Guerin Sportivo World Player of the Year awards 1979-1986

It depends how much one values the exploits of each player in his own environment. Is current La Liga more challenging than Argentinian football of the late 1970s and early 1980s ? Is it more difficult to excel than in La Liga of Cruijff, Shuster’s epoch ? I think not. When the most famous players arrived to Spain from abroad, they weren’t really marveled by opponents, they were looked at with antipathy. On the field they were hunted down without mercy. The Spanish refs didn’t sympathize with them either. But this isn’t the case with current football anymore. Nowadays, Messi is revered in Spanish football, by opponents and officials. He’s an untouchable figure that’s box-office. A defender sneezes on him and the whistle is blown. A repetitive foul and the player is booked. Besides, no one is going to try to ruin his career. You think Spanish defenders gave a damn if Maradona or Shuster had their careers put to an end from a rough tackle ? Heck no!!! After that challenge that nearly ended Maradona’s career, he had to live the rest of his life with screws attached to his tendons.

Messi’s the best shot-maker along with Cristiano in Spanish football but they don’t have to take old-fashion hits to their lower extremities as frequently as Shuster and Maradona used to endure.

When I look at a La Liga match of Barcelona, I rarely see him man-marked, kicked and thrown to the ground. I see very naive defending, as if defenders show too much respect. There is the occasional exception but in general that’s my impression.

Then I flash back to the past and remember how La Liga used to be with its rough surfaces, robust defending, frequent fouls, nasty man-marking, and less kissing-ass comments of star players. It was a man’s game, you had to be literally a man to play in that type of atmosphere. This is why some players like Zico decided he did not want to play in Spain. And then there was Serie A, with its low scoring games, with its catenaccio. These leagues were shifted more to help defenders where now it’s the reverse.

It’s just a difficult comparison to make. I can’t say for certain because Messi scores regularly at a high rate that makes him the better performer because times have changed. On one hand Messi is more of a finisher, Maradona was naturally more of a provider.

In his comfort zone, raised in his youth with Barcelona, he has everything at his disposal. Maradona moved around, went through more risks from a young age, had to adapt to different cultures and environments.

On the contrary, I think it’s too generous to let Messi off the hook for his shortcomings against title contenders.

You really believe Argentina wouldn’t have been able to knock those sides out without Messi ? They beat Chile without him and were already ahead against Bolivia. More importantly, those teams couldn’t score against Argentina. Their best hope in tight encounters was to rely on penalty kicks.

I think the goals involvement argument is flawed because without him Argentina would adjust as they did when he wasn’t available vs Chile. When he plays the game is channeled through him, he’s the navigator of the ship. He’s the pivot and the main finisher. It’s normal for him to stat-pad the scorelines, because he’s what makes them run.

They were in an ideal position because they didn’t confront really good sides. The majority being minnows. Teams that couldn’t even create real danger and failed to score. You take Brazil and Germany out in 2007 and 2014, and the rest of the teams only scored 2 goals against Argentina. How do you expect them to beat Argentina if they can’t put the ball into the net ? They couldn’t even create significant danger.

In the history of World Cups, Argentina has only beaten England, Brazil, Germany and Uruguay with Maradona in the lineup. Their record against them had always been negative in World Cup history. Furthermore, Argentina’s only WC win outside of home soil was with Maradona. You can argue about the quality all you want of those teams and throughout history, but I think we must give credit where it’s due.

There was no need for an excuse in 1986 because Argentina put 3 goals past West Germany. He put players in positions to score. And in those three goals Maradona was directly involved. In 1990 it was a whole different story. The Germans were stronger, Argentina’s key players were carrying injuries, and they were missing 4 key players. In a final this is a tremendous disadvantage. The striker, who replaced Caniggia, Dezotti, had rarely played with Maradona in any competitive match, and the Germans controlled the game, with Argentina’s frontline rarely seeing the ball.

With Messi in 4 finals Argentina scored a total of 0 goals and 3 of those games went into overtime. He rarely put players in positions to score and he himself failed to put his chance away vs Germany.

But this is not about Maradona, this is about Messi and his shortcomings for the NT. Never has a player reached 4 finals for the NT and not made an impact.

El “Tucho” Méndez in three straight finals for Argentina in 1945, 46, 47 scored and Argentina won those championships.

Batistuta in two finals in 1991 and 1993 scored and won those championships.

De La Mata in the 1937 South American final scored twice to beat Brazil and crown Argentina champions. Antonio Sastre was three times champ in 1937, 1941 and 1947. Moreno and Pedernera were multiple champions as well.

How is it possible that Messi can’t win at least 1 ? Was Chile and Germany some monstrous teams that couldn’t be beaten ? No, they were overrated champions that relied on last minute goals or penalty kicks to triumph.

Messi has the unfortunate record of losing in two straight finals to Chile. To Chile!!! A team that failed to just qualify to the WC. A team that Argentina beat home and away in the qualifiers. A country that is a political enemy to Argentina for aiding the Brits in the 1982 Falkland’s war. A country that has had territorial disputes with Argentina throughout history. This never occurred in Argentina and never with an iconic player representing the white and blue jersey. The greatest Argentinian players in history, Seoane, Puecelle, Sastre, Pedernera, Moreno, Di Stefano, Sivori, Kempes, Maradona, Batistuta, all were champions. All contributed decisively to deliver titles.

Why is it impossible for Messi to join that club of champions ? The answer in my view is that he lacks strength of character when the pressure rises outside the comfort zone of his club Barcelona.

He’s very fortunate that he’ll get another shot at a title but if he fails to win, what excuses will be made again next time around ?

Because they didn’t face any real dangerous contenders. In 2007 Peru and Mexico were thrashed, teams weaker than Argentina. In 2014 Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands were not stronger sides and couldn’t even score against Argentina. In 2015 Colombia and Paraguay were no match in footballistic terms. In 2016 Venezuela and USA had no chance and were cannon fodder. In these games Argentina only conceded 2 goals when they were already ahead.

Messi has had the fortune of playing for an Argentinian side that clamps down and shuts down opponents. Even the Germans struggled to score and couldn’t create real danger until Argentina’s men got tired, due to several overtime games in the previous rounds and one less day of rest. Chile in the finals were shutdown.

So how were these teams going to beat Argentina if they can’t even score ? They’d have to rely on penalty shootouts, assuming Argentina failed to score. Furthermore, I remind you that the majority were also minnows. Finally, you watch the matches and in general those teams seemed inferior, struggling to create any danger.

So what’s stopped him from replicating what other Argentinian legends have accomplished throughout history ? I repeat, Maschio and Angelillo scored 9 and 8 goals apiece to deliver Argentina a title in 1957. Mendez was the finisher that never lost in 3 straight finals for Argentina in 1945, 46, 47. De la Mata decided a final against Brazil in 1937.

These players are unknown for the most part now but were national heroes. Why couldn’t Messi accomplish similar triumphs ?

Do you really think he deserves to be crowned a champion when he’s never come close to accomplishing what those less known players achieved ?

Think about it. Don’t react in the heat of the moment like some have done here. The credit should be given when it’s due and in Messi’s case he shouldn’t be spoken in the same class as some of those legends that drove their countries to glory.

I repeat, Mendez, an unknown player to many on this forum, 3 Cup finals scoring and delivering titles. Taking out rivals Uruguay and Brazil. 3 for 3. Messi in 4 finals: 0 for 4 and incapable of defeating Chile on two occasions. An unprecedented negative record.

 

To further add, in those KO rounds in 2007, 2014, 2015 and 2016, Argentina scored a total of 23 goals while their opponents 6. With the exception of few games, Argentina were vastly superior. Messi scored 4 out of those 23 goals.

 

I’ve seen them on the field in live action and I can categorically state that Maradona was way more active, covered more ground. But the vertical sprints forward makes Messi very difficult to stop. That short sprint in the span of seconds where he can distance himself is very similar to Maradona. Inclusively maybe even more explosive.

I think there’s a difference in strength of character as well. The other night was the first time I’ve seen him have truly the killer instinct to go out and decide a decisive match for Argentina. That killer instinct Maradona had shown already by the age of 25 in Mexico City. It took more than 120 caps for Messi at the age of 30 to demonstrate a certain rebelliousness when Argentina’s backs were against the wall. I know that the opponent was weak but the job still had to be done.

The problem with Messi, as with Zico, is that they never demonstrated to be game-changers against title contenders in any major event. When all the marbles are on the table they shrunk. When a player is the best he must go out and decide games where there’s a certain parity but that’s lacking thus far.

We must remember that Messi has been capped over 120 times. He’s had more opportunities than previous Argentinian players. But still hasn’t succeeded, unless people want to celebrate 2nd place finishes to Chile.

 

In light of recent revelations of Ecuadorean players partying the night before, demonstrating a complete lack of pride and professionalism to the home people and to the game, Argentina’s victory and Messi’s excellence over Ecuador, now loses all of its lustre.

http://www.espnfc.com/ecuador/story...-players-after-reports-of-pre-argentina-party

 

As I’ve stated before, the context of the circumstances regarding Zico and Maradona were different. Zico not only had the better side and was not carrying an injury, but Socrates was the real architect of that play.

As for Messi, his first half vs Uruguay in 2011 is the best I think he’s shown in a tight match against eventual champions. But again, after that half he faded. At one point he also had the chance to win it I think in overtime but his shot was easily gobbled up by the defense and goalkeeper.

As for Maradona, I agree with the rest of your views.

 

Because there is nothing particularly special about them. And for that reason they did not qualify despite the expansion of 32 teams.

Because he ran into several traditional title contenders, unlike Chile, that were better than Argentina, and capable of taking them out, specifically Brazil in 1989 at home. And because he did not play well, hampered by injuries.

Because they lost to Colombia at home, without Maradona in the roster. He came out of retirement at the age of 33 to help Argentina qualify, which he did by setting up the away goal at Sydney.

Never, which is why he’s reached a final in 2014. When he has faced a traditional top opponent, the battles usually have been lost. It’s happened in the final of 2007 against a B side of Brazil, vs Germany in the quarterfinals of 2010, vs Uruguay in the quarterfinals of 2011, vs Germany in the final of 2014. His triumph vs the Netherlands in the semifinal of 2014 was thanks to a penalty shootout, which is probably his most difficult win to date.

Look, Maradona had his shortcomings with the NT, as all great players do, but he also had the most memorable victories outside of Argentinian soil for the team. I repeat, Argentina had never eliminated Uruguay, England, Germany, Brazil and Italy at a WC. He was at the wheel that took those teams out.

As a great player, Messi has to impose himself more against the top teams, because it will be the only way for Argentina to have a chance at winning.

 

Maradona was not a member of the 1993 WC qualifying campaign until Argentina had to compete in a playoff. He had retired from the NT after WC90. He had not played professional football in like 5 months. He was a retired footballer at that point but came out of retirement because the people requested him to do so after the debacle of Argentina losing to Colombia by 5-0. Had this not happened and Argentina would have qualified, Maradona probably never would have played again.

 

Sorry to come back to this point but I fail to see the strength in this argument.

The altitude and heat in Mexico City affected everyone except teams that were used to playing in similar conditions. Argentina was not one of those teams.

Furthermore, you’ve argued in the past that the Mexican people supported the Argentinian team. This is blatantly false. The Mexican crowds and press rooted against Argentina.

In the final of the 1983 Youth WC in Mexico City, Brazil beat Argentina controversially 1-0 with a penalty that didn’t exist, with the entire Mexican crowd supporting the Brazilians. After the game Mexican reporters attacked Argentina’s players, physically attacked them and mocked them as they rooted for Brazil. These same reporters were present at the 1986 WC itching to see Argentina lose. When West Germany drew level at the Azteca stadium, the Mexican crowd went ecstatic, only to go silent moments later when Argentina scored. For the Argentinians it was sweet revenge to win at their home in the same stadium that three years earlier the youth side had been attacked.

 

I don’t share your views entirely. What weak opposition ? Was Italy, Uruguay, England, Belgium and West Germany some second or third-rate sides ? It’s a ridiculous statement. All those teams with legendary players and capable of beating Argentina on any given day.

A better argument would be to say that those teams weren’t great and either had some players past their prime or still not in their prime. But weak is absurd. Weak is what Argentina faced the other night, an Ecuadorean side that fielded inexperienced youngsters that had just gotten together after partying the night before. Or many of the teams Argentina battered away at the Copa Américas of 2015 and 2016, where they weren’t even in the same ballpark with Argentina.

The only weak sides in 1986 Argentina faced was South Korea and arguably Bulgaria because despite the results the difference of parity was clear between the two teams.

Second point, that Uruguay struggled in the group stage doesn’t mean they were a weak opponent for Argentina. On the contrary, many of their players played in Argentina and knew what to expect from them. In addition, as I’ve mentioned in the past, this is a regional rivalry, which can go either way, as it did one year later in the 1987 Copa América. The ability to know well your opponent is an advantage and there wasn’t much of a difference between the two teams. I can’t recall one chance that Argentina created that Maradona did not create or start the move. Inclusively Uruguay played better once Ruben Paz entered the match and put Argentina in an uncomfortable position.

As for England, Wilkins and Robson had disappointed in the group stage, once they were replaced England improved with two straight 3-0 wins, with them in the lineup one draw and a loss with 0 goals. Furthermore, England had only conceded 1 goal prior to the quarterfinals and their only defeat was when they clearly had played better than Portugal but failed to score. The only chance the Portuguese created in the entire match they scored. It was mostly a fluke win for them. Finally, the England and Argentina match was tightly played, with lots of pressure in the buildup leading up to the game, with few chances created up until the first goal.

With Belgium I do agree they were tired and very fortunate to have gotten past the Soviets, thanks to poor officiating decisions with offside goals. However they did improve vs Spain.

 

He played well vs Spain in Buenos Aires but I think was overshadowed or matched by Carlos Tevez. Spain also did not come out with some of their WC winning players from the start. The other matches vs Spain, the European side was a lot better, even if the results don't reflect it.

What Messi has had in his favor is the amount of opportunities at the NT level. Contrast that to someone like Kempes for example, a player with 43 caps but still accomplished a greater achievement in three times less caps.

You take away the 2006 WC where Messi was not a starter and has featured in 6 major competitions, but hasn't had the success of other less capped players.

Even Arturo Vidal has two trophies at his expense. How is this possible if he is truly as great as some believe ?

He's getting too much of a free pass which is underserved.

The argument that Argentina would have not made it to all those finals without him is a specious one. Most of their opponents either minnows or average sides in KO rounds, that couldn't score more than a total of 2 goals and conceded 23 in the process. And those 2 goals against were meaningless, since Argentina blew them away, Venezuela 4—1 and Paraguay 6—1. Argentina were just too solid for their opponents, clamping down and shutting them down.

In other words, there was mostly a lack of parity. Argentina were in the ideal positions to win at least 2 out of 4 titles but came up short. This is inexcusable for a superstar and for one of the defining players of a generation.

As it stands, in terms of significant importance, he should rank for the NT (and rightly so) at least behind Seoane, Puecelle, Sastre, Enrique Garcia, Pedernera, Moreno, Mendez, Kempes, Fillol, Passarella, Maradona, Batistuta, Goycoechea...

There are strong arguments for others to rank ahead as well, but this is what pops up quickly to mind.

Russia 2018 will be his 8th major tournament, twice as many opportunities as some previous legends. He needs to win. It's a situation of now or never.