Messi

Boskowski

With regards to Ronaldo...

I think a lot of people just keep parroting what the Sun/Sky says and what seems to be the fashionable thing to say (even here). He's a diva, he goes down a lot, he's disruptive blablabla...

I think Christiano Ronaldo is an absolutely outstanding player. One of a kind. Standing above the best players around. Whether you like him and his geled hair and his antics or not. He is that.

He is someone who can single-handedly transform a team from very good to marvellous as he has proven with United. They're still not the same since he left. It's no coincidence their period of dominance in Europe coincided with Ronaldos tenure there and pretty much ended with his departure.

Whether he's as good as Messi or not is one of those futile discussions that 12 year olds usually have I think. There are so very different players for a start....

Boskowski

parker kent wrote: »

Either statement is impossible really. You simply can't compare people who played in different eras and with different rules (i.e Maradona had different offside laws, backpass laws, tackle from behind etc). Each era would have pros and cons for each player.

That is a fair enough comment, but especially bearing that in mind its a mad thing to say that Messi is on another level. He is most certainly not. You'd want to be a fkn god to be on another level to Maradona.

parker kent

Boskowski wrote: »

That is a fair enough comment, but especially bearing that in mind its a mad thing to say that Messi is on another level. He is most certainly not. You'd want to be a fkn god to be on another level to Maradona.

Oh yeah I'm definitely not agreeing he is on another level, that's definitely not true.

As for Ronaldo, I think it is a cop put to say people are just following what Sky say. Firstly, for years they built him up to be better than Messi out of self interest. Listen to the build up to the 2009 Champions League Final to get a sample. The idea being Ronaldo is big and strong, Messi can't handle physical English teams etc.

Secondly, it is mildly insulting to people making decent arguments about some flaws in his game. I think mine is a valid comment that Ronaldo would not necessarily suit Barcelona is a fair comment. Some players simply don't suit some teams. Messi is a Wimbledon style team would not really suit for example.

Don't get me wrong, he is a great player and one of the all time great goal scorers. But he has more flaws in his game than Messi in my view. And I'm saying this as a United fan who can see the role he played in making United European Champions. I've noticed it is often United fans who lead the "Ronaldo is better than Messi" stuff. I agree they are very different players which does admittedly make comparisons futile, but I think Messi has less flaws. People mention his lack of height, but that plays a part in making him so elusive.

Boskowski

parker kent wrote: »

Secondly, it is mildly insulting to people making decent arguments about some flaws in his game.

Again, fair enough sorry, didn't mean to do that. Its just that a lot of people seem to focus on his negative traits and forget a little how great a footballer he actually is.

Blatter

parker kent wrote: »

I was not comparing Ibra with Ronaldo on a like-for-like basis. Just used him as an example of somebody that disrupted the team. I don't think Ronaldo has the footballing brain (i.e he shoots first asks questions later), ball retention, work ethic, personality (me first, not team first) or style to suit Barcelona. Some players can totally disrupt a team and ruin what made them special. His attitude might (repeat might) cause trouble in a team built on ball retention and a team-first attitude. Also both players require and/or are used to the team to be built around them (as most teams with great players do). Ronaldo and Messi in the same team would mean too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.

I think Ronaldo should be compared to somebody like Henry, Van Nistelrooy, Gerd Muller etc. A great goalscorer but not in the top tier of all-time great footballers. Messi scores as much as Ronaldo and offers far more than that.

We could go around in circles with this tbh so I think it's just best to agree to disagree.

I think Ronaldo is right up there with Messi and if Ronaldo had a team to compliment him as much as Messi does for himself then this would be seen IMO. The fastest player to ever reach 50 goals for Real/WPOTY/Golden boot from the wing(mainly) would suggest he was on a different level to Van Nistelrooy, Henry IMO.

You think differently, but that's okay if we all thought the same football would be boring. At least you backed up why you think that as I backed up my opinion, better than making sweeping statements and generalised comments which is what others have done.

eZe^

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

Ibra didn't fit into the team for a combination of 3 reasons IMO, not just workrate

1) Poor workrate
2) Lack of pace
3) Not clinical enough, missed too many chances.

I'm not going to go into the Ronaldo vs Messi debate because it bores the balls off me, but this is just plain wrong. Zlatan failed at Barca because they didn't utilise him properly. Zlatan is suited to being played as link man from midfield to striker, he creates moves and finishes them off. His role would be the closest to Messi's at Barca. While at Barca they forced him to play as a pivot upfront, they wanted him to just win balls and distribute them back to the midfield and 'wingers'.

David Villa has been a better fit because now Barcelona don't play with a recognised CF. The main thing he has over Ibrahimovic is his link up play, even when he was anonymous against Arsenal he had a beautiful deft touch that put Xavi in enough room to score. Zlatan didn't do that well enough at Barca.

Zlatan's finishing at times has been shocking, but David Villa has been far from lethal himself in this team. That's been his biggest criticism since joining Barca, he doesn't look nearly as ruthless as he did with Valencia/ Spain.

Ronaldo would be a similar fit in Barca to Zlatan, his skill would mean he walks into the Barca team, and he'd probably score 35 goals easily, but he wouldn't be the right fit. Attacks wouldn't be as cohesive because Ronaldo's play is based around him being extremely selfish and a** f*cking an entire defense in an instant. That would definitely hinder Messi, as he is selfish enough at times.

So yes, Ronaldo would start in the Barca team talent wise, not sure they'd be better off as a team though. Zlatan is the blueprint of an extremely talented player coming in, doing well, but not being a good fit. Cristiano would be a similar scenario imo. He is perfect at Madrid, their team perfectly plays to his strengths, just like Barca do with Messi.

Blatter

eZe^ wrote: »

I'm not going to go into the Ronaldo vs Messi debate because it bores the balls off me, but this is just plain wrong. Zlatan failed at Barca because they didn't utilise him properly. Zlatan is suited to being played as link man from midfield to striker, he creates moves and finishes them off. His role would be the closest to Messi's at Barca. While at Barca they forced him to play as a pivot upfront, they wanted him to just win balls and distribute them back to the midfield and 'wingers'.

David Villa has been a better fit because now Barcelona don't play with a recognised CF. The main thing he has over Ibrahimovic is his link up play, even when he was anonymous against Arsenal he had a beautiful deft touch that put Xavi in enough room to score. Zlatan didn't do that well enough at Barca.

Zlatan's finishing at times has been shocking, but David Villa has been far from lethal himself in this team. That's been his biggest criticism since joining Barca, he doesn't look nearly as ruthless as he did with Valencia/ Spain.

Ronaldo would be a similar fit in Barca to Zlatan, his skill would mean he walks into the Barca team, and he'd probably score 35 goals easily, but he wouldn't be the right fit. Attacks wouldn't be as cohesive because Ronaldo's play is based around him being extremely selfish and a** f*cking an entire defense in an instant. That would definitely hinder Messi, as he is selfish enough at times.

So yes, Ronaldo would start in the Barca team talent wise, not sure they'd be better off as a team though. Zlatan is the blueprint of an extremely talented player coming in, doing well, but not being a good fit. Cristiano would be a similar scenario imo. He is perfect at Madrid, their team perfectly plays to his strengths, just like Barca do with Messi.

So Zlatan's lack of pace and lack of pressing the opposition had absolutely nothing to do with him not succeeding at Barca? I'm sorry but those things stood out for me whilst watching him last season and you have already agreed that he didn't convert enough chances. I hear ya with the role he was asked to play, and that didn't suit him. He's at his best when the team is centred around him and not others. But saying that, if he was given the correct role at Barca, I think his lack of pace still would have created problems for him and he may not have cracked it either way.

On the Ronaldo@ Barca discussion, nobody knows for sure how he would pan out there. If that was the case, Pep would have realised that Zlatan would not have worked before he signed him and would have not made the biggest transfer blunder in the history of the game. But he didn't, he obviously thought it would have improved the team, he must have had his reasons for thinking so too.

So you can't make definitive predictions on how Ronaldo would pan out at Barca either and I reject the notion of fans telling me that he wouldn't ''fit in'' because if Pep can get it wrong about Ibra fitting in, then you can be sure as hell that fans can get it wrong about Ronaldo not fitting in too. Personally, I like to give Ronaldo the benefit of the doubt, as his greatness deserves this at least IMO.

SeantheMan

I think the World Cup argument is stupid.

A player cannot carry a team to a World Cup Final. An international team depends on the manager and the players has to choose from and the tactics employed.
Maradonna was awful, if it were any other manager Argentina may have had a chance. The decision not to bring Cambiasso was idiotic

Also, by the World Cup argument, if Messi or a talent like him was Irish, Scottish etc he could not be the greatest ever by default, as Ireland or a similar country will never win the World Cup.

However, if the talent is there, you will shine, and be taken and play for the top Club teams in the world, where he currently is. He can do no more on his part than he is atm.
- Still in European contention
- In the Cup Final
- Winning the League
- Will break the goal record of Barca in 1 season
- Current top scorer in Champions league, as he was the previous 2 i think

He is the best in my opinion of all time,

JayMul

Maradona won Serie A with a relatively average Napoli team, won the World cup with not the greatest Argentina team. Messi is technically better but Maradona was a machine. He was Tevez and Messi rolled into one, Messi is more like George Best and Garrincha.

Bodhisopha

JayMul wrote: »

Maradona won Serie A with a relatively average Napoli team, won the World cup with not the greatest Argentina team. Messi is technically better but Maradona was a machine. He was Tevez and Messi rolled into one, Messi is more like George Best and Garrincha.

A relatively average Napoli team that broke the world transfer record to sign him... They had resources and some pretty good players.

I would liken it to Spurs somehow landing Messi and winning the EPL. Hardly inconceivable is it? Them winning if they had Messi that is, not them signing Messi.

SeantheMan

But the Maradonnas Argentina team, the opposition were not as good as that Argentina had last year.

Spain were basically Barcelona + 3-4 other players, it was a tough task for anyone to beat them, no hope of Messi carrying the Argentina team through.

JayMul

Bodhisopha wrote: »

A relatively average Napoli team that broke the world transfer record to sign him... They had resources and some pretty good players.

I would liken it to Spurs somehow landing Messi and winning the EPL. Hardly inconceivable is it? Them winning if they had Messi that is, not them signing Messi.

Spurs couldn't win the EPL even with Maradonas help.

eagle eye

SeantheMan wrote: »

I think the World Cup argument is stupid.

Well just to clarify because I don't think I did. I think we are talking about global acceptance here not on a personal level. And on a global scale the World Cup is hugely important.

TheTownie

Messi, if he isn't already, will be considered one of the greats but.... if he wants to be the best he has to show he can do it outside of Barca by

a) being the star man in an Argentina side that wins the World Cup.

b) achieving similar success with another club.

The World Cup argument has a certain level of weight to it as no one can argue that George Best wouldn't be held in higher esteem if he had the players around him with Northern Ireland to qualify and then guide them to World Cup triumph (Obviously the early retirement didn't help his cause but thats another argument).

Messi has to show he can do it outside his comfort zone which is Barca.

superfrank

He's no Joe Cole.....

nullzero

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

This is so wrong on so many levels.

Firstly it goes against the very basic fundamental principle of human interaction. It claims we don't learn. The players these days are so much better in every sense than those before them, similarly, the players in 10-15 years time will be so much better than those now. Its human nature to learn, adapt and improve.

Another funny human trait is nostalgic bias, "things were so much better in the old says". Horsecrap. No they werent. The great players of yore were undoubtedly great in their own day, relatively speaking but stack your Maradona's and Pele's, Di Stefanos and Puksa's in their prime up against todays elite and they will get shown up.

The human body is more understood, the physioglogy of atheletics and soccer has come on leaps and bounds compared to how it was. The tactical awareness has 20, 30, 40 and sometimes 50 more years knowledge. Similarly, technical ability and the way it is taught can use the experience of older generations like in every other walk of life.

You can say "But Maradona had talent and would fit in any generation"- but thats not really the point. Plus "Talent" as most people view it, is massively overrated.

Messi's the best so far.

Your'e taking what I said out of context in a massive way and using sensationalist language as well as assuming that my opinion is informed solely by some sort of cock eye nostalgia, you were also incredibly condescending. You're making a lot of assumptions and failing to see the point I made.

Football like anything else evolves over time, you're right on that score. However football has not evolved to a point over the last 10 years that makes it drastically better than it was 10 years ago.
The level of professionalism in the game (in terms of fitness and tactical awareness) that we see today has probably been the same for the best part of 15 years if not longer.
It is also true that today there are less truely excepionally talented players in the game than there were 10 to 15 years ago.
I'm not going to sit here and list off names of players from that era but l any football fan will remember the greats of that time, some of whom are still active in the game or only recently retired from it, not some long forgotten fossils from the black and white "good old days".

Messi is a great player, no arguments, but I find it laughable to think that there is a single "greatest ever" player to begin with.
Such an argument is on a par with small boys arguing over who's dad is toughest, essentially very conditional and depending greatly on the opinion of each idividual.

I would also challenge you to show me where I mentioned the name Maradonna in my post or spoke of players who's careers ended up to 50 years ago, as you have had the neck to try to make me look completely inept in my anaylsis of this topic it would be nice for you to show me where I mentioned the afore mentioned topics and then it would again be nice of you to explain how they relate to any reply to my post, if you don't mind that is.

So if you could put aside your own condescending anthropological nonsense for a second you might see that you've fallen into the trap of another problem in human perception; getting the wrong end of the stick entirely.

1mcampo1

TheTownie wrote: »

Messi, if he isn't already, will be considered one of the greats but.... if he wants to be the best he has to show he can do it outside of Barca by

a) being the star man in an Argentina side that wins the World Cup.

b) achieving similar success with another club.

The World Cup argument has a certain level of weight to it as no one can argue that George Best wouldn't be held in higher esteem if he had the players around him with Northern Ireland to qualify and then guide them to World Cup triumph (Obviously the early retirement didn't help his cause but thats another argument).

Messi has to show he can do it outside his comfort zone which is Barca.

Best player imo, wasn't around for Madonna, Pele, etc... is Ronaldo

Look at his stats, he done at four different top teams
Barcelona 37 (34)
Inter Milan 68 (49)
Real Madrid 127 (83)
AC Milan 20 (9)

C. Ronaldo was very good for Utd 196 (84). Then in Spain, which plays a totally different type of football to England, is still banging them in. 55 (53) is frightening for a player who, like Messi, is not an out and out striker. But he has shown he can do it in a environment in which he has had to adapt to.

Messi's record at Barca is ridiculous 167(115), no arguing that, but it's all in his comfort zone as mentioned before. Players like Iniesta and Xavi in particular, make him shine. I believe if C.Ronaldo was in the Barca team, he too would shine. But no one knows for sure and never will.

I do think that if Messi wants to be remembered as THE best, he has to leave Barca (comfort zone) and ply his trade elsewhere. But, personally, I don't think he will as he will continue to win trophies with them and be generally happy there.


Just my opinion on the subject!

nullzero

SeantheMan wrote: »

But the Maradonnas Argentina team, the opposition were not as good as that Argentina had last year.

Spain were basically Barcelona + 3-4 other players, it was a tough task for anyone to beat them, no hope of Messi carrying the Argentina team through.

The real advantage Spain had was the unusual knowledge the players already had of each other. Unusual in the context of an international side where teams have a lot less time to gel than a club side. So yes Spain were basically at their core Barcelona with some (albeit very talented) other players added on.

minty16

Messi is fast, skillfull and scores unbelievable goals. He is not the complete player though. He plays in a comfortable system at Barcelona. Attributes such as passing/crossing/strength/dead balls are not as good as recent greats like Zidane or Cristiano Ronaldo. I personally think CR is the better individual player and harder to mark.

Optimalprimerib

The argument of messi having to go to a new club to prove he is the greatest ever is ridiculous. The only way it would work would be if he goes to Wigan or someone. But let's face it if he was to move, it would be to an already successful club like utd or Chelsea, which would prove nothing as they are already winning without him.

He has surpassed maradonna IMO already by having a much better attitude, don't know enough about pele apart from YouTube clips.

bradlente

I think it's impossible to measure the ability of players I haven't scrutinised by watching game after game,so that's why I'd say I can't compare Pele to Messi or Messi to Di Stefano etc.There are amazing highlight reels out there on Youtube and other places and amazing records to see on databases like Wiki of all great players.But just because a player has scored maybe a few goals more or set up a few more or won something another player hasn't I find thats its impossible to judge older players with modern because I haven't seen the older play loads and loads of games.I consider them the greatest because they were considered that before my time,Of course I've seen Maradona and Beckenbauer in action but never followed them over the course of their careers.

Thats why I think its moot to judge whos the greatest ever.From the players I've seen thoroughly I can say Messi is probably the greatest player of my generation.Right now hes the best in the world imo,if he can maintain his form over another few seasons he'll be the best of my generation.The only one thats anywhere near him right now is Ronaldo.

Some people like a certain player though.Whether its a hard tackling midfielder,sublime passer,mazy winger or powerhouse goalscorer,its all opinion and there isn,t one truly great player imo,just players that more people think are greater than other players.

I wouldn't say Messi's my favourite by any means,But right now he's the best in the world.

Dolph Starbeam

Woah just noticed there is over 100 comments and nobody has said it... I might have missed it though and if i did i don't care.


He's good but could he do it in Stoke on a cold winters night?

TheTownie

Mark! wrote: »

Woah just noticed there is over 100 comments and nobody has said it... I might have missed it though and if i did i don't care.


He's good but could he do it in Stoke on a cold winters night?

Yes that has been said! :pac:

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Could he do it on a cold Wednesday night in Stoke?

Zebra3

JayMul wrote: »

Messi is more like George Best and Garrincha.

Messi is no alco.

TheDoc

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I judge a great player by what is done on the greatest stage - the World Cup. At last years World Cup I thought Messi was an embarrassment, when it was time to truly walk the walk he failed. An icon like Maradona, he will never be.

Just want to pick up on this point. I don't eprsonally feel the WC is the greatest footballing stage anymore, and International football hasnt been for some time.

Personally the CL for me holds much more water and has the greatest acquisition of players and coaches and teams.

The Messi vs Ronaldo arguement is pretty stiffled in my view, I would rather wait till someone finishes their career and look back at their ability. For example, when Dennis Bergkamp was in Italy, he definitly wouldn't have been consisdered a top player, he was looking like another Ducth failing to apply their trade outside of Holland. He then moved to Arsenal and for me, became one of the leagues greatest imports, and I still havnt seen anyone with the same ability for a frontman.

Messi is undoubtably a great player, and we should take great privalage that we are gettnig to witness these young men grow into the game and reach stagering heights.

My dad always talks about Maradona, Pele and all the greats, the great dutch teams and the great old Barcelona teams. When we look back on this decade( and possibly the 90's) in 30-40 years time, look at the talent we will have witnessed and watched from start to finish.

You only truely appreciate a player and realise their quality and magic when they are gone.

The art of the midfielder literally died for me when Zidane left football, there just isn't a midfielder out there with half his ability. I'm sitting here going through the top CL teams in the world thinking, where is there a midfielder that has drive, leadership, unbelieveable ability and could carry a team on their shoulders. Zidanes performance for France against Brazil for me is the best performance by a player I've ever seen, he took the game by the balls and dragged France into the final.

Xavi and Iniesta for all their accoldates dont come across as the pair of players that when the chips are down, would pull you through the ****.

If Leo Messi stopped playing football tomorrow, we would reflect on an tremendous footballer whose career finished to soon. But I woudln't hold him up there with the best, just yet. We can speculate on what he has to do, but in fairness we dont know what he will do, or what he can do. Like Ronaldo, he might get a bit sick and tired of all the success, idiotic it sounds, but I remember Eric Cantona saying he quit football because he just didnt have the hunger, he had won so much, that there was no fire to get up and train every day. Ronaldo was the same, he had dominated the English league and wanted a new challenge, maybe we will see Messi do the same at some point, just maybe.

When his career is finished, I'll probably appreciate what he is alot more then now, taking for granted his magic week in week out, along with Ronaldo.

And when I start watching football with my kids, I'll get to give the whole
" He aint no Messi or Ronaldo"
"Huh?"
"Right, grab my box of DVDs from the attic, your getting a football lesson"

"Dad whats a DVD?"

CorkMan

Could C.Ronaldo do it on a cold Wednesday night against Stoke?......he already did.

fillmore jive

CorkMan wrote: »

Could C.Ronaldo do it on a cold Wednesday night against Stoke?......he already did.

Could he do it on the big stage? ....doesn't seem so

flahavaj

fillmore jive wrote: »

Could he do it on the big stage? ....doesn't seem so

There's no pointing meeting sh*t arguments with more sh*t tbh.

JayMul

Zebra3 wrote: »

Messi is no alco.

I meant the good parts :pac:

Tusky

Was I alone in thinking that Messi was very good at the world cup ? Not up to his Barcelona standards maybe, but was terribly unlucky not to score a bunch of goals. If I remember, he had a rake of shots and hit the post/bar lots of times as well.

dreamers75

Tusky wrote: »

Was I alone in thinking that Messi was very good at the world cup ? Not up to his Barcelona standards maybe, but was terribly unlucky not to score a bunch of goals. If I remember, he had a rake of shots and hit the post/bar lots of times as well.

Thought he was poor myself, noone around him to give him space, his team was set up wrong.

not his fault tho.

The World Cup is always gonna be the way players are remembered, thats not going to change due to Club Football. regards the CL Djimi Traore has a winners medal.

PHB

I think Iniesta is the best player in the world right now. And he's got the World Cup and the performances to prove it.

bradlente

PHB wrote: »

I think Iniesta is the best player in the world right now. And he's got the World Cup and the performances to prove it.

There's weight to that in fairness.The 3 boys deserved their placing in the Balon D'or,arguments to the place each got can be made,but they all played and won so well last season bar the "Inter wall":rolleyes:

I look at it as who I think the team suffers most from when their not in the side,for me that goes 1 messi 2 xavi 3 inny.

I'm also in awe of the little man's composure,he really is a sight to behold.

dannydiamond

Tusky wrote: »

Was I alone in thinking that Messi was very good at the world cup ? Not up to his Barcelona standards maybe, but was terribly unlucky not to score a bunch of goals. If I remember, he had a rake of shots and hit the post/bar lots of times as well.

He was very good at the WC. I was watching him closely as i'd him backed to be top scorer. He could have had loads of goals.

Mr. Incognito

i used to hold Ronaldo up to a higher standard than Messi because United won the champions league knocking Barca out and he was whalloping in goals.

I remember all the talk about Ronaldo not being able to play in "big" games being levelled at him.

Then Ronaldo went to Real madrid and we get to see them tussle it out head to head in the same league.

Messi is younger, beats players more consistently, has a better attitude and when they met head to head Barca destroyed Real madrid who have a coach that effectively shut them down in the CL final.

Messi is only 23 and we are talking about is he the greatest player ever. Best retired at 26.

To any objective status, goals, success, assists, beating players and shining in games against top opponents Messi is more successful. He destroyed Arsenal on his own last season.

By the time he retires there will be no doubt.

Greatest player ever IMO.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I remember all the talk about Ronaldo not being able to play in "big" games being levelled at him.

That argument is still very much alive...

Fuhrer

THFC wrote: »

That argument is still very much alive...

In the same way that the Moon landing was fake argument is still very much alive

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Fuhrer wrote: »

In the same way that the Moon landing was fake argument is still very much alive

Oh ya, that's the exact same thing..

Helix

messi; he's good but he's no joe cole

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/10/08/10/manual_125031.html

bonerm

I think as excellent as he is and how many LaLigas and Ballon D'or's he lifts he won't be remembered on the same plane as Pele or Maradona until he lifts the world cup trophy (possibly as captain). It's what turns merely the best player in the world into an icon.

TheTownie

superfrank wrote: »

He's no Joe Cole.....

Helix wrote: »

messi; he's good but he's no joe cole

It seems superfrank concurs with your hypothesis! :pac:

losthorizon

Melion wrote: »

He doesnt get the freedom with Argentina that he gets with Barca, he has to stick to one position much more rigidly than when he is playing with Barca where he can go wherever he wants.

But if youre the best player in the world limitations dont matter!

He is Brilliant. But for me Maradonna shone brighter. Maldini would be up there to.

Helix

losthorizon wrote: »

But if youre the best player in the world limitations dont matter!

bull

parker kent

Tusky wrote: »

Was I alone in thinking that Messi was very good at the world cup ? Not up to his Barcelona standards maybe, but was terribly unlucky not to score a bunch of goals. If I remember, he had a rake of shots and hit the post/bar lots of times as well.

Plenty of people have already corrected the ludicrous idea that he was embarrassing at the WC.

parker kent

losthorizon wrote: »

But if youre the best player in the world limitations dont matter!

He is Brilliant. But for me Maradonna shone brighter. Maldini would be up there to.

Did Maradona shine brighter in 1982 when the team wasn't completely built around him? When they went out early and he was sent off in disgrace? Of course limitations of a team and the system matter.

Maradona played in a World Cup in 1982 and didn't stand out. Were that his only appearance on the world stage, he would be a footnote on football history. It is what he did in club and International football combined that make him stand out. Of course 86 is his career high point, but his time at Napoli confirmed that those few weeks were not an aberration. Before the Mexico World Cup, there were doubts about Maradona. It was the next 4 years that dispelled those doubts.

A few games over one month does not decide greatness. You need luck to be on a team that is good enough to do well in World Cups. You need luck that you have a decent manager to harness those players. You need a good draw so you don't meet another heavy hitter and get knocked out early. You also need luck that you don't get a referee like Italy and Spain got against South Korea in 2002. Then lastly you need luck that you get a manager who uses you in the right position to maximize your ability. A great WC helps a players reputation, but it should be used in conjunction with everything else.

Besides, all these comparisons are futile. You can never decide much beyond who is playing best at any single moment in time.

losthorizon

parker kent wrote: »

Did Maradona shine brighter in 1982 when the team wasn't completely built around him? When they went out early and he was sent off in disgrace? Of course limitations of a team and the system matter.

Maradona played in a World Cup in 1982 and didn't stand out. Were that his only appearance on the world stage, he would be a footnote on football history. It is what he did in club and International football combined that make him stand out. Of course 86 is his career high point, but his time at Napoli confirmed that those few weeks were not an aberration. Before the Mexico World Cup, there were doubts about Maradona. It was the next 4 years that dispelled those doubts.

A few games over one month does not decide greatness. You need luck to be on a team that is good enough to do well in World Cups. You need luck that you have a decent manager to harness those players. You need a good draw so you don't meet another heavy hitter and get knocked out early. You also need luck that you don't get a referee like Italy and Spain got against South Korea in 2002. Then lastly you need luck that you get a manager who uses you in the right position to maximize your ability. A great WC helps a players reputation, but it should be used in conjunction with everything else.

Besides, all these comparisons are futile. You can never decide much beyond who is playing best at any single moment in time.

I take in your general points. I can actually remember the 1982 world cup (and for me the Italy v Brazil match was the best game of football I have ever seen). Maradonna Gave a great display against Hungary. I cant remember what he did against El Salvador but he was hacked down by the Belgians and the Italians. It wasnt like today were you get too much protection. Gentile in particular went way beyond what was acceptable.

eagle eye

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

The argument of messi having to go to a new club to prove he is the greatest ever is ridiculous. The only way it would work would be if he goes to Wigan or someone. But let's face it if he was to move, it would be to an already successful club like utd or Chelsea, which would prove nothing as they are already winning without him.

He has surpassed maradonna IMO already by having a much better attitude, don't know enough about pele apart from YouTube clips.

Napoli won Serie A when it was universally accepted that it was the best league in the world with two world class players in their lineup and a couple of decent internationals.
The first team was this pretty much the team below. Apart from Ciro Ferrara and maybe Bagni and De Napoli I don't think there are any other players there that are widely known/regarded as world class. This was at a time when Juve had Scirea, Platini and Laudrup among their ranks, Milan has Baresi, a young Maldini, Donadoni, Ray Wilkins, Mark Hately and Massaro, Inter had Bergomi, Passarella, Tardelli, Altobelli and Rummenigge.

Garella

Bruscolotti
Ferrara
Ferrario
Marino

Bagni
De Napoli
Celestini
Caferelli

Carnevale
Maradona

I think the above shows just how remarkable the achievement of winning Serie A was. Then go and have a look at the World Cup first eleven that started the World Cup final and again there are very few household names.

Pumpido

Brown
Cuciuffo
Rugieri
Batista

Giusti
Burruchaga
Enrique
Olaritcoechea

Valdano
Maradona

Maradona done it without having the stars around him at both club level and in the World Cup. Many also forget that a Maradona inspired Argentina got to the final again in 1990 but Maradona had been kicked to pieces by the latter stages of that World Cup and wasn't nearly the same player in the final due to it.

steelcityblues

I feel he 'needs' a brilliant World Cup though to be put on Pele/Maradona level in the history books - 2014 when he turns 27 is the real opportunity for that.

Otherwise it will be more like George Best level, though from a footballing perspective that is pretty special too!

Helix

meh. Players dont need great world cups to be great players. International games may feature the best players from a given country, but theyre playing in and against teams who are together for about a month a year.

They may look great on paper, but thats what stops me from taking international football as seriously as some.

The top of the club tree is far superior imo. Players are together day in, day out. Coaches build systems around what they see every day. Even teams outside the top tier of clubs have the benefit of that. Regardless of how you want to look at it, the lack of time international sides spend together makes it a vastly inferior form of football.

Opposition to the best teams are more often than not cobbled together of a few top players at most and a host of mediocre ones. Thats often the case in the club game, yes, but the time spent training together can make up for that in spades. Clubs are well drilled and far superior units, even if they lack a superstar.

Theres far more talent, far better at playing together in the club game. International football is pure romanticism in the modern day.

Show me a player who does it regularly against the giants of club football and ill show you a great.

Neil3030

Helix wrote: »

meh. Players dont need great world cups to be great players. International games may feature the best players from a given country, but theyre playing in and against teams who are together for about a month a year.

They may look great on paper, but thats what stops me from taking international football as seriously as some.

The top of the club tree is far superior imo. Players are together day in, day out. Coaches build systems around what they see every day. Even teams outside the top tier of clubs have the benefit of that. Regardless of how you want to look at it, the lack of time international sides spend together makes it a vastly inferior form of football.

Opposition to the best teams are more often than not cobbled together of a few top players at most and a host of mediocre ones. Thats often the case in the club game, yes, but the time spent training together can make up for that in spades. Clubs are well drilled and far superior units, even if they lack a superstar.

Theres far more talent, far better at playing together in the club game. International football is pure romanticism in the modern day.

Show me a player who does it regularly against the giants of club football and ill show you a great.

Yes, club opposition teams are better drilled, coached, organised etc, but the same can be said for the team of the player in question. The player benefits from all that you describe above and more, since better players will typically play for the better teams, with better coaching, preparation, training, tactics etc.

I'm not saying that a World Cup win defines a great player. But when a player can do it in a World Cup, in the spotlight of the entire world, with a team he is not used to, in a system he doesn't play with week-in, week-out, in the pressure cooker of media attention, alienation from one's home, national expectation, etc. etc., it undoubtedly serves to check a significant box in their measurement of greatness.

But there's the objective and subjective argument here. The "greatest player" ever is such a nebulous term to quantify and measure, but I think the primary distinction that needs to be made is the one between "best player" (objective) and "most memorable player" (subjective).

I would wager World Cup successes do more to serve the latter classification than the former.