That's not really the case IMO. Obviously, not as natural as Ronaldinho/Luis Ronaldo, and at times it was like you said, but very often, it gave him an advantage. Case in question, the UCL final against Chelsea, when he used tricks to make Essien look like a fool multiple times a fool and thus creating good chances for United (with Essien's position in that match being essentially to follow Cristiano everywhere).
Who in your opinion is the Greatest player of all time
- Thread starter FriedClams
- Start date
-
The World Cup 2026 Forum is now open.
Ofcourse Ronaldinho was very skillful but does not make him better than Messi. There is a reason why Messi scored so many solo goals and assisted so many after a great dribble. Efficiency. Tricks while great to watch are not as efficient as a simple drop of the shoulder to beat your opponent. Messi never needed those flicks and tricks.
As for Cristiano, i totally agree with everything. Most of the skills he did outside of stepovers were pointless.
No. Essien was a make shift right back rather than a shadow marker of Cristiano.
Cristiano's only effective trick was stepovers. Every other trick was really pointless.
Ronaldinho already stated back then that Messi can do all the tricks than he can but doesn't feel the need to. And Ronaldinho essentially said a 18 year old Messi was better than him when he received his Ballon d'or.
I think his stepovers are mostly pointless to be fair. His real useful trick is his chop.
For stepovers, R9's were insane and extremely effective
Cristiano is a great dribbler closer to the rival's area where he can do a play and in the second move (at times requires more than one to create an opening) he slashes a shot. He is fecking extraordinary in those situations.
Always would be more difficult for him to have the balance, visión and control other goat alike fellas had if pursuing an slalom, go througth tighter spaces, to actually be more aware of his surroundings and capable of passing in the move at high pace while dribbling, etc. In such scenarios he'll struggle and he always, even in his younger days, was a tad more stiff than the typical efforless dribbler, since his 30s obvioulsy a lot more.
in any case the main issue against his dribbling ability, it's not that he wasn't a great dribbler, it's that he wants too bad to be perceive as such and almost eveytime I watch a vid that it's trying to make him look like the ultimate dribbler, flamboyant player out there it just cringes, the effort to try to look like that is more evident than an intrinsic effortless ability.
Then there is another subject that goes beyond how it looks, how effortless and such, that leaving Cris aside, even extraordinary gifted players go beyond the line of entertaining entering the annoying zone.
You can be Ney, Ronaldinho, Djalminha or whomever, unndeniable talent, but if you look, pass and later move your head like making a no look pass WTF...if you even do it properly, but to a lad two metres behind you, come on!. If you make a feint, the rival goes the other way and then you stop, wait for him and doing it again, with acres of space that you won and never took advantage, that's annoying and some excuses are: the player running out of gas, the player no matter how gifted, lost a tad of balance and has to accomodate himself again (this is pretty common and that ultimate balance it's sthg Pele, Zico, Maradona and Messi had in spades), the player has lost the awarness of his surroundings or wants to gain some time to make his team breath, or intentionally trying to wind up a rival to get him sent off or such.
If not? Doing it on purpose? Stops being entertaining to be silly. Not even that enjoyable at all.
Last edited:
Because Ronaldo played as left winger in that match. Essien was known to be used as right back in those situations, but Ronaldo very much destroyed him.
Stepovers were highly effective, I agree (and yes, in that match it was mostly stepovers). His other big trick was the usage of his heel either to pass to the left back, or to create a shoot for himself which he highly utilized over his career. Of course, he also used lots of other tricks which were more for show rather than anything else.
I meant the even younger version of Cristiano. 07/08 was his breakthorugh season if you ask me. The ideal blend between the trickster with no end product and the ruthless scoring machine he became towards the latter stages of his career. At that point, he had already cut most of the pointless showboating from his game and focused on his step overs, his trademark chop and body feints.
Don't get me wrong, Messi is #1 for me as well. As for efficiency part: I agree when we talk about telegraphed tricks but Ronaldinho's moves were so natural that they were more reminiscent of footwork than what people call skill moves. If you don't even have to focus on doing an elastico because the movement is as easy for you as "normal" close control, it is extremely efficient. Especially if you can just change your mind halfway through the trick when you see that the opponent didn't fall for it.
But I see where you are coming from and I agree in case of certain skill moves. E. g. I don't see any advantage in using a rabona cross. But stuff like the elastico, la croqueta, chops, the Cruyff turn, Zidane's roulette, step overs, in Neymar's case even the rainbow flick, etc. can definitely be efficient and allow you to go past players in situations in which ordinary body feints won't yield any results.
Maradona, no question for me.
The thing with stats like this is that they're historically meaningless. No one was even counting assists 20-30 years ago, let alone "big chances" whatever the fck that means.
And I hate the baseballification of football/soccer
Out of curiosity, what makes Maradona greater than Messi?
Asking this, cause my knowledge of Maradona, is mostly on reading about him, compilation of his highlights and watching some oh his trademark matches. But I didn't experience Maradona same way as Messi or Ronaldo (watching hundreds of games of them).
Saying that, from everything I have seen, Messi looks to me like a better version of Maradona. Pretty much as good as Maradona at things Maradona was great (passing, dribbling and free kicks), but much better at end-product and trophies while having effectively twice as much longevity.
Talking about goals itself (I know that is not the best way of comparing two players from different eras, so just doing for fun), from 2009-2010 to 2014-2015, Messi scored more goals than Maradona did on his entire career.
If you want to talk about a player who transcended his circumstances, carried a national team that had no right to win, and did it in the toughest conditions imaginable? That's Maradona in '86, full stop. Diego is a man who won a World Cup essentially by himself with a squad of journeymen, which neither of these two has come remotely close to replicating. Ronaldo animating from the touchline in a trackie is not exactly in the same zipcode.
When i watch the best pierces of play of Maradona it's almost identical to Messi with the main difference being Maradona did it with more flair while Messi does it with effortless simplicity.
I think with Maradona it's probably his influence and a leadership qualities. I wasn't around to watch Maradona at that age, but a critique i hear of people who watched him was that longevity aside even at his peak yeaea he wasn't as consistent from match to match as Messi or Pelé was
But just his highlights from 1986 wc are ludicrous. Best WC performance by a distance. Maradona has his perfect big fish in a small pond narrative. Despite being even shorter than Messi his goals were more varied and he had more acrobatic goals.
The Maradona preference is largely generational and contextual. People who watched him live will tell you no player has ever made them feel what he made them feel, i.e. there was an electricity to him that stats and highlights don't fully capture.
Messi might have the better CV on paper, sure, but Diego was operating in an era where defenders could half-cripple you and get away with it, at clubs that were never built around him, in the most punishing league on earth, and he was still the best player alive by a distance. Serie A in the 80s doesn't get nearly enough credit for how ferociously competitive it was, the undisputed centre of world football, where the title winners form a list that reads like a whoiswho of European royalty. He took Napoli and won it twice. That's like Bournemouth winning the PL/
Messi's numbers are better because Messi played in a different game, surrounded by better players, in a system designed around his strengths, with medical support and sports science that Maradona never had access to. Take Messi out of that golden Barca generation and they're still winning things (i.e. Spain won 2 Euros and a WC with largely the same Barca core). Take Maradona out of that Napoli side and they're mid-table.
And 1986 just ends the conversation. That wasn't a footballer playing well in a tournament, that was one man bending an entire competition to his will with teammates who were, with respect, largely average. Messi finally won his World Cup with arguably the best squad Argentina has assembled in forty years. Maradona won his with a pub team and sheer force of personality.
The reason why he is (slightly) greater in my eyes is that he did more with less - I spoke before about him winning major prizes without great teammates. Napoli had never won the league or a European trophy before he got there, and after he left, they didn't win the league again for 30 years, and they're still waiting for another European trophy. Also, he did it in an era when he had to face harsh punishment (but as I said before, I understand the flipside argument that today's football is much more professional).
Further, I think he was a bit more of an artist in terms of doing things that you wouldn't expect. He was a bit more flamboyant in his play (I've seen arguments in the thread comparing the flamboyance of Ronaldinho and the skill of Messi, and this is a similar thing, though the difference is less extreme). All of these things re skill are subjective, though.
I think there are people that prefer Maradona's personality - he was much more rebellious and assertive, and therefore a better leader in certain cases. Messi improved as a leader as he went through his career, but he was initially very quiet and introverted. That didn't matter at Barca, where he was constantly surrounded by elite teammates and coaches, but it was more of a problem for Argentina, where he didn't necessarily have that.
As men, there are pluses and minuses to both of them. I don't think Maradona would ever go to the White House and shake Donald Trump's hand, but then I don't think Messi would take cocaine and hang out with mobsters (if you don't count American politicians - after all, they do a lot of killing).
However, for all his terrible flaws, Maradona just has more of a folk-hero image, because he positioned himself as the people's champion, whereas people like Messi (and Pele as well, he also has this problem) are seen as more corporate figures.
Most of what I said above has nothing to do with actual football, but I think the social comparisons are interesting. Strictly on football, I think Maradona's best argument is the 1986 World Cup. For me, the World Cup is by far the biggest and most important prize in the sport, and I don't think Messi ever reached Diego's level in that tournament.
That's an apt comparison, given that the Renaissance was, philosophically speaking, one of the poorest periods in European history, despite being tremendously glamorized. Better yet, I would say he was football's Voltaire.
Now, who was our medieval man? Dunga?
Mauro Silva is up there.
Yeah. Some people love to argue in the abstract when a mere check of reality would prove their thesis wrong; modern-day Zenos.
Ronaldinho's and Neymar's quick reactions combined with their creativity were what made them so hard to deal with — there are videos of players who faced the latter describing him as the hardest to mark (including some who also faced Messi) exactly for that reason; but, sure, that was nothing more than showboating that slowed everything down.
They mix Messi superior ball-carrying with "doing everything they do, but more directly". Messi isn't direct in situations that envolves dribbling in tight spaces from stationary position; you'd likely need the ability to teletransporting you and the ball to do that. The difference is that he can only rely on shoulder drops in that kind of situations, which IS NOT quicker than elusive ball manipulation. Have you ever watched futsal, where extremely quick reactions are required in basically all actions? Do the players abuse of elusive footwork or are they fine with mere shoulder drops?
Messi was much better than Ronaldinho at carrying the ball at high speed (with which he manages to fluidly connect his accurate finishing and penetrating passes near the box, making his dribbling seem even more lethal), while also very good at one-vs-ones and low-pace dribbling in extremely tight spaces, and his close control was more consistent than Neymar's. But putting it that way probably doesn't make him look as superior as they wish.
Also, one of Ronaldinho's most distinctive abilities was his capacity to pull off one-touch passes, or passes without putting the ball down, from any point in the attacking half and from any body position relative to the goal. But, again, mere flamboyance; putting the ball down, turning on your marker, finding the runner, and only then executing the pass is obviously better.
Anything "unusual" are put at the same level of doing elasticos at the corner flag or backawards sombreros. I hope it's merely (poor) rhetoric.
I do not know if by this you mean also preffering Cristiano to Diego, if that's teh case? I think that's different taste all together. I cannot imagine anyone watching Diego preffering Cristiano, but that's my taste. Even if I can point certain aspects I redeem facts of why I find this or that a certain player does it better than other.
I always thought Ronaldinho's passing (those one touch passes, etc) was the most aesthetically pleasing and challenging part about his style. Beautiful stuff. His dribbling/tricks were usually effective as well, but as fobal has sort of said, it wasn't always that aesthetically appealing. Particularly the exaggerated no look passes or double stepovers with legs flailing all over the place. I've never thought anyone made that move look good, even when it worked, not even R9.
Let's not go to the over the top with the hiperbole (same happens with Napoli), that's not true at all, wasn't a stellar squad in terms of names, in fact some subs were more gifted than others than played (if the entire would have witness Bochini, what a freak of a player). Yet that was a great team playing as such, this enhaced Maradona's presence and it works both ways. Not everytime putting name beside name works as a team, from Argentina 82, to Brazil 06, France 02, Argentina 02 and so on. In fact also TIMING and preparation within the WC makes some teams click like never before and at times only in that short periodf of time.
There is no need to such hiperbole to actually see Diego's perfomance in that Cup like sthg. extraordinary, at times beyond that. And finally if that wasn't a proper team, they would not survived (like it happened in 82) the whole shennanigans against Diego that still existed: over the top fouls, extreme tactical fouling, etc. That team was prepared to aid him and play as such to handle those situations in a better way than the 82 squad with Fillol, Kempes, Passarella, Ardiles, Diaz, Bertoni and cia (leaving extra field situations, fitness that hampered that side).
We all know that it wasn't a team with Di Stefano, Sivori, or any huge Argie star beside him, but that doesn't nake that team a bunch of tosers, the onoly NT Diego was closed to that, and more because of Bilardo's stubbrness of calling players past their prime, not renovating, was the 90 side, that team onloy played as prope team against Italy (damn the timing fvcked the Tanos) and at leasta s proper solid defensive unit the final, the rest? it was as cohesive and predictable (in the wrong way) as the Argie Economy
Plus Messi has his fair share of sombreros, pisadas, nutmeggs, croquetas, 360s, etc etc...at times people talk about Messi like if he was some sort of Piojo Lopez running full pace on a staright line hiytting the Ads banners. Even today he is able to dribble at turtle pace. Anyway at times this therad goes back to 2010 and some silly remarks made about him in those days
Right, let's do this properly.
This is the Argentina 1986 World Cup winning squad.
Goalkeepers:
- Nery Pumpido – River Plate. Solid domestic keeper, never remotely top tier in Europe
- Islas – Independiente. Never left Argentina
- Zelada – Atlético Madrid (fringe squad player)
- José Luis Brown – Estudiantes. One cap wonder at a World Cup, basically a journeyman
- Oscar Ruggeri – River Plate. Decent defender, spent his career in Argentina and Spain's mid-table
- Daniel Passarella – Fiorentina. Genuinely good player, but past his peak by 86 and barely featured due to illness
- Néstor Clausen – Ferro Carril Oeste. Never left Argentina
- José Luis Cuciuffo – Vélez Sársfield. Never left Argentina
- Oscar Garré – Atlético Madrid. Fringe squad player
- Sergio Batista – Argentinos Juniors. Workmanlike midfielder, entire career in Argentina
- Ricardo Bochini – Independiente. Arguably more gifted than half the players who did play, but entire career in Argentina, never got a European stage
- Claudio Borghi – Argentinos Juniors. Talented, went nowhere near his potential in Europe
- Jorge Burruchaga – Nantes. Scored the winner in the final, genuinely good player, but Nantes
- Héctor Enrique – River Plate. Competent, anonymous
- Ricardo Giusti – Independiente. Never played in Europe
- Julio Olarticoechea – Gimnasia. Career South American journeyman
- Carlos Tapia – Boca Juniors. Never left Argentina
- Marcelo Trobbiani – Independiente. Came on in the final for one minute, entire career in Argentina
- Sergio Almirón – Newell's Old Boys. Never made a dent in Europe
- Jorge Valdano – Real Madrid. The one legitimate star, and he was the support act
- Pedro Pasculli – Lecce. Won a World Cup playing for a newly promoted Serie A side, then disappeared
It's strange because you often talk about moments players, and the player who arguably provided me with the greatest moment in football (outside of the ones related to Manchester United in a positive way) was of course Gerrard and his infamous slip. So, in a way, he's the world's greatest moments player.
And while we're at it, the 1990 squad that reached the final under Diego's leadership:
Goalkeepers:
- Goycochea – Millonarios in Colombia. A third-choice keeper who became a legend purely because of that tournament
- Islas – Independiente again
- Nery Pompido -- got injured
- Ruggeri – still around, aging
- Sensini – Udinese. Decent, never more than solid
- Monzón – San Lorenzo. First player ever sent off in a World Cup final
- Basualdo – Vélez, then mid-table Spain
- Batista – still there, winding down
- Burruchaga – still at Nantes
- Troglio – Lazio. Squad player
- Calderón – San Lorenzo
- Simón – Boca, never left
- Caniggia – Atalanta. Very talented but not yet the finished article
- Dezotti – Cremonese. Got sent off in the final playing for a newly promoted Serie A side
If anything, going through it player by player makes you realise the pub team line actually undersells it. What Maradona did with that collection of players isn't just the greatest individual tournament performance in history, it's arguably the greatest sustained act of one-man elevation the sport has ever seen.
My man, just playing in Europe does not make you undeniable great or capable of playing in a WC, less in the 80s or even 90s..in any case that was a bad team
Please refrain from using AI in my threads
Yeah. Savicevic is my favorite dribbler; he had similar elusiveness and trickery to Ronaldinho and Neymar, but with less of the, in fact, over the top stuff. His body language/mechanics were also much more charming.
The 86 team wasn't a Pub team for christ sake, it wasn't stellar, yet not a pub team and their perfomances were great as such, did you actually watch them play?
Talking about Savicevic, like mentioned before with Puskas not being here is quite a crime, many East Euro players are extremely and undervalued.
What if Argentina is just one giant pub? Makes you think...
At times it was, more like a Disco, in my youth BA trully never sleep
The 90's final run was more impressive, but as has been said, Europe wasn't the be-all end-all even in that year. The Champions League era has solidified it as the money gap became too big for South American players not to move if there was a chance to do so.
All of this is to say Diego's achievements were impressive, and he as a footballer is no doubt the second greatest of all time behind Leo in my opinion, it is a distance to my personal 3rd choice Cruyff, 4th Pele and then Cristiano a ways from him.
All of this is to say Diego's achievements were impressive, and he as a footballer is no doubt the second greatest of all time behind Leo in my opinion, it is a distance to my personal 3rd choice Cruyff, 4th Pele and then Cristiano a ways from him.
That guy obviously knows little about the climate of football at the time and just how many very good to even great players ended up playing their whole careers out in their own domestic league or a mid-table team somewhere.
WTF? Of course I watched them play. Every single WC match.
Again, outside of Valdano there was no individual star power. Bilardo had them well drilled (more so in 1990 than in 1986) and they functioined well as a team built around one man who happened to be operating at a level the sport had never seen before and arguably hasn't since. Which makes the whole thing more impressive, not less.
You're going over the top. You've listed players and said 'never left Argentina', as if this automatically means they were terrible players.
In the 80s, it was much more common for South American players to remain in SA for much or all of their careers, because South American football was stronger then. Mainly because they retained more of their players.
Go look at Brazil's side from '82, that is one of the greatest teams of all time, and many of the players in the squad never left Brazil. Those that went to Europe, went for relatively short periods. It's nothing like the football of today.
Having said that, I do think that Diego's teammates were not all time great or absolutely elite players, but they were very good players and it was a strong team. My point is Diego winning things without legendary teammates, not some fantasy where he 'carried a pub team' to glory.
I can agree that the 86 team wasn't a stellar group, that the 90 group was Bilardo doing a Bilesa I) die with my ideas no matter what. I get the Maradona can be seen as carrying them, but at the end of the day Bilardo created such set up in order to enhace Diego as the sole leader, while avoiding issues with other great 10s, reinforcing the defensive side of the team, the solidarity, preffering indians than too many Chieftains. There are some stellar team goals like Valdano's in teh final, great contributions from defenders, Burruchaga was amazing the whole cup and Bilardo simply shut the mouth of evryone asking for a NT with Alonso, Bochini, Diego, etc etc doing a more pragmatic job that also included going to mexico way before to accostume to the height.
At the end of the day, the team played great as a team and a sum of their parts, with Diego being an Alien alike part.
Do you get the point many here are making? do you actually read what posted before? do you actually read what happened in 82? and if you watched them, you perfectly know that the 86 group of played played as a GREAT team, with very good players in it, just the Valdano goal in the final is a gema ofa goal that illustrates how great that team was playing the hole CUP.
I'm not in any sort of way taking credit away from Diego, but there is no need to call that squad a pub team, nor Napoli either. That's just a narrative as silly as Messi can only do it with Barca, that Pele was no need because he was surrounded by stellar teammates and so on, such extremes are beyond silly.
No, but the greatest South American players did play in Europe. That was the barometer, don't be silly.
Look at Brazil 1982 and 1986: Zico, Sócrates, Falcão, Júnior, Toninho Cerezo, Careca, Júlio César, virtually the entire core of that squad either went to or was being courted by European clubs, because that's where the best went. No amount of revisionism changes that.
That Brazilian generation is widely considered one of the greatest international squads never to win a World Cup, and they were stacked with players European clubs were falling over themselves to sign.
You cannot look at the Argentina 1986 squad (agian Valdano and maybe Canniggia aside) and tell me with a straight face it was anywhere near that level of individual talent.
Which only makes what Maradona did with them all the more ridiculous.
But anyways, I've said what I've said and rhis is starting to sound like arguing with people born in a different era, which I'm not willing to entertain for much longer.
Carlos Baleba
Cannigia wasn't in the 86 side...
Anyway, what you don't get it's that the Argie side not using as many 10s that were avaiable at the time, (in fact Bilardo have at least three in the subs), that he didn't went for an approach of using more lyric alike players and more Chieftains like happened close in time in WC82, was deliberated to try an idea of creating an enviroment to exploit Diego to the max.
No more doubts who was in charge, no more frictions, some innovating tactics with volantes, with polivalent roles and a path that was extremely/heavily critized by the press and fans at the moment for not going witrh a more "all or nothing offensive alike Argie style", that idea of Bilardo didn't work even prior to the WC and everything clicked and worked perfectly shutting everyone's mouth during the Cup.
Basicly the idea worked, because it was aim to enhace Diego to the max, could have failed if Diego didn't played as extraordinary as he did, but there is no single doubt that the set up around him was a great part of making it possible.