I just can't have Laudrup over Baggio, but aside from that, if I were to do a similar list, I doubt it'd be much different to your revised one except for the insertion of Xavi after Kaka'.
Top 10 greatest players of all time
- Thread starter tentan
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
Benzema and Suarez have no business being there in front of Lewandowski.
In terms of overall player? There streets ahead in my opinion, Lewa is a great goalscorer, but so are Benzema and Suarez and are also far better footballers
There are circumstances explaining Maradona’s failure to completely dominate early 80s allowing Platini to be top dog, including hepatitis, ankle injury requiring surgery, 3 month suspension, and a move to Napoli who had not yet signed anyone of note yet. As far as actual game play and ability is concerned it was not close; Maradona was always on another level to Platini and everyone else.
On a side note, how stupid were Barcelona not to be able to keep R9 and Maradona for a longer period? Understand Maradona’s behaviour issue but that could easily have been remedied. With R9 there was no excuse, just idiocy.
The disrespect stems from people remembering just the last 10 years of his career when he became pretty much a goalscorer. But overall he was technically excellent.
1. Messi
2. Ronaldo
3. Zidane
4. Pele
4. Maradona
5. R9
6. Beckenbauer
7. Cruyff
8. Gullit
9. Iniesta
10. Platini
2. Ronaldo
3. Zidane
4. Pele
4. Maradona
5. R9
6. Beckenbauer
7. Cruyff
8. Gullit
9. Iniesta
10. Platini
Thats fair
I'm not sure what you mean by the words 'proof' and 'delivery'
though. Was it not proven when he carried Argentinos Juniors as a literal child, scoring 116 goals in 166 games? Was it not proven when he led a star-deficient Boca Juniors to the title and scored 28 goals in 40 games? Was he not delivering?
Even in his most contentious period with Barcelona (issues with disease, issues with broken ankles, issues with the fans, issues with the club President etc. etc., he still scored 38 goals in 58 games and won 3 trophies in 2 years. In the final of one of those, the league Cup, we was applauded by the Real Madrid fans at the Bernebeu after a typically audacious goal, becoming one of the handful of Barca players in history to receive this honour.
And that two year period was his worst period (until the post Napoli years when he was past it).
Again, I dispute this notion that he somehow wasnt 'delivering' before 1986. You specifically mention the year 1985. By that time, both Platini and Maradona were playing in Italy. But Platini was playing for the most successful club in Italian football history and one bankrolled by the mega rich Fiat family. He was also surrounded by stars. Laudrup, Tardellli, Boniek, Paolo Rossi etc. etc.
Maradona was playing for an average team and club that had not only never won the Scudetto (in comparison to Juve's 18 wins pre-Platini) but was playing in a region that had never won the Scudetto (no Southern Italian team had ever won it). They were operating in completely different circumstances. So it's quite easy to watch the performances of both in the same league, where one is playing for a much worse team and much smaller club and opine that Maradona is the superior player. Going into that 1986 world cup, Maradona was called the best player in the world on the BBC coverage as well, prior to the England game.
Again, I dispute this delivery notion, but I do accept that the World Cup helped him separate himself from his peers. My disagreement with you is your suggestion that Platinj had similarly separated himself from the others in the early-mid 80s by winning 2 leagues and a European Cup with Juventus. That is not true, by my recollection
Spoken about this already
World Cups is where they had to show and prove. Leagues and stuff were never going to be decisive
Which conversation? And where have I said that he shouldn't be included in any conversation?
Yes, but only in the World Cup. The World Cup is the true test. Your point was that Platini was great for Juventus and great in Euro 1984 and therefore he dominated the early 80s. I'm not saying that it can't be argued, I'm saying that none of those things mean what the world cup does. Or did. Its status is a bit different now with the advent of the Champions League, where all the best players participate annually.
I think you seriously underrate Lewandowski as an overall player. He’s an incredible footballer.
And he’s not just a great goal scorer. He’s one of the best there ever was.
Not disputing he's a very good overall player, the others are better though.
Some random points/opinions on the Maradona vs Platini status debate...
- I think Maradona's work in Argentina gets undervalued here. It's no less valid than Platini's pre-82/83 period in France.
- Boca weren't that star deficient, they also had the great Miguel Angel Brindisi and his duo with Maradona was the noted key part of the team.
- Platini also had a really bad ankle injury in his last season with Nancy (78-79) It's likely that it played a notable part in his lesser agility and dribbling ability during the '80s.
- Giresse was at least as good as Platini during the '82 World Cup imo.
- Argentina nor Maradona played that badly at that tournament. I'd actually say they were generally very good and played plenty of attractive football, the team was extremely talented, just not as coherent or calm a collective as the likes of Brazil and Italy.
- I don't think Serie A was really the obvious best league during the 82-86 period. It was coming out of a period of relative low-ranking because of the foreigner ban and teams like Juventus and Roma buying star foreigners and doing well in Europe got it back up there, but it wasn't until the circa 86/87 - 87/88 period that the amount of money Italian clubs were spending really started to establish it as clearly above the English, W.German, or even Spanish leagues. That was when Italian teams started regularly winning and reaching all three of the finals.
- I think Maradona's work in Argentina gets undervalued here. It's no less valid than Platini's pre-82/83 period in France.
- Boca weren't that star deficient, they also had the great Miguel Angel Brindisi and his duo with Maradona was the noted key part of the team.
- Platini also had a really bad ankle injury in his last season with Nancy (78-79) It's likely that it played a notable part in his lesser agility and dribbling ability during the '80s.
- Giresse was at least as good as Platini during the '82 World Cup imo.
- Argentina nor Maradona played that badly at that tournament. I'd actually say they were generally very good and played plenty of attractive football, the team was extremely talented, just not as coherent or calm a collective as the likes of Brazil and Italy.
- I don't think Serie A was really the obvious best league during the 82-86 period. It was coming out of a period of relative low-ranking because of the foreigner ban and teams like Juventus and Roma buying star foreigners and doing well in Europe got it back up there, but it wasn't until the circa 86/87 - 87/88 period that the amount of money Italian clubs were spending really started to establish it as clearly above the English, W.German, or even Spanish leagues. That was when Italian teams started regularly winning and reaching all three of the finals.
Let me begin with this. I do not disrespect Maradona and never will. He is a legitimate GOAT-contender, and I understand anyone who has him at number one. Overall, I also rate him over Platini, but seriously. Despite the reasons above, Platini (and Zico) edged it over Diego before 1985. You are writing some of the arguments yourself. It is like claiming that R9 would have been the best player ever, had it not been for his injuries. R9 really might have gone on to become exactly that, but he did not, perhaps because of those injuries. And yes. Maradona is very possibly the GOAT, when it comes to technical abilities on the ball. His behaviour issues were a problem that was never really remedied.
To be frank, many of the claims you're making in this thread lack supporting evidence, yet you’re quick to dismiss others’ statements as false which is strange.
Someone called you out for LeTissier vs Bergkamp thing I think the other day. Earlier, you claimed that the number of players who consider Messi the GOAT is similar to those who pick Ronaldo, a view that’s absurd for anyone who closely follows this, and one that runs counter to the overwhelming body of evidence. And, these are just my observations in less than a week in this thread.
In terms of Maradona-Platini comparison, instead of saying "many people" "routinely" "categorically false", you can show us the evidence where many people "routinely" call the best Maradona the pre-1986, which you never do. That you heard someone called him that on TV is not evidence that "he's routinely called the best player by many people". The fact is he wasn't routinely called as the best player pre-1986 not even the best South American player over Zico "routinely" throughout pre-86.
You say Euros doesn't carry much weight and that Platini had probably the greatest Euros campaign ever is not much relevant which pretty sure everybody will find laughable. But even more puzzling is your apparent lack of awareness about Maradona’s average showing at the 1982 World Cup (the true test in your own words) with a disappointing red-carded exit and the fact that Platini’s pre-1986 NT performances easily surpass Maradona’s pre-86 international career by a significant margin.
Let me remind you again until WC 1986, Platini's NT/WC career>>>Maradona's NT/WC career or Zico WC/NT career>>>Maradona's NT/WC career, so I have no idea what exactly you're arguing here using WC being the true test, it doesn't help your case one bit. Not to mention the club career difference between two or the fact that Zico was seen in general as the best South American player in the early 80s and Maradona an up and coming young star expected to make big.
As everyone knows, Maradona is where he's because of WC'1986 and Serie A wins with Napoli both of which happened after 1986, simple as that. Even his post-86 failures with Napoli as Serie A champions in the European Cup (two 2nd round exits, one against "mighty" Spartak Moscow) unlike Van Basten's AC Milan didn't matter much because of his legendary post-86 achievements.
Last edited:
Seriously?????
I saw Maradona play live twice, once for Argentina against England and once for Barcelona against United - he was a big deal in both games, in the latter us United fans were dreading him turning it on, but thanks to Ray Wilkins and Captain Marvel we didn't have to worry
Suarez for me is the best no 9 of his time ahead of Lewandowski and Benzema because of superior general play. Benzema played with Cristiano, he was never going to be allowed to shine.
A toss up between him and Messi interms of technical ability.
In any case, it shouldn't really matter, yet it always matters because many of the talks here in reality are around who had the biggest exposure, acievements in Europe in the 80's, therefore "logically", but far from fair, that player would be considered or have the best arguments to be considered the best, in fact still in those days there were lots of rules regarding foreign players in Europe, the Ballon de Or still ws only an Euro affair, etc.
Even if Fortitude it's not in his core saying that Maradona needed that "english approval" at the end of the day, it ends being more or less that.
Reading many of the post here Maradona apparently started in Barcelona, while the level of play and achievements of Diego even if it didn't translated in many titles, was already up there with Platini, Zico and those. In fact maybe even better when comes to his actually prime. There was no better Maradona in terms of physical peak than the one of Argentinos Jrs. and Boca. And on the other hand, the exposure of Diego, fame and praise escalated in an over the Top way when he obtained the WC and the consequent English (and Euro) approval in WC86. Those are two sides of the same coin, both extreme for my taste.
Last edited:
That's more like it than lot of the stuff I'm reading here, and indeed Diego in 82 was a force of nature only stopped by fouls and bad calls, from getting yellows for protesting after the 5 consecutive foul, to being hacked and not gettig a pnealty as clear as day against Barzil and a large etc. Argentina had an awesome team on paper, lots of issues when it came to actually play as a team.
The manner in which he speaks is Maradona the de facto best player in the world in that time period, rather than yet another great player of the age. Big deal and big deal (biggest) are two different things here, as of course the world record transfer is a player that common sense should tell you is a special one; big deal as in proven best on the planet is not what he was at that point in time.
Your selective takings from my posts is rather irksome, especially as you brushed over this:
Fawning over a player because he is the best talent would skew football beyond recognition and put forward daft arguments like Messi should win every Ballon d'Or for existing, which some people hold dear as an actual take on football.
And exposure isn't the only thing - performing in a domestic league is not the same as intercontinental or global, and history is full of players who did spectacular things in their domestic league. That doesn't automatically gift them global rights, and many more have gone on to not deliver elsewhere than have continued on unabashed, so it is not objective criteria in a discussion such as this.
I have the feeling your post was longer than this part: "In waiting and without the accolades yet. Maradona was obviously a world record breaking, huge deal. Based on potential, not what he had done to that point in time.", I'm might be wrong thought.
The thing here it's that what many are saying it's that Diego wasn't potential, he already arrived, he already done things that even Platini would have struggle to do in the same shoes. In fact for many, me included in terms of unstopabble, his best version, later he became a bit more intelligent.
At the same time I don't think anyone here does not think that of course would be more easily consider the best in the World if you are winning Ballon D Or's for the dozen, while playing in Juve winning titles. It's logical, fair in how the world of football worked and even more now. Yet more on those days, those achievements really spoke of Platini being a clear greatest talent given how Diego was already playing?...not really and it wasn't a potential thing, Diego in his best seasons in Argentinos Jrs was a goal per game in a literal hood club that makes Napoli look like Real Madrid.
Anyone that witnessed that Diego, what he did under what circumstances and mostly how he played, already knew that the only thing that he needed to be considered on an equal step as Platini, it's being in a more viewed scenario. As a side not, mostly perhaps because of WC82, there isn't much said about Zico being potential for being in SA (well done BTW) so it's a bit weird to use such wording when Diego was playing also at that level, maybe becauyse of being too young? yet Diego was a prodigy, he was Diego since he was born in the hospital, delivering instantly.
So the "debate" it's not so much who would have been considered widely as the Greatest, Best player in such period under the mentioned circumsntances, Platini it's a lock for me, even if unfair for Diego and others playing in other places. Yet the way Diego's tenure in Argentina, Barca and even the WC82 has been described, has been way far off.
I would introduce an extra here, if Bochini had played in the 70s and 80s in Europe in the way he did down here, the name he would have right now would be stratospheric in comparison to his almost unknown nowadays profile.
Last edited:
There's a distinction between performing as the best player in the world and coronating your title as the best in the world. With the latter, there's always a time lag between performance > to wider recognition > to dethroning the existing best player in the world by outperforming them on the same stage.
Looking back at Diego's performances around the late 1970s and early 1980s I would have no hesitation in saying he was performing as the best player in the world. He carved defences open better than anyone with his incredible 1v1 game and plundered plenty of goals in Argentina. The visual and statistical evidence from the time is compelling for me. Actually securing the title of BPITW needed the global appreciation from delivering on a global stage which came later.
Could draw parallels with firstly Ronaldo around 1995/96 for PSV, when he was already smashing it with his pace and dribbling brilliance. Or secondly Messi in 2007/08 - Fobal make this comparison too, where he was at that performance level but needed to string the games together and win the trophies to get the accolade). And thirdly Neymar around 2016/17 - where statistically his chance creation, 1v1 game, and overall output was the best, but he didn't get the big trophy to achieve the recognition. Some will find these debateable, but the point is the principle that performance precedes recognition.
Conversely, the same could apply for some famous players who still got the awards after their peak, mainly as a result of their reputation.
Looking back at Diego's performances around the late 1970s and early 1980s I would have no hesitation in saying he was performing as the best player in the world. He carved defences open better than anyone with his incredible 1v1 game and plundered plenty of goals in Argentina. The visual and statistical evidence from the time is compelling for me. Actually securing the title of BPITW needed the global appreciation from delivering on a global stage which came later.
Could draw parallels with firstly Ronaldo around 1995/96 for PSV, when he was already smashing it with his pace and dribbling brilliance. Or secondly Messi in 2007/08 - Fobal make this comparison too, where he was at that performance level but needed to string the games together and win the trophies to get the accolade). And thirdly Neymar around 2016/17 - where statistically his chance creation, 1v1 game, and overall output was the best, but he didn't get the big trophy to achieve the recognition. Some will find these debateable, but the point is the principle that performance precedes recognition.
Conversely, the same could apply for some famous players who still got the awards after their peak, mainly as a result of their reputation.
Maybe in the post I made above it's more clear what I'm talking about, and BTW this is what I think it's a more sensible approach than the one you've chosen by using potential in his days in South America, or not doing it in the WC or Barcelona days like other posts claimed.
That above it's a better way to describe the situation, while agreeing that the Status of Platini for logical reasons and fair ones was considered the best in the 80's. In fact I consider him extraordinary almost the whole decade and I have no qualm regarding his talent for not winning a WC in 82 or 86 (I preffer him above Zidane for instance), shyte happens, only one does it. In fact the romanticism of WCs and its importance to make a player more noticable like you've said, still lives in current one, it never lost that Aura, fair or not, I'm not in Kwabs view of them to actually evaluate a player talent, thought I trully get why he sees them as that important.
Last edited:
Sadly
Indeed. And it actually works both ways, because Messi with his style of training (waaaaaaay more lazy alike) if he didn't at least took care of himself and mainly CARE (or even improve some aspects like his free kicks), he wouldn't had the carreer he still is having. I was watching him last match being even annoying with a rival in a game that at this stage of his carreer, he shouldn't even care, yet he still does.
I don't see a small gap in terms of talent (included intelligence), or how and where they had to operate to play between the two, for me, that's far from being the truth.
When someone plays the card of there is so little difference, could be one or the other, I'm not in that train at all.
Point to specific examples
the one where he claimed Bergkamp had played more Premier League games than Le Tissier despite LeTissier playing an additional 170 games in the old first division? Consider me 'called out' then.
Mis-stating what i said
why isn't it? And what kind of evidence would satisfy you?
This article quotes in full what the commentator (John Helm) said when he was sent off v Brazil, an admittedly disappointing end to the 1982 tournament, and I repeat it here:
"That is the end of Diego Maradona’s World Cup. Well, this is sensational, the world’s greatest player by repute has been sent off. He lashed out at Batista there, after the original offence by the Brazilian substitute.”
https://thesefootballtimes.co/2017/02/23/diego-maradona-at-world-cup-1982-the-innocent-devil/
Now why was Maradona 'the world's greatest player by repute' in 1982? Without a scudetto? And without a World Cup win?
So you can make this claim without 'evidence' but I can't?
Not what i said, but OK
It was disappointing, yes. But did you watch the games?
OK
Again, were you alive or not? Did you watch any of the games?
It's really not that simple. At all
He helped Napoli win the UEFA Cup, their first ever European trophy. And the UEFA Cup was much more prestigious back then
The European Cup and European club football were different back then. He had 2 chances to win it, FFS.
Perfectly put.
Let's leave words aside for a moment, what a freaking genius of a player, I love this fecker:
Great vid:
Great vid:
It didn't work out that badly really, then used the money to buy Rivaldo and then won the next two La Liga titles and then Rivaldo won Ballon d'Or and World Player of the Year at Barcelona. Whereas Ronaldo had a brilliant first season at Inter, but from then on he played very little, 52 games in four seasons. They also got a world record fee for Ronaldo for a player who would be missing for most of the following seasons.
Puskas was hailed as a god of his era and was/is still seen as such by those who know of him. His name literally lives on via:
Puskas has so much repute that an award for the most aesthetically pleasing goal of the footballing season is named after him. There is no world renowned "Baggio" award or anything much said about him. They really are not the same.
Puskas' repute is also legion via the Magyars, let alone Honved or Real Madrid - if you do any research of his era as a layman, you'll be bombarded with information about his brilliance and it's really the raw passage of time that has seen him fade - Baggio didn't even last beyond his own generation, and Romario has barely fared any better, because like it became Maradona, Maradona, Maradona with Zico and Platini effectively slipping into nothingness from their lofty positions as acknowledged world greats, so too did it become Ronaldo, Ronaldo, Ronaldo! Both of his elders becoming afterthoughts for far too many because of him. Puskas was brilliant and history makes sure to present that to anyone who even Googles his name.
Moreno and Pedernera were unfortunate that their time came in and around WWII; Di Stefano being younger than them with a career to go on and play post-World War is a big divider.
I stated most forgotten - Baggio was a whisker away from being the dominant player in a Maradona-esque World Cup winning run, that doesn't compare to Sivori doing things in domestic football. Baggio's fall from perhaps the loftiest of heights (being seen by billions tearing up a World Cup) is insane by comparison.
1. "Platini was obviously more successful in the early - mid 80s than Maradona, but Maradona was routinely described as the world's best player."
2. "The Euros was far beneath the World Cup in terms of importance."
"I don't recall any of Messi's main teammates saying Ronaldo was better, but there are managers and players who choose Ronaldo as number one. Certainly more choose Messi, but it's more split than you are making out."
I mean, you were not even aware many teammates of Ronaldo picks Messi until I posted that comment about Ronaldo's teammates and following ones, so have no idea why you're making such definitive comments without much knowledge.
This is easy.
ZICO
"Arguably the world's best player of the late 1970s and early 80s, he (Zico) is regarded as one of the best playmakers and free kick specialists in history, able to bend the ball in all directions."
https://www.iffhs.com/legends/135
"Born Artur Antunes Coimbra in Rio de Janeiro on March 3rd 1953, the gifted playmaker was considered by many to be the world’s best player during the late seventies and early eighties."
"For the captain, Zico, 1981 was the year he was confirmed as the planet’s top footballer. "
https://www.worldsoccer.com/world-soccer-latest/when-flamengo-and-zico-ruled-the-world-341585
"Zico may have been the world's best player in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Nicknamed "White Pele", he is also often referred to as the greatest Brazilian footballer never to have won a World Cup"
https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/the-best-midfielders-of-the-1980s
PLATINI
"For a period in the early 1980s, Michel Platini was arguably the best player in the world. An elegant playmaker, the Frenchman was a free-kick specialist, a deadly finisher and a wonderful passer. He claimed three consecutive Ballons d'Or in the 1980s, led France to glory at Euro 1984 and also won a series of important prizes with Juventus – including the European Cup in 1985."
https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/the-best-midfielders-of-the-1980s
Now, I'm asking you the same? why were Zico and Platini considered by many to be the world’s best player during the early eighties?
what kind of evidence would satisfy you?
You can find plenty of more formal evidence from the links from IFFHS etc. I posted above and anectodal evidence from most posters here.
Yes, I watched WC'82 and Euro 84 games.
But, the real question is this: Alive or not at that time, do you agree Zico/Platini WC/NT career pre-1986>>>>>>>Maradona's WC/NT career pre-1986?
I certainly think It's really that simple really for everyone.
Maradona is WC'86 and WC'86 is Maradona, finito, end of story.
There's no argument for Maradona in the GOAT debate without that WC'86. He's where he is primarily because of WC'86. I'd even say Napoli Serie A trophies are more like cherries on the cake.
He fell significantly short in Europe. In the 80s& early 90s, Juve, Roma, AC Milan even one-time champion Sampdoria played European Cup finals. If you knew this era well, you'd know for a Serie A champion, anything but a win in European Cup would be a failure as they were at the top of the food chain. In Napoli's case, they lost twice in the second round while their closest rival AC Milan won back-to-back finals, not good.
As for UEFA, even 2nd tier Italian teams such as Torino, Fiorentina and Roma were playing finals in UEFA Cup with a couple of all Italian finals late 80s-early 90s, so nothing special for a Serie A champion. Juve and Inter won twice in that period.
Last edited:
Spartak that put out Maradona's Napoli were a very good young team that year, a worthy semi-finalist that also eliminated Real Madrid ( including at the Bernabeu 3-1) and had several stars of the 1990 under-21/23 winners in their lineup.
Nah, I rate Maradona as the best of the top trio (against several reasons my mind disputes/qualifies it) and I would never say that is the case.
Platini was at peak level and Diego wasn't, that's all. Once Diego's peak level kicked in you wondered how you had ever compared them or held them as equals, but before the simplistic argument for Diego was greater magic vs Platini's greater efficiency. That sort of debate has always been around, no matter which football era we are in, we've just spent a decade going round in circles with it.
Lyon that eliminated Pep's City was also a good team, doesn't change the fact that for a PL giant, the most dominant PL team ever, it's a huge failure especially when it has become a standard for Premier League teams to play the UCL final.
The standard expectation from the Serie A champions in that era was at least playing the final in European Cup and for other Serie A teams to win the UEFA Cup.
Last edited:
Come on man, of course what I've meant with Puskas wasn't that he is literally forgotten, the thing it's given his stature as a player, his dominance, his titles, he should be way more regarded, praised. So in the same train of thougth if it happens to someone like Puskas, it's no that rare that sometimes can happen with Phenoms like Roby. BTW It feels nowadays it's happenning with Van Basten, quite forgotten for me too, like it happens with Roby.
Side note:
The Sivori view it's sthg that time have diluted, in many ways it's a player more similarly forgotten as you feel Baggio is than you might think. Regarding the Maradona-esque WC94 run, for me? not that close to what Maradona did, thougth he was trully great. Yet I agree that perhaps that run it's what makes you think that Sivori doesn't compare.
We'll have more recency bias towards Baggio, because Roby it's more recent and we watched him rightly filmed doing his stuff with such a style in a way we'll perceive him more modern, more current and therefore more appealing.
Yet in terms of titles, goals, importance in Italy, there isn't a gap, that if exists in pure stats terms might lean to Sivori's side (in terms of titles and ratio).
It's true that his recognition it was more within Serie A (bar the Ballon D'Or), even if he won with Argentina with one of the greatest Copa America teams ever and he gave a ran for their money Real in the 60's, that he was very close to pull out a Maradona with Napoli way before Diego. Yet your statement it's also a testament of how many decades later his stature has been diminish to "doing things in domestic football", sthg that even in a defeat at a WC Final, at least Roby, maybe won't face in such grade.
When I've talked about being till the 80's the "Gold Standard" for lots of journalims in Italy, it's sthg that it's lost, articles were made in those days using him to compare him with young guns like Platini and such.
Not at all. Italian teams made the finals twice very early in the 70s and it wasn't until that cracking Juve team emerged that they returned. Then you have another superb Milan side also making it twice in the 80s.
It wasn't a case of "Serie A champions should make the finals", so much so that no Serie A also rans made a single UEFA Cup final for 15 years until Maradona's Napoli won it. It was only after this that it became the norm.
There is no single doubt that if Diego didn't win the WC86, he wouldn't be tout as great as he is. Yet using that against him, as an argument, it's actually what cringes.
Even more, if he stayed in Argentina his whole carreer, that wasn't that much of an odd thing in those days and won the WC86, maybe he would have been considered with luck some sort of Garrincha in nowadays public eye (Mane it's quite underrated this days).
So after reading many posts here, when analyzing Diego's carreer, they way it developed, that lacked BTW some serious luck/timing that for isntance Pele/Messi had more. Coming to a conclusion where his stage in Argentina does not count that much, that he was not all that in Barcelona or that he was bad in WC82, without any sort of context, it becomes so fecking silly and so unfair that cringes quite a bit.
In fact Di Stefano was Di Stefano way before he put one foot in Europe too and he arrived at 26/27 I do not recall now (Alfredo's carreer it's one of the most me agaisnt everything in the history of the game, rarely seen that way, that fella really couldn't care less about anything and did his job a la Roy loves).
Many of the 70's and 80's SA players went to Europe to close their carreers or merely have the experience (with the additament of the rules of that period that made almost impossible to create a Galactico team with many foreigners), like Zico at 30 in Udinese, Passarella more or less that age at Fiorentina, it was another world.
Since the epicentre of Football will always be in the Metropoli, meaning Europe, the path for any South American, African, rest of the world players (even genius alike till today), it's harder for the simple reason of a longer path, that even just for being longer will be me more prone to create more obstacles.
It is what it is, so it's logical that till you don't "make it in Europe" many excellent players would not get full recognition and still might get less of it in comparison, unless he is some sort of Messi alike fella.
The same would have happened if the Epicentre in terms of exposure was in Brazil, Argentina, UY or whatever, in fact for other latin american players it's harder the path than the local boys from Brazil and Argentina. So at the end of the day, to try to demerit some of Diego's situations, achieves in his carreer in a blunt style without context, it's not right. And it's not right either to turn a blind eye to the obvious fact that such an extraordinary Genius of a player Platini was with his titles in Juve and such, would not/should not be consdidered a lot easier the BEST, while having more arguments, as the best player of the world in his best years in the 80's.
Even more, if he stayed in Argentina his whole carreer, that wasn't that much of an odd thing in those days and won the WC86, maybe he would have been considered with luck some sort of Garrincha in nowadays public eye (Mane it's quite underrated this days).
So after reading many posts here, when analyzing Diego's carreer, they way it developed, that lacked BTW some serious luck/timing that for isntance Pele/Messi had more. Coming to a conclusion where his stage in Argentina does not count that much, that he was not all that in Barcelona or that he was bad in WC82, without any sort of context, it becomes so fecking silly and so unfair that cringes quite a bit.
In fact Di Stefano was Di Stefano way before he put one foot in Europe too and he arrived at 26/27 I do not recall now (Alfredo's carreer it's one of the most me agaisnt everything in the history of the game, rarely seen that way, that fella really couldn't care less about anything and did his job a la Roy loves).
Many of the 70's and 80's SA players went to Europe to close their carreers or merely have the experience (with the additament of the rules of that period that made almost impossible to create a Galactico team with many foreigners), like Zico at 30 in Udinese, Passarella more or less that age at Fiorentina, it was another world.
Since the epicentre of Football will always be in the Metropoli, meaning Europe, the path for any South American, African, rest of the world players (even genius alike till today), it's harder for the simple reason of a longer path, that even just for being longer will be me more prone to create more obstacles.
It is what it is, so it's logical that till you don't "make it in Europe" many excellent players would not get full recognition and still might get less of it in comparison, unless he is some sort of Messi alike fella.
The same would have happened if the Epicentre in terms of exposure was in Brazil, Argentina, UY or whatever, in fact for other latin american players it's harder the path than the local boys from Brazil and Argentina. So at the end of the day, to try to demerit some of Diego's situations, achieves in his carreer in a blunt style without context, it's not right. And it's not right either to turn a blind eye to the obvious fact that such an extraordinary Genius of a player Platini was with his titles in Juve and such, would not/should not be consdidered a lot easier the BEST, while having more arguments, as the best player of the world in his best years in the 80's.
He's also a really good rapper.
hahaha, he had it all!
And now, Le Roi:
And a cool match with el Cabezon, Puskas and Alfredo, thougth more focus in Sivori:
I gave you examples of this. And mine were actually contemporary.
Read what I wrote again and then tell me what part was false, in your opinion.
A) I never said Platini and Zico were not in the argument, or that some didn't consider them to be the best. I also mentioned KHR, if you read what I said.
B) I provided a reference to something that was said at the time. Contemporary. That's the difference between what I posted, and what you posted. Apparently not so easy.
Doubtful
Yes. Both Platini and Zico had better tournaments than Maradona in 1982. But that doesn't necessarily mean they were better players, even then.
Spoken like someone who wasn't there at the time
There's no argument for anyone in the GOAT debate without a strong World Cup (at least one - let's not forget that Maradona had two). We're talking about the best player in the world in the early - mid 80s, though.
Spoken like someone who didnt see him play.
he didn't
So? Every major country had multiple teams that contested European finals
Clearly you don't know the era very well, because in the 80s, only one team other than Sacchi's Milan won the European Cup
Well there was a lot of Italian failure then.
Milan and Juve (marred by Heysel) were literally the only teams to win it in the 80s.
The UEFA Cup was WON in the 80s, and in Maradona's Italian era by Juventus Inter Milan and Napoli. That's it. 2 of their behemoths, and Napoli.
Some fair points here, from a different perspective.