I'm now looking at the archives, briefly, and by the end of 1993 Napoli had a debt of US$50 million. Chairman Ferlaino arrested in May 1993 for bribery and corruption. Same chairman reduced the debts with 20 million by a sleight of hand though.
Your argument may be relevant to the point that Napoli could do well without Maradona, particularly because they happened to have a player of the caliber of Zola to replace him, but it's not relevant to the main argument that @JamesBH11, @Once and myself had made: Napoli does not win a single trophy (Scudetto, Coppa or UEFA Cup) during those years without Maradona. @Puck
Puck might make an interesting point of the season 91-92 with Zola as a SINGLE season, however that performance did not last ... (as Maradona led Napoli from 87-91 = 5 seasons) Look at one of the greatest Serie A coach and the king of catenacio Arico Sacchi comment about his "reign with AC Milan built up on the Dutch Trio Basten Gullit Rijkaard with Baresi Maldini ...) When Milan and Napoli ruled Italy Published: Saturday 26 February 2011, 22.15CET Monday's summit meeting between AC Milan and SSC Napoli casts the mind back to when Diego Maradona was in his pomp and these two clubs were dominant. UEFA.com reminisces. "Maradona destroyed all my theories about football," Sacchi said. "We could dominate playing great football as a team, but then he needed just one touch to completely change the game." And life without Maradona proved immediately difficult for Napoli, who finished 11th in the 1992/93 season. Fabio Capello's Milan were crowned champions. Their meeting in Naples was a memorable one for Van Basten, who found the net four times. Despite playing only 15 games due to injuries, the Swan of Utrecht finished the season with 13 goals ====================================================== One can follow up with the history 87-91: the DUEL between: Maradon+Careca+ Alemao vs Basten +Gullit+ Rijkaard Maradona 4goals+4ass/5 games vs AC MILAN http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/association=ita/news/newsid=1600894.html
A player whose highest place at Ballon d'Or was 6th in 1995 and 15th in 1997. That's right and props to him. But what happened is that we see a decline in 'goals conceded' (decline from Napoli their perspective) while the goals scored remained about similar, with indeed Zola taking his place in the 'trident' (12 goals, 0PK and at least 9 assists). At a similar tactical role, a somewhat 'free role'. Napoli their defence deteriorated a lot, clearly more so than their offence (which in terms of 'goals for' did not decline). When we talk about creative dependency (and remember: it has been claimed that Maradona is the primary example in football history; by far the biggest example of carrying single-handedly) then this is a valid observation. Napoli ceded to be a trophy contender because they conceded too many goals, not because they scored too few of them. That is clearly the case. Maybe Maradona his departure was an important reason, but this increase in goals conceded (while maintaining similar firepower) needs a plausible story.
Oh, ok. I can see that. If minnows would be the likes of Tenerife, Granada, etc. in Spain and the likes of Bari, Cagliari, etc. in Italy, then Betis and Napoli are not. Still third tier teams in their respective leagues at best historically speaking, with little or no history of success at home, let alone continentaly. How shocking would it be to see Betis dominate La Liga for about half a decade and win a couple of them plus a continental title... Not now, because it would be absolutely impossible, but in the 80s or around the time they were able to sign Denilson... Thats what happened in Italy with Maradona and the Napoli side built around him when Serie A was the top league in the world.
The comparison Puck makes is regarding goals scored by Napoli in 91-92 against the 89-90 season with Maradona. But in the former you have Zola and Careca (the Brazilian a bit old but still relevant and the Italian in absolute prime), both of them playing every game of the season or close to it and the newly added Padovano, probably a player of similar caliber to Cardinale of the Maradona years. On top of that, you have the scoring contribution of Laurent Blanc. In 89-90 Careca missed a third of the season and Maradona 6 games I think. Carnevale was the forward appearing the most.
Again that was just one time season wise ... This is not a very clean slate to question since it was like "chicken and eggs" or one time wonder case. STATS will only apply with at least many games (for same squad team) - you have to make 3, 5 years with Zola vs 3,5 years with Maradona for apples to apples. Like Barca held 70 to 80% possession in many games with 5 to 8 goals thrashing, yet with same possession of balls in other games they could not find 1 or 2 goals (SAME SQUAD though) can you explain that?
The 10 11 season was the last season (Before arguably the current one) that arsenal launched a respectable title challenge. After that there was a considerable drop, it was not just fabregas we lost, we also sold nasri and lost wilshere to a season long injury, and thus the technical level and potency of our attack declined steeply. Two thirds of the way into the 10 11 season finishing 4th was one of the worst case scenarios for us, in the next season at the same stage, finishing 4th or 3rd seemed as though it would be impossible given how poor we were, and how far behind Tottenham we were. I'm not going to try to contextualize all those stats, but on the goals scored front, we were a far bigger threat to the big teams in 10 11, we beat all the top 3 teams at least once. In the 2011 2012 season we weren't a threat at all to the big teams (Manchester United and Manchester city). In the champions league we played with a great attacking quality against Barcelona during 2010 11, against an inferior opposition the next season, we were completely useless in milan. You can refer to as many stats as you want but for goodness sake we replaced fabregas with an out of form Ramsey/rosicky, wilshere with arteta, and nasri with gervinho, out attacking game went to absolute rubbish, if the stats don't show that, that to me shows perfectly that the stats are misleading. Van persie was finally fit for a full season, but the football was far inferior to the previous season. So, I think it's a similar thing with napoli after maradona. If we look at who the goals were scored against the difference is even more noticeable than in the arsenal case. In the 91 92 season napoli scored 6 goals vs top 4 teams, in 89 90 (with themselves taken out of the table) they scored 12 goals against the top 4 teams (maradona played in all but 1 of those games, which they lost 3-1 to inter) Against teams 5th to 9th, in 91 92 they scored 16 goals, in 89 90 they scored 20 goals (maradona played in all games) Against 10th to 13th in 91 92 they scored 14, in 89 90 they scored 12, (maradona missed 2 games, against genoa which they won 2-1 and cesena which they drew 0-0) Against 14th to 17th, in 91 92 they scored 20, in 89 90 they scored 13 (maradona missed 3 games, 1-0 wins against ascoli and udiniese, and a 2-0 win vs verona) (Remember the standings in 89 90 are with napoli taken out of the table) So, what I take from all that is, napoli scored significantly more against the top half teams in 89 90, particularly against the title challenging group, and in the ONLY game maradona missed they scored just one goal in a defeat. Whilst they scored significantly less against the bottom half, particularly the relegation candidates, and is it a coincidence maradona missed 5 games against these teams, in which they only scored more than one goal once. I think this illustrates a bigger disparity between napolis attacking potency with and without maradona, than just looking at their end of season goal tally. Anyway I think the "carrying" thing is more relevant napoli pre 88 89 as the team before the manager ripped it up over the fixing scandal was more defensive imo. Three central defenders, 3 "workhorses" defending the defence, and two "wingbacks" would you say? Or maybe 1, both far more useful in a defensive phase making it a 5 man defence, than an attacking phase supporting the attack. With just maradona and Giordano sticking it out up top with some occasional burst forwards from the 3 workhorses.
yes at his peak R9 was better than messi in my opinion .. But im not opening that debate again !! I like both players i ve watched their careers and for me i rated R9 above messi but im not gonna argue about it !
i cant agree that pele was all myth and based on word of mouth !!thats not what i meant at all ! Pele was a great great player and its a bit silly to say otherwise ... Yeah nowadays he talks about himself in third person mode..claiming pele is king of football ..pele was beautiful..pele was genius etc etc.. Some of his statements are arrogant beyond belief but he was a genius of his time.
I would say at his peak, R9 was "unstoppable" (more so) then Messi was - especially out of Barca shirt. The BIG difference was: in late 90's, most teams struggled to deal with Il fenomeno "alone" ... while in this era, most teams have headache to deal with 10 worldclass Barca players + the best of Messi It's clear that R9 was better then Messi at "same age" though. No argument
So when Barcelona lose its Messi's fault (like he was accused against atletico) but when they win its the 10 world class players he plays eith that get credit. Where were these 10 world class players when they played atletico madrid. Ironically when Messi doesn't perform well Barcelona loses. Looking at their line up - Pinto, mascherano, bartra, busquets, jordi alba, xavi, iniesta, pedro, neymar.....where are the 10 world class players lol
you have a huge blinded love to messi so that you FORGOT the fact = I was the first to defend Messi and said it was Martino's fault (lost to Aletico) 2nd ly I listed out at least 20+ games when Messi found so STOPPABLE ... already. =========================================== At their best form: - R9 was more dangerous and unstoppable - Messi was more (all rounded) player
No you found 20 games where he didn't score. Big difference. There are hundreds of games where Maradona didn't score. This doesn't mean he was stopped. You contribute in other ways if you are being tripple teamed and trying to score can be a burden on your team
Tonights copa del rey match is a good example of the difference between stopped and not performing well
Ok i'm going to shut up now. I'm starting to realize how ridiculous i'm sounding. Messi is having a bad run of form the past month, expecting big things at the world cup. that is all.
Maradona was not the main scorer for the team. Plus, Maradona fame was not becuase he got >1GPG like Messi now with barca. R9 at his best was so famous with his near 1GPG stats, along with his unstoppable dribble runs - very close to Messi now
Messi's fame was not due to his > 1 GPG stat with Barca, although it didn't hurt. He was known as the best player in the world before he achieved this, and was renowned for his penchant for scoring amazing goals.
I find versatile players to be the most ''complete'' simply because of the different attributes needed to play different roles/positions. Players like Pele obviously had good attacking attributes, but if you had put him in a defensive midfield role how would he get on?...that's what being complete is all about, being able to play in many roles and positions to a high standard, well at least if we're debating who's the most complete... Out of the players of my generation I'd probably say Steven Gerrard, over the years he's been a great attacking and defensive minded player...I think he started out at RB, then as a more defensive minded midfielder, then he's played off the Striker, on the wings, and now back in a deeper position at CM/DM...you have to have a great attributes to be able to do it to the standard he has. But for me... Gerrard's got it all, he's been a great captain over the years too.
well actually Carnevale was just a sub (very good winger) during the time Maradona won the FIRST scudetto for Napoli - This is the line up of the "glory day" when Napoli destroyed JUve (top club in serie A with Platini, Laudrup) to seal the title: SSC Napoli Sunday, 29. March 1987 Juventus goals 1 : 0Alessandro Renica 14. 1 : 1 Aldo Serena 50.2 : 1Francesco Romano 58. Claudio Garella Moreno Ferrario Alessandro Renica Giuseppe Volpecina Francesco Romano Ciro Ferrara Luigi Caffarelli 51'Salvatore Bagni Fernando De Napoli 10Diego Maradona Bruno Giordano 68'Substitutes Giuseppe Bruscolotti 68'Andrea Carnevale 51'Stefano Tacconi Luciano Favero Nicola Caricola Stefano Pioli Gaetano Scirea Lionello Manfredonia Renato Buso 61'Massimo Bonini 65'Michel Platini Massimo Mauro Aldo Serena Substitutes Beniamino Vignola 65'Massimo Briaschi 61'Manager: Ottavio BianchiManager: Rino Marchesi
Pele was among the TOP5 most complete (if not the most complete) player ever in history. Pele could teach Gerard how to trap/seal the ball, how to steal clean/cut off the ball of opponent supply at midfield. Pele coould play good as CB,FB and GK But of course it was a "crime" to put Pele in any defensive role, for he coudl win game up front