Top 10 greatest players of all time

[Kwabs]

About this "week in, week out" ability, I'm pretty sure that if you ask an Argentinos Jrs, Boca Jrs, Barcelona or Napoli fan in the 80s he would say that factor was also there. We just have less TV records showing us that. As discussed before, there is a reason he was considered by many as the world's best player before winning anything of significance with either his club or NT.

Yes, this is clearly true. Maradona was a consistent player for the first 10-15 years of his career (aside from the periods blighted by injury, illness etc.). No one is gonna pretend that he was pulling up any trees at Sevilla, Newell's Old Boys, and the second time round at Boca Juniors, however.

 

[Wand of a right foot]

Not in the World Cup. I mentioned those two goals, but Maradona's overall performances in that World Cup were better than Messi's at any World Cup, even 2022. This suggests that Messi is not 'way more skilled' as the other poster suggested.

Ofcourse, Maradona’s 1986 was a tour de force that is unmatched by any player in any world cup ever. But, here is thing, I strongly believe if Scaloni or someone as capable was Argentina manager in 2010, Messi was good enough to produce a similar campaign. The football he played that season was just form another universe. 2014, he went into it not at his best.

In short, both players are pretty much equal in ability; one can argue either way. But, Messi’s longevity and greater success puts him above Maradona on the greatness scale. You're can argue Maradona did not play with as good players therefore was not as successful at club level but that was his own fault. He was a rebel that big teams weren't willing to take a chance on. If he had played longer for Barcelona, he definitely would have won more than playing for a hitherto relegation threatened Napoli side; although Napoli did strengthen later on.

About this "week in, week out" ability, I'm pretty sure that if you ask an Argentinos Jrs, Boca Jrs, Barcelona or Napoli fan in the 80s he would say that factor was also there. We just have less TV records showing us that. As discussed before, there is a reason he was considered by many as the world's best player before winning anything of significance with either his club or NT.

Ofcourse, Maradona did play a very high level week in week out just not as long as duration as Messi.

 

[Kwabs]

Ofcourse, Maradona’s 1986 was a tour de force that is unmatched by any player in any world cup ever. But, here is thing, I strongly believe if Scaloni or someone as capable was Argentina manager in 2010, Messi was good enough to produce a similar campaign.

Yeah, i think that's true. But it's speculation, we can only look at what actually happened.

The football he played that season was just form another universe. 2014, he went into it not at his best.

Fair

In short, both players are pretty much equal in ability; one can argue either way.

I agree

But, Messi’s longevity and greater success puts him above Maradona on the greatness scale.

Arguably so. I haven't actually done a list yet (defeating the point of this thread), but if I did, I would have Messi above Maradona, largely for this reason, even though I think Maradona may have been a hair more gifted.

You're can argue Maradona did not play with as good players therefore was not as successful at club level but that was his own fault.

Well it wasn't his 'fault' per se. His personality was what it was. That helped him in some ways in his career and hindered him in others.

He was a rebel that big teams weren't willing to take a chance on. If he had played longer for Barcelona, he definitely would have won more than playing for a hitherto relegation threatened Napoli side; although Napoli did strengthen later on.

Yes, but he never really gelled with Barca. He had that underdog spirit, always.

Ofcourse, Maradona did play a very high level week in week out just not as long as duration as Messi.

Agreed

 

[Red the Bear]

Ofcourse, Maradona’s 1986 was a tour de force that is unmatched by any player in any world cup ever. But, here is thing, I strongly believe if Scaloni or someone as capable was Argentina manager in 2010, Messi was good enough to produce a similar campaign. The football he played that season was just form another universe. 2014, he went into it not at his best.

In short, both players are pretty much equal in ability; one can argue either way. But, Messi’s longevity and greater success puts him above Maradona on the greatness scale. You're can argue Maradona did not play with as good players therefore was not as successful at club level but that was his own fault. He was a rebel that big teams weren't willing to take a chance on. If he had played longer for Barcelona, he definitely would have won more than playing for a hitherto relegation threatened Napoli side; although Napoli did strengthen later on.

Ofcourse, Maradona did play a very high level week in week out just not as long as duration as Messi.

I'm of the opnion that Messi of 2010 was simply not equipped mentally to pull of such a performance outside his comfort zone.

Now it's seen as a bit of footnote sandwiched between his illustrious clubs achievements and final achieving immortality with his national team but those wilderness years in my opinion installed in him the sense of leadership and carrying the burden of his team that he never had to experience beforehand due to his star studded supporting cast.

Despite all the humiliations along the way I think came out of that a better player mentally speaking.

 

[dinostar77]

Too much talk, let's grab a whisky and enjoy...
PD: That first frame used as Cover, very NBA logo alike

Great video. Brought back some memories of his time at Napoli. What a player he was. Simply magnficent. Pele, Di Stefano, Puskas, Garrincha, Matthews, Cryuff etc etc all well before my time so cant appreciate them in the same way.

Maradonna was the greatest ive ever seen. Pre internet, Maradonna was up there with Michael Jackson as ons of the most recognisable names in the world. Different world back then. Didnt matter if you followed football or not, everyone knew who Maradonna was.

 

[Kwabs]

I'm of the opnion that Messi of 2010 was simply not equipped mentally to pull of such a performance outside his comfort zone.

Now it's seen as a bit of footnote sandwiched between his illustrious clubs achievements and final achieving immortality with his national team but those wilderness years in my opinion installed in him the sense of leadership and carrying the burden of his team that he never had to experience beforehand due to his star studded supporting cast.

Despite all the humiliations along the way I think came out of that a better player mentally speaking.

I don't really like the term 'comfort zone.' It smacks too much of CR7 propaganda. Barcelona can never be a comfort zone, the demands are too great.

 

[Fobal]

You’re either missing or misrepresenting my point. The idea initially floated was that Maradona wasn't in Messi's league when it came to creating and converting chances out of thin air. If it's a statistical argument, what I shared separates the role of the team and the wider football environment, with the individual contribution of the player. What you have listed reflects Messi's brilliance and the quality of his team-mates.

If it's a technical argument, then what part of Maradona's game falls short when it came to sticking the ball in the net?

I imagine we are probably on the same page though. Although they are remarkably similar, Messi's role was more confined to the final third of the pitch. Maradona was more about both the middle and final thirds and therefore took on more of the creative and playmaking mantle from deeper areas. The stats bear this difference out. But my point is Messi could create from deeper areas, and Maradona could score in the final third. After all, the only time he plays properly as a forward was at Argentinos Juniors where he averaged around a goal-per-game. The real difference isn't so much in their attributes or levels, but in how they were used during their careers and the environment in which they had to perform.

Exactly...
...yet it's undisputable too that with Pele, Zico and Messi, even if the last two where/are more keen (and needed) to organize and create as an "enganche", their urge for the goal and maybe even the accuracy by their more assertive approach regarding scoring it's there to be seen too.

Diego even as a kid/young fella playing at some point as pure forward, no matter how deep he went to fetch the ball, while scoring galore. Always had a tendency for the final pass in situations where I struggle to see Pele, Zico or Messi shooting.

Like that assist in that friendly against Valencia, even that last pass "a la Redondo" was very Diegosque in its form and style (BTW what a finsih by Ramon Diaz, a player that should have been up there in terms of talent with many alltimers yet never looked like caring that much, his partnership with Diego as kids was sublime):

 

[Fobal]

Great video. Brought back some memories of his time at Napoli. What a player he was. Simply magnficent. Pele, Di Stefano, Puskas, Garrincha, Matthews, Cryuff etc etc all well before my time so cant appreciate them in the same way.

Maradonna was the greatest ive ever seen. Pre internet, Maradonna was up there with Michael Jackson as ons of the most recognisable names in the world. Different world back then. Didnt matter if you followed football or not, everyone knew who Maradonna was.

His charisma (and sadly his demons too) was as great as his talent; even his looks and style made him very photogenic and at last even his name was taylor made for epic chants or gol narrations. Quite a package going on.

 

[Fortitude]

Ofcourse, Maradona’s 1986 was a tour de force that is unmatched by any player in any world cup ever. But, here is thing, I strongly believe if Scaloni or someone as capable was Argentina manager in 2010, Messi was good enough to produce a similar campaign. The football he played that season was just form another universe. 2014, he went into it not at his best.

In short, both players are pretty much equal in ability; one can argue either way. But, Messi’s longevity and greater success puts him above Maradona on the greatness scale. You're can argue Maradona did not play with as good players therefore was not as successful at club level but that was his own fault. He was a rebel that big teams weren't willing to take a chance on. If he had played longer for Barcelona, he definitely would have won more than playing for a hitherto relegation threatened Napoli side; although Napoli did strengthen later on.

Ofcourse, Maradona did play a very high level week in week out just not as long as duration as Messi.

I think this needs addressing as it’s routinely used as a 1up for both Messi and C.Ronaldo without context, but without context, it doesn’t have the value people seem to think it does.

If you notice - or most likely have never considered - there are no attacking superstars or even all-timers from the 80’s straight through to the 2010’s who can claim an uninterrupted decade of brilliance, this, bearing in mind you were cooked and diminished by early 30’s as far as peak goes, and the slope thereafter was brutal.

The conditions the game is now played in, alongside massive advancements in sports science are the champion here and both modern greats, as well as the likes of Lewandowski, Benzema, Salah and so forth are the benefactors. These are not magical human beings, they are players who have never had to contend with tackles from behind, or even particularly brutal treatment; certainly nothing like the treatment that broke Gullit, Van Basten, Maradona, Zico or the misfortune that did Ronaldo in.

I don’t think there’s a single all-timer in that period who had the fortune of organic demise; even Platini was mentally broken after Heysel, so “longevity” doesn’t carry stock when the reasons and conditions for it are entirely different; someone as skilful as Messi would be lucky to remain intact beyond 29 in a different era, or at least not be seriously diminished, like all star attackers of that era became.

Thinking about it, Romario is one of few anomalies, and one might argue he took his foot off the pedal well before other all-timers did and coasted in weaker leagues, which preserved him.

 

[dinostar77]

Just highlights of Brazilian Ronaldo at Inter. It's crazy to think, he has 2 x balon d'or, 15 World Cup goals and 2 x World Cup trophy wins, yet remains one of the biggest "what if's" in football.

Hands down the greatest striker I have seen.

 

[Fobal]

I think this needs addressing as it’s routinely used as a 1up for both Messi and C.Ronaldo without context, but without context, it doesn’t have the value people seem to think it does.

If you notice - or most likely have never considered - there are no attacking superstars or even all-timers from the 80’s straight through to the 2010’s who can claim an uninterrupted decade of brilliance, this, bearing in mind you were cooked and diminished by early 30’s as far as peak goes, and the slope thereafter was brutal.

The conditions the game is now played in, alongside massive advancements in sports science are the champion here and both modern greats, as well as the likes of Lewandowski, Benzema, Salah and so forth are the benefactors. These are not magical human beings, they are players who have never had to contend with tackles from behind, or even particularly brutal treatment; certainly nothing like the treatment that broke Gullit, Van Basten, Maradona, Zico or the misfortune that did Ronaldo in.

I don’t think there’s a single all-timer in that period who had the fortune of organic demise; even Platini was mentally broken after Heysel, so “longevity” doesn’t carry stock when the reasons and conditions for it are entirely different; someone as skilful as Messi would be lucky to remain intact beyond 29 in a different era, or at least not be seriously diminished, like all star attackers of that era became.

Thinking about it, Romario is one of few anomalies, and one might argue he took his foot off the pedal well before other all-timers did and coasted in weaker leagues, which preserved him.

Di Stefano, being the freak he was, retired from football at 40, in fact for most people he created his legacy when he arrived at Real when he already had 26/27 years old.
At times even as regarded he still is, time and the lack of WC hasn't been fair to his legacy.

 

[Bobski]

But Bierhoff scored more goals that season and Ronaldo only scored 25 league goal overall!!!

Batistuta, Baggio, Del Piero, Inzaghi, Montella, Signori, Weah, Totti, Crespo, Chiesa, Balbo, Boksic, Kluivert, Di Vaio, Vieri, Salas, Recoba, Edmundo, Mancini that is just some of the other strikers who were playing in Serie A that year. There might be more top quality strikers there than in the current world game total, and they were spread throughout the league. Messi and Ronaldo, and also guys like Zlatan and Lewandowski in other league had a great deal of what is effectively stat padding against cannon fodder to pimp their stats out.

 

[Fortitude]

Di Stefano, being the freak he was, retired from football at 40, in fact for most people he created his legacy when he arrived at Real when he already had 26/27 years old.
At times even as regarded he still is, time and the lack of WC hasn't been fair to his legacy.

I stated the 80’s onward because of the incremental modernisation of the game. The 50’s and 60’s have plenty of players with runs of seasons more comparable to what we see now. Matthews, Puskas, Gento, Di Stefano, Pele, Eusebio, Charlton and many others. The game turned particularly nasty and cynical as a whole in the 80’s and the mega runs of season after season after season died a death with it.

 

[dinostar77]

Di Stefano, being the freak he was, retired from football at 40, in fact for most people he created his legacy when he arrived at Real when he already had 26/27 years old.
At times even as regarded he still is, time and the lack of WC hasn't been fair to his legacy.

Its why this conversation is always skewed towards the generation in which you grew up and watched football.

For some, its Stanley Matthews, Di Stefano, Puskas etc

For others its Pele, Best, Eusebio etc

For others Cryuff, Muller, Beckenbauer, etc

For others Maradonna, Platini, Zico, VanBasten etc

So on and so forth. The era's simply cant be compared, far too many differences in the eveolution on and off the field over time.

Still fun though.

 

[Fobal]

I stated the 80’s onward because of the incremental modernisation of the game. The 50’s and 60’s have plenty of players with runs of seasons more comparable to what we see now. Matthews, Puskas, Gento, Di Stefano, Pele, Eusebio, Charlton and many others. The game turned particularly nasty and cynical as a whole in the 80’s and the mega runs of season after season after season died a death with it.

I wasn't correcting you man, I was just mentioning the lad.

PD: the game was even more nasty the further in the past we go, the WC30 Final would have looked batshit crazy for nowadays standards.
The thing that brought the 70s and 80s was more fitness in general, more knowledge about rivals, more finesse in general for the majority of players, better pitches, balls, equipment, etc...the "modernization" you were talking about. Of course these aspects, while still manteining the harsh fouls made quite a combo. In other words in the past (till the 80s and more so till the 60s) the harsh foruls were off the charts, yet the nuance of teams still being hard and adding a more tactical fouling approach, than let's break those guys in two, created the combo mentioned just before.

 

[Fobal]

Its why this conversation is always skewed towards the generation in which you grew up and watched football.

For some, its Stanley Matthews, Di Stefano, Puskas etc

For others its Pele, Best, Eusebio etc

For others Cryuff, Muller, Beckenbauer, etc

For others Maradonna, Platini, Zico, VanBasten etc

So on and so forth. The era's simply cant be compared, far too many differences in the eveolution on and off the field over time.

Still fun though.

Yes of course

Yet I was talking more about the man himself, that he was quite, special specimen the bald lad was. Not just as an athlete, yet his drive and almost unbothered approach that he had to any sort of challenge since he started, to his last day in the pitch. I think these aspcts are constantly overlooked with him.

 

[Fortitude]

I wasn't correcting you man, I was just mentioning the lad.

PD: the game was even more nasty the further in the past we go, the WC30 Final would have looked batshit crazy for nowadays standards.
The thing that brought the 70s and 80s was more fitness in general, more knowledge about rivals, more finesse in general for the majority of players, better pitches, balls, equipment, etc...the "modernization" you were talking about. Of course these aspects, while still manteining the harsh fouls made quite a combo. In other words in the past (till the 80s and more so till the 60s) the harsh foruls were off the charts, yet the nuance of teams still being hard and adding a more tactical fouling approach, than let's break those guys in two, created the combo mentioned just before.

Was just saying the why; organised systematic fouling, the value of absolute cynicism to close out league titles, man-marking intended to take out your opponent, not play the game. The culmination being World Cup ‘90, where the rules of the game actually had to be changed. These are the modernisations; the open, free-flowing nature of the 60’s and 70’s got replaced with more staccato games dotted with moments of brilliance, but the marker for the ‘80’s is an era where the greats were mostly broken by fouls and injuries.

 

[Wand of a right foot]

I think this needs addressing as it’s routinely used as a 1up for both Messi and C.Ronaldo without context, but without context, it doesn’t have the value people seem to think it does.

If you notice - or most likely have never considered - there are no attacking superstars or even all-timers from the 80’s straight through to the 2010’s who can claim an uninterrupted decade of brilliance, this, bearing in mind you were cooked and diminished by early 30’s as far as peak goes, and the slope thereafter was brutal.

The conditions the game is now played in, alongside massive advancements in sports science are the champion here and both modern greats, as well as the likes of Lewandowski, Benzema, Salah and so forth are the benefactors. These are not magical human beings, they are players who have never had to contend with tackles from behind, or even particularly brutal treatment; certainly nothing like the treatment that broke Gullit, Van Basten, Maradona, Zico or the misfortune that did Ronaldo in.

I don’t think there’s a single all-timer in that period who had the fortune of organic demise; even Platini was mentally broken after Heysel, so “longevity” doesn’t carry stock when the reasons and conditions for it are entirely different; someone as skilful as Messi would be lucky to remain intact beyond 29 in a different era, or at least not be seriously diminished, like all star attackers of that era became.

Thinking about it, Romario is one of few anomalies, and one might argue he took his foot off the pedal well before other all-timers did and coasted in weaker leagues, which preserved him.

I get you're point but Maradona and Ronaldo9 would not have had longer careers regardless of the era mainly due to lifestyle. Maradona's career did not end prematurely due to injury-ridden years; rather it was drugs and mafia. Ronaldo's was a freak injury; the shimmies on a heavy upper body killed his knees.

Of all the players you mentioned, only Maradona is comparable to Messi. The rest are far inferior footballers regardless of longevity.

But Bierhoff scored more goals that season and Ronaldo only scored 25 league goal overall!!!

Batistuta, Baggio, Del Piero, Inzaghi, Montella, Signori, Weah, Totti, Crespo, Chiesa, Balbo, Boksic, Kluivert, Di Vaio, Vieri, Salas, Recoba, Edmundo, Mancini that is just some of the other strikers who were playing in Serie A that year. There might be more top quality strikers there than in the current world game total, and they were spread throughout the league. Messi and Ronaldo, and also guys like Zlatan and Lewandowski in other league had a great deal of what is effectively stat padding against cannon fodder to pimp their stats out.

1. Defending is better now in terms of organisation, counterpressing, athleticism than it was in the 90s although with time physicality has reduced.

2. Messi isn’t a striker and certainly not just about goals despite being a great goalscorer.

 

[Fortitude]

I get you're point but Maradona and Ronaldo9 would not have had longer careers regardless of the era mainly due to lifestyle. Maradona's career did not end prematurely due to injury-ridden years; rather it was drugs and mafia. Ronaldo's was a freak injury; the shimmies on a heavy upper body killed his knees.

Of all the players you mentioned, only Maradona is comparable to Messi. The rest are far inferior footballers regardless of longevity.

The fundamental point is that the stars of the 80's almost all fell to injuries, and Maradona:



Not for the lack of trying. Very fortunate to go on to even be able to play as he did after that; it's a lot of luck and good fortune that he did. Another time and that's the end of yet another talent of that era. The treatment dished out in the 80's is on another level to anything seen since and it's a vital component in assessing longevity for the time.

There's not much point comparing the longevity we see now with an era where it simply wasn't permitted outside of good fortune.

 

[Demyanenko_square_jaw]

The odd thing about the '80s defensiveness and brutality was the amount of good attacking creative players it produced despite that. It wasn't just Maradona/Zico/Platini being way ahead of their time and then a bunch of cloggers and box-to-box types...They were the best overall, but the next level down had a lot of elite talent in it too.

 

[Fobal]

The odd thing about the '80s defensiveness and brutality was the amount of good attacking creative players it produced despite that. It wasn't just Maradona/Zico/Platini being way ahead of their time and then a bunch of cloggers and box-to-box types...They were the best overall, but the next level down had a lot of elite talent in it too.

It can be said that every period has some role that gets massive, in the 80's the 10/offensive mid role was stacked.

 

[Wand of a right foot]

The fundamental point is that the stars of the 80's almost all fell to injuries, and Maradona:



Not for the lack of trying. Very fortunate to go on to even be able to play as he did after that; it's a lot of luck and good fortune that he did. Another time and that's the end of yet another talent of that era. The treatment dished out in the 80's is on another level to anything seen since and it's a vital component in assessing longevity for the time.

There's not much point comparing the longevity we see now with an era where it simply wasn't permitted outside of good fortune.

Not refusing your point but the reason specifically behind Maradona's lack of longevity (comparing to Messi) was his lack of professionalism not injuries. The guy barely trained in the late 80s. Drugs and alcohol did not help either.

 

[Zico1982]

...you could also bring the argument, that defensive players and tactics was not as developed as the attacking game at the time. The attacking plays of the 80s looks way better than the defensive plays.

 

[Stocar]

The odd thing about the '80s defensiveness and brutality was the amount of good attacking creative players it produced despite that. It wasn't just Maradona/Zico/Platini being way ahead of their time and then a bunch of cloggers and box-to-box types...They were the best overall, but the next level down had a lot of elite talent in it too.

It's not odd at all, just look at the pace of the game and defensive organization. So much space and time on the ball compared to today, in many ways it was better than today for talented creative types. The amount of freedom more than makes up for (extremely exaggerated in this discussion) physicality and quality of pitches.

Also, the injuries argument is very exaggerated. In 90s Serie A, there wasn't only R. Baggio as an example of the player magician. There were the likes of Mancini, Zola, Del Piero, and many other players of similar type who had long and successful careers.

Now, I didn't watch football in the 80's and I don't like to speak about things I didn't witness directly. But the argument that career changing (or ending) injuries were much more frequent is of the kind that can and needs to be substantiatied with numbers - anecdotal examples don't mean much.

And what about the injuries today that happen these days because of the greater intensity of the game and more matches played than ever? This has also become the problem in basketball - it seems that there are more long terms injuries today than in the times when the more physical defense was allowed. The speed of play, space that needs to be covered in defense, sudden changes of direction - all this is taxing, and one day ligaments give out.

In the end, Messi's and Ronaldo's achievements and longevity speak for themselves.When it comes to how Maradona would look like in today's football, I think career wise he would be closer to Ronaldinho and Neymar than to Messi. Magical and supremely talented players, but without Messi's consistency, level of productivity, and resilience.

 

[Demyanenko_square_jaw]

It's not odd at all, just look at the pace of the game and defensive organization. So much space and time on the ball compared to today, in many ways it was better than today for talented creative types. The amount of freedom more than makes up for (extremely exaggerated in this discussion) physicality and quality of pitches.

Also, the injuries argument is very exaggerated. In 90s Serie A, there wasn't only R. Baggio as an example of the player magician. There were the likes of Mancini, Zola, Del Piero, and many other players of similar type who had long and successful careers.

Now, I didn't watch football in the 80's and I don't like to speak about things I didn't witness directly. But the argument that career changing (or ending) injuries were much more frequent is of the kind that can and needs to be substantiatied with numbers - anecdotal examples don't mean much.

And what about the injuries today that happen these days because of the greater intensity of the game and more matches played than ever? This has also become the problem in basketball - it seems that there are more long terms injuries today than in the times when the more physical defense was allowed. The speed of play, space that needs to be covered in defense, sudden changes of direction - all this is taxing, and one day ligaments give out.

In the end, Messi's and Ronaldo's achievements and longevity speak for themselves.When it comes to how Maradona would look like in today's football, I think career wise he would be closer to Ronaldinho and Neymar than to Messi. Magical and supremely talented players, but without Messi's consistency, level of productivity, and resilience.

Sounds like you just want to downplay the factors that might have made it tougher for creative types, and emphasise the ones that suited them. The overall conditions of '80s football weren't exactly obvious for creative players to thrive to the extent that they did. And quite a lot didn't, especially the more metronomic dispatcher types....and why was that? because the "space and time" thing (as it differs from era to era) is more nuanced in terms of aspects that might hinder/help creative players, despite often being used as a lazy throwaway phrase to almost completely dismiss all football older than 15-20 years ago.

 

[Stocar]

Sounds like you just want to downplay the factors that might have made it tougher for creative types, and emphasise the ones that suited them. The overall conditions of '80s football weren't exactly obvious for creative players to thrive to the extent that they did. And quite a lot didn't, especially the more metronomic dispatcher types....and why was that? because the "space and time" thing (as it differs from era to era) is more nuanced in terms of aspects that might hinder/help creative players, despite often being used as a lazy throwaway phrase to almost completely dismiss all football older than 15-20 years ago.

I'm not completely dismissing it, in fact in many respects I prefer the football of past eras. But despite the mythology, the overall quality simply isn't there. It's all slower, less athletic, and less organized.

That's why classic creative playmakers and players with flair were the real stars, even if their diet sometimes prominently featured cigarettes and alcohol. That's also why, as you have noted, metronomic dispatcher types weren't as important as today - ability to control the pace of the game and manage to keep the ball when pressed was not as important as today.

I think the real dismissiveness comes from those who instantly diminish achievements of contemporary players, because apparently everything is easier nowadays. Nothing could be further from truth.

 

[Krakenzero]

IMO the main difference between the "nostalgia" bunch and the "recency" bunch is that the former group actually got to see both eras in order to compare. That way when they say something like "the style of play affected some kind of players significantly more due to injuries, the pitches' conditions, etc." at least they seem to know what are they talking about, instead of talking about an era they didn't witness.

Anyway, the exercise of comparing between eras become eventually pointless anyway as other posters have previously stated.

 

[Fobal]

It's not odd at all, just look at the pace of the game and defensive organization. So much space and time on the ball compared to today, in many ways it was better than today for talented creative types. The amount of freedom more than makes up for (extremely exaggerated in this discussion) physicality and quality of pitches.

Also, the injuries argument is very exaggerated. In 90s Serie A, there wasn't only R. Baggio as an example of the player magician. There were the likes of Mancini, Zola, Del Piero, and many other players of similar type who had long and successful careers.

Now, I didn't watch football in the 80's and I don't like to speak about things I didn't witness directly. But the argument that career changing (or ending) injuries were much more frequent is of the kind that can and needs to be substantiatied with numbers - anecdotal examples don't mean much.

And what about the injuries today that happen these days because of the greater intensity of the game and more matches played than ever? This has also become the problem in basketball - it seems that there are more long terms injuries today than in the times when the more physical defense was allowed. The speed of play, space that needs to be covered in defense, sudden changes of direction - all this is taxing, and one day ligaments give out.

In the end, Messi's and Ronaldo's achievements and longevity speak for themselves.When it comes to how Maradona would look like in today's football, I think career wise he would be closer to Ronaldinho and Neymar than to Messi. Magical and supremely talented players, but without Messi's consistency, level of productivity, and resilience.

The context of Diego and his carreer is vastly different and even a party boy, his approach to the game in the way he played and his drive it's vastly different to the two Brazie Magicians.

What is comparable to those, are his titles, stats, where all three pale in comparison with Lionel.

His consistency was like it was pointed out, quite longer than what people tend to concede when they reduce him to WC86 and 4 years in Napoli and in many ways people do not get that Ronaldinho also have a quite larger carreer than he is credited for.

Finally like it happened in some post above, when it was said more or less that Diego was quite inferior to Messi regarding pulling out a rabbit out of nowhere or producing for his team, that it's simply not true and perhaps his biggest atribute as a player, was being perhaps the most unpredictable player from those genius alike with off the charts ability combine, while still being extremely assertive. Zico was also in such realm, with a bit less of athletism, power and ability. Zico it's Messi's father BTW more than Diego is.