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

Damn, Jitty is old.

 

Well I do have to hold my hands up regarding the favourites bit, but I knew they had struggled in qualifying and have heard from many that they were not well favoured going into the tournament.

The fact is though, that they were in 2010 as well. With the other quality teams in 1986, I may be wrong, but I just don't see them being at shorter odds than 7/1 a few short weeks before the tournament. I guess my point is that before the tournament, neither team was seen as an 'all time great' but neither were incredibly poor either (a nation like Argentina will good-as-never be 'very poor' in the scheme of things, and always is expected to be in the top 6-8 favourites at the very worst).

Maradona went on to have one of the best ever World Cups against what you yourself say is superior opposition, was the difference against Belgium and had his 'trademark game' vs. England which featured two all-time moments (Hand of God, run from the left wing goals) - he absolutely owned that tournament, and it is remembered as Maradona + 22 Argentinians... + 31 other teams. Messi in 2010 did not, and was no more than a 7.5/10 player. His Argentina went out with a whimper; he couldn't stop 4 being conceded, but he could have done something about the 0 goals scored that game (or by him all tournament). Especially as while his defense was not as good, he certainly had more attacking talent around him than Maradona had 24 years prior.

Given all of this, it hurts his 'GOAT' claim. The fact that two others who some claimed were just as, maybe even more, important to Barcelona than Messi went on to dominate the tournament (Spain didn't score a tonne let's remember; they literally possessed teams to death), also does a lot to hurt the 'GOAT' tag some are so eager to put on him, and even the 'best in the world' that many take as a fact. I know you view Xavi as the best ever, so I am not arguing with you here, just asserting my initial point before we veered off into WC'86 vs WC'10 discussion.

My point re. Messi is that if he does stay at Barca, who have noncompetitive advantages over La Liga (along with Madrid), he is going to have to do something at the other major stage in order to work towards 'GOAT' - either play a big role in winning it, play a massive 'one man' type effort in getting to a final, or at least win player of the tournament unanimously while getting to the semis if not better. He has another chance in 2014, and probably again in 2018 though... so there is plenty of time. I am not writing him off in case anyone is thinking that, but GOAT? Not yet, anyway.

 

Yet an article from a few days/weeks before Mexico 86 is? There are reasonings and explanations given in what I posted, too. So take it as you will. They were among the favourites going in to many, it really is that simple. I can't find player of the tournament odds, predictions or articles, but my guess is Messi would have been the favourite for that by a long margin. He was a let down in 2010. Simple as.

 

McGrain, Sounness, Hansen, Strachan, Joe Jordan, Archibold... and Dalglish. Yikes

 

I never said Jitty's sources were better.

Messi's performance (which wasn't actually that bad) had a lot to do with poor management. This is obvious.

I still don't understand why this is relevant. Messi is essentially being faulted for having good team mates. I doubt any player in history could produce the way he does with Iniesta and Xavi.

 

"As I wasn't alive back then, I didn't know that the 1986 Argentina were a very good side. Luckily, Jitty compensated for my laziness."

Sounds like being given validity to me.
Messi's performance (which wasn't actually that bad) had a lot to do with poor management. This is obvious.

I still don't understand why this is relevant. Messi is essentially being faulted for having good team mates. I doubt any player in history could produce the way he does with Iniesta and Xavi.[/quote]
No, he is being faulted (in a 'GOAT' context - not as being a great, great player) for not being able to reproduce on the same level he does in the perfect setup he has at Barca, when faced with adversity. I never said his performance was awful or anything, but it was a big let down from what was expected, yet in my opinion people are so eager to watch 'the greatest' playing in his peak that they chose to overlook it. No goals, and no real highlight moments (barring one through-ball against... Greece, I think it was? By no means a giant), in a not-too-impressive attacking team display where he had ample attacking talent around him; it simply has to stand against him in those terms.

In terms of being 'faulted' for having good teammates, I am saying he benefits from them and struggled in 2010 without them, as they flourished and went on to be the reason for winning the primary World Cup. That stands against him because it brings into question whether he really is the defacto #1 player in the world, or whether one of those two are.

 

In 1986, they equalised against Peru with 9 minutes left in the last game, having lost to them a week prior. They were 9 minutes off having to try to qualify via the playoffs.

In 2010, they beat Uruguay 1-0 (scoring in the 84th minute) to win 1-0. A draw would have still seen them straight through, though a loss would have seen Uruguay go ahead of them, meaning Argentina would have to try to qualify via the playoffs.

Both times, automatic qualification came down to the last day. In 2010 they were never in a position that saw them fall out of these spots, but in 1986 they were 9 minutes away from having to go the playoff route.

 

if international footabll is a lower standard why the hell is the best player in the historyy of the sport not winning it with a talented squad.

 

The best player in the history of the sport (as per Jitty) is the key cog of the reigning WC and consecutive Euro champions, though... it even says so in his post?

 

When The Jitty Slitter calls Xavi the best player ever does he mean in terms of data, talent or impact?

Or is it all of the above?

 

You should know the answer to that.

 

Take away two verys. A very good player can often take an average team to greatness. Messi is incredible at what he does but what he does is not and will not work outside of a handful of setups and he cannot impose his will on a game. The game must be controlled for him and then he can work his magic.

His influence pales in comparison to a Riquelme or a Totti who for sure we're not better at scoring curled finishes into the far corner after dribbling across from right to left but certainly had more to say about whether their team won or lost on rough days at the office.

I don't think Messi gets enough credit for being incredibly efficient, but I do think his influence and greatness is incredibly overstated. For the platitudes he gets one would think barca is some mid- table club that he is magically lifting to trophies.

 

Fortunately for the sake of this debate, Messi is still very young, and one of the youngest in this current Barce incarnation.

I'm fascinated to see what happens in 3 or 4 years from now, when Xavista can't pull the strongs behind him for 40 plus games per season. Especially Xavi.

 

It is if he is meant to be the supreme leader of the universe and the benevolent ruler of all mankind. If he was as good as he is spoken of, he could do a great deal more with the talent at his disposal. He is not Kenyan. The talent he plays with is on par if not significantly better than the squad Maradona worked wonders with.

 

Not so sure about that myself. From an offensive perspective, yes, but the defense and midfield of that Argentina squad was nothing special at all.

 

actually i dont. enlighten me oh biased one.

 

It used to be that players had to win titles to win best player trophies. What happened to that? Did that theory go away when the awards were restructured? Or is Messi just special?

If the award just goes to the "best player", it's hard to see how actually playing the games matters.

Also, anyone know how the best XI is chosen? Who gets to pick? It didn't match the top XI players in the Ballon D'Or voting.

 

Define production. Theres a guy in Madrid, for one, who has 129 in 118 without xavi or iniesta and i bet he could do what messi does if he were at barça.

 

Im still a bit shocked that this is seen as a landslide in a year where barca won nothing and messi had competition in terms of goals scored.

The world XI is kind of a joke so Im not too bothered. Moving on...

 

FIFA only watches la liga ...Nft

 

No. It's a stupid question to which you know the answer to.

 

I think Messi is special. Reaching that goal tally is like a trophy in itself, but one that players RARELY reach and in this case it happened and it's worth mentioning. Moreso it was from a player who we know is capable of winning and playing to the degree champions are held to. In addition, Messi was just really great in 2012.

 

Agreed.

I think it's important for people to realize, just because Messi is so special, that certainly shouldn't take away from seasons from the likes of Ronaldo, Falcao, RvP or Iniesta.

 

he knows i exist. he called my question stupid. i will treasure this foreverrrrrr.