Running away from an argument is actually the sign of a weak argument. Hence why I am asking again, since you just ran off instead of admitting you were wrong. And are you telling me that you didn't say Messi can dispossess players easier than anyone you've seen in your life, and implied that a player like Mascherano has no qualities (e.g. defensive) than Messi doesn't?
Not having logical comprehension is actually sing of intellectually weak mind. Yes, I said that on dispossession, and rather logically argued for it, and still stand by it. Still rather long way of that to being the best defender. Exaggeration and undermining must be the way you roll.
86-87? Based on Gazzetta dello Sport Ferrara and Bagni had better ratings, based on La Rebubblica Ferrara, Renica, and Romano.
Not that I take those ratings as serious, but wasn't the average mean by all Italian publications for that 86/87 season with Maradona as the highest rated for Napoli, according to DbsCalcio with 6.672? I believe Ciro Ferrara was second, right behind with 6.667. Apparently Maradona's overall rating is the 5th highest of all Serie A players that season, after I had reviewed the other 15 teams. In any event, it would have been good to know the difference from each source.
There is no way that Maradona was the best performer in 1989. Watch the UEFA Cup games for example. Certainly the second half, the start of 1989-90 was not good. As usual, you adopt a certain reporter style without much arguments or proof. When asked for it, you always evade the question (or invent things that do not exist, like non-existing games).
To be honest, I know what your constant answer about a style reporter and the invention of data from me just because you don't want to give yourself the work of corroboration Puck. I'm not the only with which you adopt that attitude to question just because you don't believe or don't know and it's a bit idle to discuss thus. If you believe me or not it's only your decision, but at least try to be more curious or read and watch what any provide you (your denial in the case of Zico was monumental and certainly regrettable although we give you all the information). I'm not interesting to continue that discussion here, if you want you can send me a PM.
You did not provide anything in case of Zico. Where exactly did you post proof regarding his playing position?
Many reasons played a role but by saying he played at a 'superlative' level does not cover the inconsistency and that he did not outshine Schuster at the club. The supposedly best forward in the world struggled to shine above the other foreigner and the club was happy to let him go. If he was not inconsistent at times, why such a poor record in Europe? Why only a handful (at best) of really good games at European competitions? Even when often having a free role? That is not what I meant. I meant that the production for NT in the pre-1983 period was not at the same level as his production at the league level. For more details, see previous post. https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...football-history.1998145/page-2#post-29232587 In sum: excluding the period in Argentina, I count 6 years at an elite level, which tailed off towards the late 80s. In that respect only (number of years among the best), I can see how Messi and Ronaldo have surpassed that.
To further illustrate how Maradona would have had hard time to win three Ballon d'Or's, or in fact even two: World Soccer Player http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Soccer_(magazine) Given from 1982 onwards, he won once in 86, with 36% of votes. Messi in 09, 11, 12 with 43%, 60% and 47% of votes, respectively.
Yeah I did not get your point when you put them in "same category" as Pele Cruijff and Di Stefano. They are NOT period ... at least noway for CR7 style, and NOT YET for Messi up to now ... as 26yrs old player. The term "false 9" started with Hidegkuti in Hungary 53-54 ... and his closest style was Di stefano (Real 55-62) and then later Cruijff 69-78. False 9 = because they worn number 9 shirt but they did NOT play like a number 9. Cruijff Di stefano played much wider and deeper (in heat map) than any one in the team = true leader and play maker. It's so funny that people calling Messi a "false 9" since he never worn number 9, and INDEED he played like a number 9. In fact I would call Messi a "FALSE 10" - since he wore number 10 but played like a number 9.
Not that it is the definitive account or that eras can be compared but this is what Bernd Schuster said: http://www.11freunde.de/interview/das-grosse-bernd-schuster-interview-1?page=3 Use google translate.
Again, there's no impression about 1979 and 1980 years. By the way, according to the World Soccer Magazine, Maradona was the 4th best player of the world in 1983 playing for Barcelona. Any thoughts?: 1983 1. Zico (Brazil & Flamengo | Udinese) 2. Michel Platini (France & Juventus) 3. Paulo Roberto Falcao (Brazil & AS Roma) 4. Diego Maradona (Argentina & Barcelona) 5. Karl-Heinz Rummenigge (Germany & Bayern Münich) The Argentinean was 3rd in 1985, 2nd in 1987, 6th in 1988, 4th in 1989 and 3rd in 1990.
NOTABLY that 1983 was Maradona " UNFIT" season for Barca ...but he did show some glimpse of genius in few games ... and plus, he was playing in ODD position (rightFW)
It'd actually be really interesting to see how his legacy would have played out if that handball in 86' was caught. He'd probably be sent off, or at the least it wouldn't have counted. Either way, the resulting sequence of events would have changed, there would have been no Goal of the Century, and if they did lose, he'd have ended that tournament with a single goal.
Exactly. Copa América has been regarded as a very low profile tournament in South América for many years. Only since 2007 or so South american teams are trying to take it more seriously. The tournament was often used as a serious training for WC qualifiers. If we take a careful look at Copa América editions before 2007 we will see that most of countries sent their squad B/C for the tournament. For instance, in Copa América 97 only Brazil (already qualified for WC98), México, Bolivia and Paraguay played with their Squads A. CA99 had a better level, with many squads A. In Copa América 2001 only Colombia and few others played with their Squads A. In Copa América 2004 Brazil won playing with squad B. On the other hand, the last 2 editions had only squads A and now Copa América can be used as a good parameter. The thing that really surprised me is how Copa América is often used to put down or up some players achievements and this notion is out of the reality. I already discussed with some fans outside SA who had a wrong and simplistic vision that CA = Eurocup. Inside South América, Copa América was regarded as a very low profile tournament until 2007 (just like Confederations Cup is until nowadays). Libertadores and WC qualifiers were rated higher than CA for the last 50 years. Now things may change, but this does not mean people should make a revisionism about past editions of CA. In the end, I think its very innacurate trying to put down or up some past players based on their CA performances.
In reality, FIFA law was so LOOSE at that time frame - note DF had all the right to pull/push players, and slide in tackles with no cards. Hence to "simulate" that goal by normal standard, that was just an "DISALLOWED GOAL" - no sent off surely since not even Yellow card for that act. So the gaol of century would still stand ... (given fact he will play on) - now let's say he would not come up with no winner goals (even after extra time) ... they both will run into PENALTY SHOOT OUT. STATS said: Argentina W3 L1 >> England W0 L3 so ... Maradon would still go on WINNING WC86
It's because you like to dabble on semantics and really say things so cryptic that they are meaningless. Either way Messi is not better at dispossessing opponents than Mascherano. Whether you can accept it or not, Maradona reached an elite level in 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 and 94. In any of those years, he played at a level that only two or three of his peers could match, of course, in some of those years, like 79, 86, 87 and 90, he was head and shoulders better than everyone else.