaldo was playing in a different position. Still, will affect the stat. The point is when he started to move centrally, his goals to games ratio got a huge boost.



D) It's absolutely ridiculous that you actually believe old players didn't face teams with inferior budget and players as much as today. That reminds me of people claiming Sir Alex didn't spend that much money before when United were breaking records for the prices all the time. Just the amount of money spentchanged.



Ultimately to win all these trophies you have to defeat superclubs, and you defeat them you have to have your top players perform well and score, which is what Madrid and Ronaldo did. If Ronaldo was just racking goals against shit teams and not efficient against the other superclubs, his stats wouldn't have been as good and Madrid wouldn't have won nothing.



The difference in trophies number is mostly due to the increased number of minor trophies now in comparison to before. Now you win the CL, it means you have UEFA Super Cup + FIFA Club World Cup mostly in your pocket, so that's 3 trophies in one shot. If you win CL 5 times, you'll most probably end up with 15 trophies with all the minor ones combined. It's not because current clubs face teams with inferior budget in the majority of the run.

A) Again, who said that Ronaldo doesn't belong in these discussions? Point to where I said that please. If you can't, we'll have to conclude that you are a particular fan of his.

B) It's a nonsense stat in your mind, not in everyone else's as everyone else understands that if you lose KO ties you go home

C) Glad you corrected yourself re Muller's career

D) I've explained this before but I'll explain it again as again you don't seem to understand something basic. I already said that there were bigger and richer clubs than others in the past. The point is THE DEGREE OF THE DISPARITY. I can explain this with a simple example. Trevor Francis was the first million pound player in the 1970s. The record now stands at around 200 million. Do you know what one million in 1975 is in 2022, adjusted for inflation? I'll give you a clue, it's not freaking 200 million....

E) To win those trophies you ultimately have to defeat superclubs? Um no you don't. In Spain for example, there's just Barca (and you could make an argument for modern Atletico). What percentage is that of the league?

F) Wrong again. There are also trophies that existed in the past but no longer exist. To simplify things, let's just focus on league titles. Of the top 10 players who have won the most league titles, only 2 played before the 21st century. Explain why that is?

 

[mshnsh]

If it's not Rivaldo who you also listed, who is it then?
Romario maybe?

Never knew there was another R(#).

Ronaldinho (had more ability but no longevity. But you can put Romario in tier 3 as well.)

 

[mshnsh]

For your own sanity, you should stop replying to imaginary arguments.

You are an idiot.

 

[Gehrman]

Not really sure being a wingforward or inside striker with limited defensive duties these days makes it more difficult to score goals. Wingers traditionally serve the central striker. In the case of Ronnie, Messi and Salah the rest of the forwards serve these rather than the other way around.

 

[Black Adder]

For me personally Messi is best I've ever seen with R9 second and Cristiano 3rd.

But can't disregard Peles achivements so would go with: 1. Pele 2. Messi 3. Maradona and 4. Cristiano Ronaldo ahead Brazilian one since Cristianos CL achivements are extraordinary.

We were truly blessed with 90's/00's football and later Messi vs Cristiano era, was great to witness such change in dynamic and pace of the game!

 

[el3mel]

A) Again, who said that Ronaldo doesn't belong in these discussions? Point to where I said that please. If you can't, we'll have to conclude that you are a particular fan of his.

B) It's a nonsense stat in your mind, not in everyone else's as everyone else understands that if you lose KO ties you go home

C) Glad you corrected yourself re Muller's career

D) I've explained this before but I'll explain it again as again you don't seem to understand something basic. I already said that there were bigger and richer clubs than others in the past. The point is THE DEGREE OF THE DISPARITY. I can explain this with a simple example. Trevor Francis was the first million pound player in the 1970s. The record now stands at around 200 million. Do you know what one million in 1975 is in 2022, adjusted for inflation? I'll give you a clue, it's not freaking 200 million....

E) To win those trophies you ultimately have to defeat superclubs? Um no you don't. In Spain for example, there's just Barca (and you could make an argument for modern Atletico). What percentage is that of the league?

F) Wrong again. There are also trophies that existed in the past but no longer exist. To simplify things, let's just focus on league titles. Of the top 10 players who have won the most league titles, only 2 played before the 21st century. Explain why that is?

A) There's literally 5 or 6 posts in the first page alone that says that ? You didn't say it, but again, the discussion wasn't with you from the start. I was replying on the concept said here that he doesn't belong in this conversation and you decided to quote and discuss the matter with me.

B) Ok? Though that applies to Real Madrid in CL as well, which you seem to want to ignore.

C) Yeah, and my point still stands regarding Ronaldo vs Muller's career ? You proved nothing with this.

D) One million was a ridiculous sum of money in the 70s. The point is top clubs in the past were breaking records in transfers and far spending more than their competitors from the smaller clubs. The amount of money paid just got inflated, but the concept is the same, so to point at Real Madrid as having it easy by spending ton of money and having a super team is nonsense. 1)They're not the only club with that budget in the world, and 2)Top clubs will always outspend other smaller teams.

E) First, that example ironically applies on Messi who's playing for Barcelona and had Real Madrid and Atletico as the only competitors in the league ?
Second, having 3 teams competing for a league title is already way too much. There's no league title in which you'll find 4 or 5 competing on it at once even with all the budget in the world. It's just not applicable. The PL have been claiming to have top 6 for a long time but in reality most seasons have 2 teams at most competing for the title. That's just how leagues work. And yeah, winning a league title from a superteam as Barca with Messi in its lead and in their prime is pretty damn hard. You have to accept the majority of the league will be midtable and small clubs. Having 3 big teams is already a lot.
Finally, that point about Madrid facing other superclubs from the start was about winning the CL as I said several times during this discussion, and which is true since I listed the teams they faced. But out of nowhere you decided to shift the discussion to focus on the league and league only ?

F) Again, I don't get the reason for focusing on one trophy unless you're, again, trying to focus on what might prove your point right and ignores anything else.
Second, yes, there were trophies back then that aren't present now, so ? It's different from qualifying to multiple minor trophies of 1-2 matches by just winning one big trophy. The number of your trophies will get bigger much faster.
Finally, bring this list first so we can check the names and what they won and when.

 

[antohan]

But that is part of my issue with the Maradona conversation especially with his accolades internationally. It seems nostalgia because of his 86 heroics.

His heroics amounted to the most spectacular individual performance in the history of football tournaments, and at the World Cup to boot. It was insane, a top gear / peak no one ever reached before or since. It's not nostalgia but first hand experience.

What probably made it even better was the next best was probably Platini at Euro '84. I've mentioned before how before that World Cup every kid wanted to be Platini, and a month later nobody did. It was an entire tournament of one "wtf?" after another.

Nobody will argue against Messi being at the very top of the game for almost 15 years, winning everything in sight and quite probably being the greatest footballer of all time. Personally, I'd say it's him or Pelé and gun to my head Pelé for taking the game global and so popular.

The best though? I can't see anyone reproducing that, more so given the expectations. If I had to think about a 2022 parallel it would be Kevin de Bruyne playing out of his mind and beyond anything we've seen to make Belgium win the World Cup.

Belgium, good side, well ranked but favourites? Nah. KDB, great player, would transfer for gazillions if City had ever needed to sell. BPITW? GOAT? Not quite, keep competing.

Now imagine KDB actually was a Villarreal player and went back to Spain now and won La Liga and Copa del Rey. Four years on the trot: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 1st with a UEFA Cup to boot, with Villarreal.

It's not nostalgia, if you saw that happen and spent four year scratching your head at it, any time anyone asks "GOAT?" you can't drop that guy.

Did not even score in the 1990 world cup. Messi legit had Argentina competing for honours more frequently and won more

Maradona didn't score at that World Cup, he played it out infiltrated because his ankle was the size of a melon. Nobody remembers if he scored or didn't, what people remember is he put himself through that, unrelenting, and in doing that almost managed to get Argentina over the line and fluking an entirely undeserved/unwarranted World Cup win.

THAT is where you are not getting it. Maradona wasn't about scoring but leading, inspiring, orchestrating and making others perform at their best levels.

In a way, what he did best was precisely what bogged down Messi until Rodrigo de Paul showed up. OK, no one will get this, I know

Loads on the caf laughed at de Paul throughout that difficult group stage and referred to him as barely a footballer, but look at the stats (I don't) and you will surely find de Paul is one of the players Argentina passed the ball the most to.

Again, the average cafite will laugh and think McTominay is the last guy they want to give the ball the most to. Yeah, sure, but it results from a quality of always being there which ultimately makes teams work.

Now, Maradona was always there. Everyone knew if they ran into trouble, Diego would be available to play you out of trouble. Everyone also knew if they made this or that run, Diego would find them, just watch Caniggia against Brazil. Imagine how easy it is to play football like that, playing football with Diego.

For some reason I can't put my finger on, the dynamic in Argentina for a decade was "give it to Messi". That was not the same dynamic and it's hardly Messi's fault to begin with, but that's why Argentina was largely a dysfunctional team.

At Barca it was never "give it to Messi". Xavi wanted ball, Iniesta wanted ball, and you couldn't "just" nullify Messi. With Argentina you could. They've had sensational players, better squads on paper than those from the 80s, but they never played as a team. I don't think that discredits Messi, but it certainly is a credit for Maradona.

The single most important thing Argentina got out of de Paul was splitting the "give it to" role. Nobody will man mark de Paul, how much damage could he possibly do? So he makes himself available, is available, unmarked, and in doing all that removed the bottleneck of everything going through Messi. That comes from the top, from Scaloni and it's why de Paul was undroppable (and also why they suffered Lo Celso's loss so badly as he did the same on the left).

Guess what? Suddenly by not channeling everything through him we got a much more effective Messi, who would have thunk it? Took them 15 years to work it out. Not Messi's fault, but you can see he now finally actually enjoys playing for the NT. Maradona always did and the difference in impact and relative outcomes is significant.

I feel what goes against Messi is that he is considered Spanish and never connected with his home country the way Diego did. In any other Nation, Messi would have the greater international career

Nah, there have been some massive Messi eulogisers, particularly of the way him being in Spain for so long hasn't made him lose accent, slang, anything. It's very much the opposite these days.

Doesn't have Diego's charisma, that's all.

 

[Andrade]

A) There's literally 5 or 6 posts in the first page alone that says that ? You didn't say it, but again, the discussion wasn't with you from the start. I was replying on the concept said here that he doesn't belong in this conversation and you decided to quote and discuss the matter with me.



B) Ok? Though that applies to Real Madrid in CL as well, which you seem to want to ignore.



C) Yeah, and my point still stands regarding Ronaldo vs Muller's career ? You proved nothing with this.



D) One million was a ridiculous sum of money in the 70s. The point is top clubs in the past were breaking records in transfers and far spending more than their competitors from the smaller clubs. The amount of money paid just got inflated, but the concept is the same, so to point at Real Madrid as having it easy by spending ton of money and having a super team is nonsense. 1)They're not the only club with that budget in the world, and 2)Top clubs will always outspend other smaller teams.



E) First, that example ironically applies on Messi who's playing for Barcelona and had Real Madrid and Atletico as the only competitors in the league ?

Second, having 3 teams competing for a league title is already way too much. There's no league title in which you'll find 4 or 5 competing on it at once even with all the budget in the world. It's just not applicable. The PL have been claiming to have top 6 for a long time but in reality most seasons have 2 teams at most competing for the title. That's just how leagues work. And yeah, winning a league title from a superteam as Barca with Messi in its lead and in their prime is pretty damn hard. You have to accept the majority of the league will be midtable and small clubs. Having 3 big teams is already a lot.

Finally, that point about Madrid facing other superclubs from the start was about winning the CL as I said several times during this discussion, and which is true since I listed the teams they faced. But out of nowhere you decided to shift the discussion to focus on the league and league only ?



F) Again, I don't get the reason for focusing on one trophy unless you're, again, trying to focus on what might prove your point right and ignores anything else.

Second, yes, there were trophies back then that aren't present now, so ? It's different from qualifying to multiple minor trophies of 1-2 matches by just winning one big trophy. The number of your trophies will get bigger much faster.

Finally, bring this list first so we can check the names and what they won and when.

A) All I can see on the 1st page is people saying that Ronaldo is 4th behind the other 3. You have said that yourself so why are you getting upset at people saying that he 'doesn't belong' in the conversation with the other 3? Because you're a fan.

B) I literally haven't ignored anything you've said, nonsense though it is. Yes Ronaldo has played against good teams, no one if saying otherwise. The point is that he (like all modern superclub) players had an advantage that people like Pele and Muller didn't have in the vast majority of his games.

C) You had no point re Muller v Ronaldo's career except to say that Ronaldo at times played different positions. As if goalscorers playing different positions are never compared. As if Messi and Ronaldo's goalscoring hasn't been compared for the past 20 years even though they play different positions.

D) Can you actually speak English? Do you understand what 'degree of disparity' means? Do you understand that if a club's squad costs more than 17 or 18 other teams in the league combined then it is a bigger advantage than Nottingham Forest or Liverpool whoever spending a bit more than their competitors in the 70s? Dearie me.

E) I already said it applies to Messi but there you go trying to hide behind him again. And yet again you are wrong. Go back in history of all the top leagues and look at the number of different teams that won it compared to how many won them in the last 20-years. This is most glaringly obvious in top flight English football, but even in Spain, where Madrid and Barca have always been dominant, there were numerous clubs who won the league in the past who simply would not be able to win it today.

Also, the point wasn't about the CL only because we were talking about Ronaldo's trophies v Muller's trophies. Only 5 of Ronaldo's trophies out of twenty something are the CL so how could the discussion only be about the CL? Muller won the European Cup 3 Times when you had to be the champions of your country or the holders to enter. How many CLs would Robaldo have under these rules?

F) The focus on one trophy was to make things simpler for you by choosing a type of trophy that is more consistent through history. Look the list up yourself, I'm not gonna do all your work for you.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

...why could Diego not lift Barcelona to a period of sustained success domestically and abroad?

This is an odd question for several reasons.

For one thing, the teams you use for comparison (Bayern for Müller * and Liverpool for Dalglish) were obviously better than Maradona's Barca.

Secondly, Maradona didn't reach peak level until after he left Barca.

Thirdly, what does it matter that his spell for Barca wasn't that great? He was obviously great for Napoli (in a significantly stronger league).

Again - it's just an odd question.

* It would also be absurd to claim that Müller "lifted" them to "sustained success", as if he were the only factor in that (or even the most important factor, which he clearly was not).

 

[Andrade]

This is an odd question for several reasons.



For one thing, the teams you use for comparison (Bayern for Müller * and Liverpool for Dalglish) were obviously better than Maradona's Barca.



Secondly, Maradona didn't reach peak level until after he left Barca.



Thirdly, what does it matter that his spell for Barca wasn't that great? He was obviously great for Napoli (in a significantly stronger league).



Again - it's just an odd question.



* It would also be absurd to claim that Müller "lifted" them to "sustained success", as if he were the only factor in that (or even the most important factor, which he clearly was not).

He was really good for Barcelona too. Had issues with injury and illness though. When he was fit and not recovering from either of the above, he was brilliant.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

1. Maradona
2. Pele
3. Messi
4. Ronaldo

 

[Chesterlestreet]

He was really good for Barcelona too.

Yeah, I know.

But in the context of this (pretty silly) debate, he wasn't that great (compared to what he did elsewhere).

 

[Chesterlestreet]

His heroics amounted to the most spectacular individual performance in the history of football tournaments, and at the World Cup to boot. It was insane, a top gear / peak no one ever reached before or since. It's not nostalgia but first hand experience.

What probably made it even better was the next best was probably Platini at Euro '84. I've mentioned before how before that World Cup every kid wanted to be Platini, and a month later nobody did. It was an entire tournament of one "wtf?" after another.

Nobody will argue against Messi being at the very top of the game for almost 15 years, winning everything in sight and quite probably being the greatest footballer of all time. Personally, I'd say it's him or Pelé and gun to my head Pelé for taking the game global and so popular.

The best though? I can't see anyone reproducing that, more so given the expectations. If I had to think about a 2022 parallel it would be Kevin de Bruyne playing out of his mind and beyond anything we've seen to make Belgium win the World Cup.

Belgium, good side, well ranked but favourites? Nah. KDB, great player, would transfer for gazillions if City had ever needed to sell. BPITW? GOAT? Not quite, keep competing.

Now imagine KDB actually was a Villarreal player and went back to Spain now and won La Liga and Copa del Rey. Four years on the trot: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 1st with a UEFA Cup to boot, with Villarreal.

It's not nostalgia, if you saw that happen and spent four year scratching your head at it, any time anyone asks "GOAT?" you can't drop that guy.


Maradona didn't score at that World Cup, he played it out infiltrated because his ankle was the size of a melon. Nobody remembers if he scored or didn't, what people remember is he put himself through that, unrelenting, and in doing that almost managed to get Argentina over the line and fluking an entirely undeserved/unwarranted World Cup win.

THAT is where you are not getting it. Maradona wasn't about scoring but leading, inspiring, orchestrating and making others perform at their best levels.

In a way, what he did best was precisely what bogged down Messi until Rodrigo de Paul showed up. OK, no one will get this, I know

Loads on the caf laughed at de Paul throughout that difficult group stage and referred to him as barely a footballer, but look at the stats (I don't) and you will surely find de Paul is one of the players Argentina passed the ball the most to.

Again, the average cafite will laugh and think McTominay is the last guy they want to give the ball the most to. Yeah, sure, but it results from a quality of always being there which ultimately makes teams work.

Now, Maradona was always there. Everyone knew if they ran into trouble, Diego would be available to play you out of trouble. Everyone also knew if they made this or that run, Diego would find them, just watch Caniggia against Brazil. Imagine how easy it is to play football like that, playing football with Diego.

For some reason I can't put my finger on, the dynamic in Argentina for a decade was "give it to Messi". That was not the same dynamic and it's hardly Messi's fault to begin with, but that's why Argentina was largely a dysfunctional team.

At Barca it was never "give it to Messi". Xavi wanted ball, Iniesta wanted ball, and you couldn't "just" nullify Messi. With Argentina you could. They've had sensational players, better squads on paper than those from the 80s, but they never played as a team. I don't think that discredits Messi, but it certainly is a credit for Maradona.

The single most important thing Argentina got out of de Paul was splitting the "give it to" role. Nobody will man mark de Paul, how much damage could he possibly do? So he makes himself available, is available, unmarked, and in doing all that removed the bottleneck of everything going through Messi. That comes from the top, from Scaloni and it's why de Paul was undroppable (and also why they suffered Lo Celso's loss so badly as he did the same on the left).

Guess what? Suddenly by not channeling everything through him we got a much more effective Messi, who would have thunk it? Took them 15 years to work it out. Not Messi's fault, but you can see he now finally actually enjoys playing for the NT. Maradona always did and the difference in impact and relative outcomes is significant.


Nah, there have been some massive Messi eulogisers, particularly of the way him being in Spain for so long hasn't made him lose accent, slang, anything. It's very much the opposite these days.

Doesn't have Diego's charisma, that's all.

Excellent post.

 

[Passitlikescholes]

His heroics amounted to the most spectacular individual performance in the history of football tournaments, and at the World Cup to boot. It was insane, a top gear / peak no one ever reached before or since. It's not nostalgia but first hand experience.

What probably made it even better was the next best was probably Platini at Euro '84. I've mentioned before how before that World Cup every kid wanted to be Platini, and a month later nobody did. It was an entire tournament of one "wtf?" after another.

Nobody will argue against Messi being at the very top of the game for almost 15 years, winning everything in sight and quite probably being the greatest footballer of all time. Personally, I'd say it's him or Pelé and gun to my head Pelé for taking the game global and so popular.

The best though? I can't see anyone reproducing that, more so given the expectations. If I had to think about a 2022 parallel it would be Kevin de Bruyne playing out of his mind and beyond anything we've seen to make Belgium win the World Cup.

Belgium, good side, well ranked but favourites? Nah. KDB, great player, would transfer for gazillions if City had ever needed to sell. BPITW? GOAT? Not quite, keep competing.

Now imagine KDB actually was a Villarreal player and went back to Spain now and won La Liga and Copa del Rey. Four years on the trot: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 1st with a UEFA Cup to boot, with Villarreal.

It's not nostalgia, if you saw that happen and spent four year scratching your head at it, any time anyone asks "GOAT?" you can't drop that guy.


Maradona didn't score at that World Cup, he played it out infiltrated because his ankle was the size of a melon. Nobody remembers if he scored or didn't, what people remember is he put himself through that, unrelenting, and in doing that almost managed to get Argentina over the line and fluking an entirely undeserved/unwarranted World Cup win.

THAT is where you are not getting it. Maradona wasn't about scoring but leading, inspiring, orchestrating and making others perform at their best levels.

In a way, what he did best was precisely what bogged down Messi until Rodrigo de Paul showed up. OK, no one will get this, I know

Loads on the caf laughed at de Paul throughout that difficult group stage and referred to him as barely a footballer, but look at the stats (I don't) and you will surely find de Paul is one of the players Argentina passed the ball the most to.

Again, the average cafite will laugh and think McTominay is the last guy they want to give the ball the most to. Yeah, sure, but it results from a quality of always being there which ultimately makes teams work.

Now, Maradona was always there. Everyone knew if they ran into trouble, Diego would be available to play you out of trouble. Everyone also knew if they made this or that run, Diego would find them, just watch Caniggia against Brazil. Imagine how easy it is to play football like that, playing football with Diego.

For some reason I can't put my finger on, the dynamic in Argentina for a decade was "give it to Messi". That was not the same dynamic and it's hardly Messi's fault to begin with, but that's why Argentina was largely a dysfunctional team.

At Barca it was never "give it to Messi". Xavi wanted ball, Iniesta wanted ball, and you couldn't "just" nullify Messi. With Argentina you could. They've had sensational players, better squads on paper than those from the 80s, but they never played as a team. I don't think that discredits Messi, but it certainly is a credit for Maradona.

The single most important thing Argentina got out of de Paul was splitting the "give it to" role. Nobody will man mark de Paul, how much damage could he possibly do? So he makes himself available, is available, unmarked, and in doing all that removed the bottleneck of everything going through Messi. That comes from the top, from Scaloni and it's why de Paul was undroppable (and also why they suffered Lo Celso's loss so badly as he did the same on the left).

Guess what? Suddenly by not channeling everything through him we got a much more effective Messi, who would have thunk it? Took them 15 years to work it out. Not Messi's fault, but you can see he now finally actually enjoys playing for the NT. Maradona always did and the difference in impact and relative outcomes is significant.


Nah, there have been some massive Messi eulogisers, particularly of the way him being in Spain for so long hasn't made him lose accent, slang, anything. It's very much the opposite these days.

Doesn't have Diego's charisma, that's all.

Top post

This thread has turned into the younger generation shitting all over Pele and Maradona’s legacies.

Just as another note on this stats business, Pele was a 3 time World Cup winner, with claimed 1000 goals in his career.

Diego came around, had nowhere near the same stats as Pele and fans who saw both Pele and Diego for them it was a toss up as to who was better.

So relying on the stats argument, Pele had Maradona beaten hands down, those who saw Diego, well there's a reason they didn't pay attention to stats and picked Diego over Pele or called it neck and neck

The man turned up to games half drunk and the other half coked out of his mind and beat full time professionals of his era. His fellow colleagues were full time professionals who had the best training methods of that era, Diego partied 7 days a week and still came out on top.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

His heroics amounted to the most spectacular individual performance in the history of football tournaments, and at the World Cup to boot. It was insane, a top gear / peak no one ever reached before or since. It's not nostalgia but first hand experience.

What probably made it even better was the next best was probably Platini at Euro '84. I've mentioned before how before that World Cup every kid wanted to be Platini, and a month later nobody did. It was an entire tournament of one "wtf?" after another.

Nobody will argue against Messi being at the very top of the game for almost 15 years, winning everything in sight and quite probably being the greatest footballer of all time. Personally, I'd say it's him or Pelé and gun to my head Pelé for taking the game global and so popular.

The best though? I can't see anyone reproducing that, more so given the expectations. If I had to think about a 2022 parallel it would be Kevin de Bruyne playing out of his mind and beyond anything we've seen to make Belgium win the World Cup.

Belgium, good side, well ranked but favourites? Nah. KDB, great player, would transfer for gazillions if City had ever needed to sell. BPITW? GOAT? Not quite, keep competing.

Now imagine KDB actually was a Villarreal player and went back to Spain now and won La Liga and Copa del Rey. Four years on the trot: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 1st with a UEFA Cup to boot, with Villarreal.

It's not nostalgia, if you saw that happen and spent four year scratching your head at it, any time anyone asks "GOAT?" you can't drop that guy.


Maradona didn't score at that World Cup, he played it out infiltrated because his ankle was the size of a melon. Nobody remembers if he scored or didn't, what people remember is he put himself through that, unrelenting, and in doing that almost managed to get Argentina over the line and fluking an entirely undeserved/unwarranted World Cup win.

THAT is where you are not getting it. Maradona wasn't about scoring but leading, inspiring, orchestrating and making others perform at their best levels.

In a way, what he did best was precisely what bogged down Messi until Rodrigo de Paul showed up. OK, no one will get this, I know

Loads on the caf laughed at de Paul throughout that difficult group stage and referred to him as barely a footballer, but look at the stats (I don't) and you will surely find de Paul is one of the players Argentina passed the ball the most to.

Again, the average cafite will laugh and think McTominay is the last guy they want to give the ball the most to. Yeah, sure, but it results from a quality of always being there which ultimately makes teams work.

Now, Maradona was always there. Everyone knew if they ran into trouble, Diego would be available to play you out of trouble. Everyone also knew if they made this or that run, Diego would find them, just watch Caniggia against Brazil. Imagine how easy it is to play football like that, playing football with Diego.

For some reason I can't put my finger on, the dynamic in Argentina for a decade was "give it to Messi". That was not the same dynamic and it's hardly Messi's fault to begin with, but that's why Argentina was largely a dysfunctional team.

At Barca it was never "give it to Messi". Xavi wanted ball, Iniesta wanted ball, and you couldn't "just" nullify Messi. With Argentina you could. They've had sensational players, better squads on paper than those from the 80s, but they never played as a team. I don't think that discredits Messi, but it certainly is a credit for Maradona.

The single most important thing Argentina got out of de Paul was splitting the "give it to" role. Nobody will man mark de Paul, how much damage could he possibly do? So he makes himself available, is available, unmarked, and in doing all that removed the bottleneck of everything going through Messi. That comes from the top, from Scaloni and it's why de Paul was undroppable (and also why they suffered Lo Celso's loss so badly as he did the same on the left).

Guess what? Suddenly by not channeling everything through him we got a much more effective Messi, who would have thunk it? Took them 15 years to work it out. Not Messi's fault, but you can see he now finally actually enjoys playing for the NT. Maradona always did and the difference in impact and relative outcomes is significant.


Nah, there have been some massive Messi eulogisers, particularly of the way him being in Spain for so long hasn't made him lose accent, slang, anything. It's very much the opposite these days.

Doesn't have Diego's charisma, that's all.

Fantastic read!

 

[mshnsh]

Maradona is one of the 3 best ever (mainly for Mexico 86 which is the greatest individual tournament in history and to a lesser extent his success with Napoli) but those who say he had a better international career than Messi don't know what they are talking about. In the 80's before Mexico 86, he was criticised for not achieving in the Argentina shirt and after 86 he did not achieve anything of note in the Argentina shirt; he did not have a good tournament at Italia 1990 although he was carrying an injury and they reached the final.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

I would rank Pele, Maradona and Messi equal - the best of their respective generations (and hard to directly compare between), with Ronaldo a bit below those three.

 

[Castia]

Maradona is one of the 3 best ever (mainly for Mexico 86 which is the greatest individual tournament in history and to a lesser extent his success with Napoli) but those who say he had a better international career than Messi don't know what they are talking about. In the 80's before Mexico 86, he was criticised for not achieving in the Argentina shirt and after 86 he did not achieve anything of note in the Argentina shirt; he did not have a good tournament at Italia 1990 although he was carrying an injury and they reached the final.

No chance, I cant believe so many have him down as number 1. It's the same with R9 he spent way to much time injured or out of shape to ever be considered a goat you have to be at the top level for more than a small amount of time to be named the best ever player.

Maradona spent the huge chunks of his career at mediocre level. His last 5 years for example seen him play for 3 clubs scoring a grand total of 12 goals, he was averaging around 2 goals a season and this isn't the end of career fair well form it was 5 fecking years.

 

[Andrade]

Yeah, I know.















But in the context of this (pretty silly) debate, he wasn't that great (compared to what he did elsewhere).

'

I actually think he was, he just didn't get the breaks in Spain. Napolu still broke the bank to get him

 

[Kelly15]

D) It's absolutely ridiculous that you actually believe old players didn't face teams with inferior budget and players as much as today. That reminds me of people claiming Sir Alex didn't spend that much money before when United were breaking records for the prices all the time. Just the amount of money spentchanged.

That's a myth that SAF was a big spender.

1992/93
The biggest spenders: Blackburn
The spend: £8.46m
Manchester United : £2.3m

1993/94
The biggest spenders: Blackburn
The spend: £8.5m

1994/95
The biggest spenders: Everton
The spend: £10.9m

1995/96
The biggest spenders: Newcastle
The spend: £24.5m

1996/97
The biggest spenders: Newcastle
The spend: £17.5m

1997/98
The biggest spenders: Newcastle
The spend: £24.65m

1998/99
The biggest spenders: Manchester United
The spend: £29.35m

1999/2000
The biggest spenders: Liverpool
The spend: £35.9m

Out of the 1990s Manchester broke the record spent 1 season. Then Liverpool broke it the next.

 

[Gehrman]

That's a myth that SAF was a big spender.

1992/93
The biggest spenders: Blackburn
The spend: £8.46m
Manchester United : £2.3m

1993/94
The biggest spenders: Blackburn
The spend: £8.5m

1994/95
The biggest spenders: Everton
The spend: £10.9m

1995/96
The biggest spenders: Newcastle
The spend: £24.5m

1996/97
The biggest spenders: Newcastle
The spend: £17.5m

1997/98
The biggest spenders: Newcastle
The spend: £24.65m

1998/99
The biggest spenders: Manchester United
The spend: £29.35m

1999/2000
The biggest spenders: Liverpool
The spend: £35.9m

Out of the 1990s Manchester broke the record spent 1 season. Then Liverpool broke it the next.

Huge myth. And then roll on the chelsea and city years

 

[antohan]

In the 80's before Mexico 86, he was criticised for not achieving in the Argentina shirt

The irony. You do know it wasn't long ago Messi retired from international football over the same damning evidence of having critics, don't you?

 

[Gehrman]

I think a legitimate point to be made is that the talent pool today is bigger than ever because of the money in the game. A lot of the players in the past honestly found it hard to make ends meet even if they were playing in the top league of their country. Superstars like Pelé and george best never had to worry about money but a lot of athletes who thought about making a career in football did.

 

[Gehrman]

The irony. You do know it wasn't long ago Messi retired from international football over the same damning evidence of having critics, don't you?

Would have been much cooler if he became a pig farmer like Cryuff

 

[el3mel]

A) All I can see on the 1st page is people saying that Ronaldo is 4th behind the other 3. You have said that yourself so why are you getting upset at people saying that he 'doesn't belong' in the conversation with the other 3? Because you're a fan.

B) I literally haven't ignored anything you've said, nonsense though it is. Yes Ronaldo has played against good teams, no one if saying otherwise. The point is that he (like all modern superclub) players had an advantage that people like Pele and Muller didn't have in the vast majority of his games.

C) You had no point re Muller v Ronaldo's career except to say that Ronaldo at times played different positions. As if goalscorers playing different positions are never compared. As if Messi and Ronaldo's goalscoring hasn't been compared for the past 20 years even though they play different positions.

D) Can you actually speak English? Do you understand what 'degree of disparity' means? Do you understand that if a club's squad costs more than 17 or 18 other teams in the league combined then it is a bigger advantage than Nottingham Forest or Liverpool whoever spending a bit more than their competitors in the 70s? Dearie me.

E) I already said it applies to Messi but there you go trying to hide behind him again. And yet again you are wrong. Go back in history of all the top leagues and look at the number of different teams that won it compared to how many won them in the last 20-years. This is most glaringly obvious in top flight English football, but even in Spain, where Madrid and Barca have always been dominant, there were numerous clubs who won the league in the past who simply would not be able to win it today.

Also, the point wasn't about the CL only because we were talking about Ronaldo's trophies v Muller's trophies. Only 5 of Ronaldo's trophies out of twenty something are the CL so how could the discussion only be about the CL? Muller won the European Cup 3 Times when you had to be the champions of your country or the holders to enter. How many CLs would Robaldo have under these rules?

F) The focus on one trophy was to make things simpler for you by choosing a type of trophy that is more consistent through history. Look the list up yourself, I'm not gonna do all your work for you.

A)

I'm sorry but Ronaldo doesn't even belong to the group where are other 3.

Ronaldo doesn't belong in this conversation.

You can make arguments for Pele, Messi and Maradona to be the 'GOAT'

Any argument for Ronaldo falls flat.

That said

1. Messi
2. Pele
3. Maradona
4. Ronaldo

Ronald--who? He isn't in that tier.

Messi
Pele
Maradona

Messi and Pele are close.

Cristiano is in another tier below them.

All these posts clearly say he doesn't belong here.
It's different to say the other 3 are better than him, than to say he simply can't even be compared them.
I'm not upset. I see ridiculous claims I reply on them. If I were a Ronaldo fan I'll say it, what's the problem ? It's not like it a crime.

B) Yeah, players from the past played the majority of their games against top teams only. Small clubs started to appear in modern era.

C) I had a point though. Ronaldo had better records, trophies and individual awards than Muller but let's ignore all this and focus on what Muller had over him which is the goals to games ratio and a World Cup with Germany just prove he's the best, and ignore all the other parameters or invent excuses for why Ronaldo had more of them. That has been the discussion about this point so far. Even if both were strikers and Muller had better goals to game ratio, it won't change anything from the fact Ronaldo had the better numbers in almost everything else, and if you persist on the concept that "players from the past only played against big ones", it's really not Ronaldo's fault and shouldn't be used against him that he wasn't playing in the 70s. If that's your point, there's no point arguing who's the best player in history because each era is different from the other.

D) Yes I speak English. It's bullshit though. Look at the current Premier League, even clubs like Everton who have been midtable or even fighting for relegation have been spending ton and ton of money, in some years comparable even to the top 6 spending.

Define a "bit more" ? Either you bring stats that prove Liverpool and Nottingham spending was only a little more than other clubs in this era or I see no point in this.

E) The number of teams winning the league doesn't equate the presence of multiple teams competing at it at once. Teams go up and down and have good seasons and shit ones, but ultimately in the course of the league you'll have 2 or 3 competing for the title at most. The idea that 4 or 5 teams can compete at once in a league season is just not possible and not applicable. In modern days you can see Arsenal, Chelsea and United winning consecutive leagues in the early 2000s, but in reality they weren't competing with each other every season.

I thought you liked to talk about the bigger stages when it matters like the World Cup and Champions League ? No one is saying Muller didn't achieve a lot in his career. IMO Ronaldo achieved more, that's all.

F) Is this for real ? You claim a thing, you bring it to support your argument. I'm not going to search for proofs for your claims, you know. You're the one who mentioned the list, bring it so we can discuss the names in it and what they won and when.

 

[antohan]

I think a legitimate point to be made is that the talent pool today is bigger than ever because of the money in the game. A lot of the players in the past honestly found it hard to make ends meet even if they were playing in the top league of their country. Superstars like Pelé and george best never had to worry about money but a lot of athletes who thought about making a career in football did.

Absolutely, and the few that did often got ripped off their money. Nowadays there are so many players making so much money that you can have multimillionaire advisors that don't need to leave their clients skint to get there.