Clubs of all sizes... wee and humongous - OTT [R]

But here's the thing. Messi is the best player in the world. Period. When he's injured and doesn't play, then that's a better argument than trophy haul.

At the end of the day, as much as these awards are political, this is the fairest decision isn't it? He is the best player in the world and he has played like it in 2012. It's much simpler really.

 

Have to agree with this entirely - it would be stupid for him to leave Barca, for the foreseeable future at least. Interestingly though, it is also why I find him overrated - absolutely phenomenal yes, but not the GOAT by any means either. Because, for Argentina, he really is not much more than 'very, very good'.

 

The goal tally was always going to put him over the top this year, but let's be honest - while perhaps the best player in the world*, he benefits from being at Barca (hence why he doesn't look as good for Argentina). Put Ronaldo on this Barca team for the last 6-7 years, and have Messi move to Madrid when he was 16/17, and many people's perceptions would be different.

*Over the past few years, Ronaldo, Xavi and Iniesta are all right up there with him, but he benefits from the glory off what the other two do. This is an undeniable fact.

 

granted, but i don't agree with the narrative that he is towering over the competition and that it would take an herculean effort from cristiano to win a ballon d'or when we're basically splitting hairs to determine who's better and there's a guy on his own team that's at the very least playing to his level.

it is very circumstantial but i don't think we would have to change anything in the trophy cabinet of real or barça if cristiano and messi had swapped places for the last 5 years.

i expect cristiano to come back in the good graces of the voters and shoot for his 2nd ballon d'or once he takes off the real/mourinho stink and returns to OT. what he is doing right now in real is not being fully appreciated because so many ppl root against him (128 in 119!).

 

it's never stupid to seek a challenge when you've won it all. actually, that's kind of the norm for great players in football. how many great players spend their entire prime in one club or even one league?

for argentina, he is expected to play in the hole of a 4231 and make everything tick. i think they'd be better off sacrificing some attacking talent and duplicate the barça system to get the best out of him.

 

Scholes, Giggs, Totti off the top of my head.

 

So is Ronaldo.

Legends of the past have benefited from similar national team setups as their clubs. West Germany-Bayern for Beckenbauer. Santos-Brazil for Pele. Netherlands/Ajax for Cruyff and others that can be noted. Barcelona and Argentina have extremely differing ideologies so I wouldn't ever use this argument to discredit him. Ronaldo is also nothing much to write hom about for Portugal.

Yea he benefits from them but so what? I guess everyone at Barca does. And Ronaldo does too from a structure at Madrid where even the two strikers have to lay the ball off to him.

Ronaldo has a physical advantage. Messi will never have that because of his condition and age so obviously Ronaldo can probably adapt quicker to a game that relies so heavily on size and speed, something biological but in the end it's just that, a biological advantage and it doesn't speak at all to Ronaldo's credit. I will never give anyone more credit because of their biological advantages, certainly not in this example. This example has been used over and over to discredit Messi (and let's be honest that's exactly what it is and so cleverly as to simply pointing a 'difference' when its primary function is no more than to single him out as lucky)

 

Argentina is enough of a challenge for him. He is at the greatest club in history.

 

now do the exercise for the opposite. you can get back in a couple of days if you'd like.

 

Barring a little two year stint in the US at the end of his career in his mid/late 30s... Pele.

Also Maldini, Baresi and Beckenbauer* among defensive greats.

*He did spend 3 years at NY Cosmos, then 2 at Hamburg, then 1 more at NY Cosmos at the end of his career, but was a long, long way into his 30s by this point.

Of course, all of these players (barring Maldini, who got to the '94 final) are World Cup winners - and that is key in my opinion. It is quite rare though, I do agree.

 

pelé still gets sh-t for not taking the challenge of proving himself in europe, though.

but yeah, i'm totally with you: messi would have a very strong case for best player of all-time with a world cup. that's far more important to his legacy than proving himself outside of the barça system.

 

Why does someone need a world cup to be the best player ever?

 

True... but I don't think anyone is calling Ronaldo the GOAT.

Maradona.

Again... not comparing the two. Talking about the Messi GOAT hyperbole.

My point is to be the clear best player in the world by the distance that many seem to think he is (that being, enough to attempt to label him the GOAT in his mid-20s), he should be outperforming them on other stages. But he isn't, neither Messi nor Ronaldo stand out as much for their countries as they do their clubs. Xavi and Iniesta do. That hurts his 'undoubted best in the world' status as he has not really got Argentina even close to glory on the biggest stage, while his peers have been central to dominating world football in a way maybe never seen before, in an incredibly similar manner as they do at club level. Which, in turn, does a lot of damage to this 'GOAT' stuff I keep hearing, as people just seem eager to be seeing the GOAT during his career.

Yep, this makes no sense. Messi's natural technical ability and co-ordination over that of other players across the world is every bit as much 'biological luck' as is Ronaldo's size/speed. It is called an attribute. These attributes make up players. Both players have honed them and worked tirelessly to get these attributes perfected and as much to their advantage as possible. Otherwise Antonio Valencia would be just as good as Ronaldo.

In other words, this argument of holding a player's athleticism against him is just silly.

 

I guess since Pele and Maradona won WCs, anyone who is subsequently touted as the GOAT needs to win a WC as well.

 

Shows he can do it with a different setup, and a different group of players (e.g. that it is him, not his team, doing this), and on the biggest stage. Even a player of the tournament award, or a final or two might suffice if he could be as effective for a decent period of time for Argentina as he is for Barca.

But he isn't, while Xavi and Iniesta are for Spain. It is quite interesting how many people go out of their way to just completely ignore this, for whatever reason.

 

simple: history likes winners. in a collective sport, winning gives purpose to individual accomplishment - and there's no bigger prize than the WC in football.

michael jordan wouldn't be michael jordan without his two 3-peats. in fact, he had his better years stats-wise when he was getting bounced in the playoffs by detroit and boston.

that's also why dan marino will never be in the conversation with elway, montana and young. we expect great players to carry their teams and we celebrate them for it.

 

You can;t realistically expect any one player to win the world cup with a subpar group surrounding them.

Diable's random gobbly gook doesn't make sense

 

i don't think this is specific to football, it's pretty consistent across the board. i don't know of any team sport where the best player has not won the most important trophy.

 

The thing here is that Pele won with quality teams, but he won three... and Maradona won with an Argentinian team that many would say was less talented than the one Messi plays in. Cruyff never won one, but gets himself in the discussion (albeit a little on the fringes) without winning one because he was the best player at WC'74, when Holland got to the final.

I really am struggling to think of players who get a mention in-and-around the 'GOAT' discussion who did not at least stand out at, win, or at least reach the final of one WC - at least those who played for top countries (obviously exempting the likes of George Best, whose name only really pops up in shortlists more than at the very top, anyway).

 

you answered your own question. george weah, for example, was never held to that standard for obvious reasons. argentina is a realistic contender.

random gobbly gook? that just shows me you were more interested in making a statement than having a discussion. my take was pretty clear and straightforward and i gave the example of two players that could arguably be called the greatest ever at their respective positions with only collective awards separating them.

 

We can argue about the standard until the cows come home, but the fact is it is the biggest stage and that means a lot to a players legacy. So long as Messi plays at such a dominant Barca team without challenging himself elsewhere, he will have to prove it himself on a separate stage to stand in the same way as Pele, Maradona, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, etc.