That Rafa Nadal analogy would have been applicable if Football was a individual sport and Messi had vastly inferior records compared to his arch-rivals (Cristiano Ronaldo) in grass and hard court (UCL & World Cup)
Didn’t Nadal win most of his majors in France ...sliding around on sand ?? They should class them as two different sports like Rugby league abc union
Whehe, Dearman with his 'bonus points' to get the desired outcomes... Including his crappy country ranking (Brazil the #2 in history, right). And he consistently gives dutch figures the short end of the stick, that is why I am dislike him too. The low ranking of e.g. Modric also sticks out.
Pele was outscored by countinho in their 1962 copa libertadores win ADS was outscored by puskas in their 1960 European cup win Do examples exist of Cristiano Ronaldo being outscored by any of his team mates in the champions league since 2007/08 What is success and what is failure (trophies are a collective effort not solely down to the individual) This is a faulty way of measuring a players contribution on so many levels The trophy cabinet in and off itself isn't indicative of a player being great or greater Gento with 6 European cups was nowhere nearer to George Best with 1 European cup What matters is what Player A and player B contributed towards the title via way of tangible end product Substantiated by video footage or match reports
If Puskas, Eusebio or Cruyff had won a World Cup, they definitely would have been significantly closer to the no.1 spot as compared to where they are placed now. Thus, to answer your question, while their efforts in these tournaments are exceptional and thus not to be neglected, when talking about the absolute pinnacle, the small margins due to which they were unsuccessful and thus missed out on the biggest trophy in world football definitely make a difference to their final standing in the history of football. What my metric does is that it simply puts a numerical spin to this reality. Also why are you bringing up Maradona here when I did not mention him at all? Did he have the same advantages as Messi had in terms of the club teams that he played for? It's a horrible strawman to bring up really. As for league campaigns, they were never the pinnacle or highest competitive level of the sport that football players could play and there too the difference between Pele/Di Stefano's achievements and Messi's is simply not that big (if you want you can do the exercise for domestic campaigns like I did it for international campaigns). Anyway, ultimately, domestic league campaign were never considered as anything other than secondary when looking at team achievements since otherwise a player like Ibrahimovich would be a lock on for the top-10 list of all time greats. Or to put it differently, if Messi had not won much with Barcelona domestically and had played second fiddle to Cronaldo's RM in the league, but had been winning World Cups, Copa Americas and CLs at a much higher frequency, he would end up with more acclaim regardless of Cronaldo's domestic exploits. Bottomline is though that the above again misses the whole point that me, and Vegan before that, have been trying to make. What you and the posters who repped you need to answer is why the people who disagree with your rankings, need to modify their expectations simply because there is such a drop in performance level when our two modern greats move from their loaded club teams to their non-loaded NT teams. It's not as if players who are considered to be at a lower tier and who were burdened with similarly dysfunctional teams have not had a marquee international tournament. So what is wrong in being disappointed in not seeing one from our two modern greats and judging them based on this very important aspect? P.S. Dearman is enthusiastic but he started off with a blank slate and thus his methods were easily coloured by the opinions of a set of very vocal people who have their own views and agendas. I hope you appreciate that team sports are fundamentally different compared to individual sports and thus your examples from F1, Boxing and Tennis aren't applicable when discussing football. As for Basketball, both Jordan and Lebron have won multiple NBA championships and there really isn't a big enough international scene in the sport to make a meaningful comparison on that aspect between the two. So that example is not of much use in our current discussion either.
so effectively the difference between Cruyff and Maradona is a winning goal in a world cup final A winning goal that Maradona himself didn't score Cruyff like Maradona had a solitary assist vs West germany This is completely nonsensical in my opinion all time lists written by institutionalised football historians are just so at odds with reality what is greatness and how it should be measured How could Maradona in one 7 game tournament overhaul Cruyffs club career which was demonstrably superior
That's the point of "small margins" I believe. Anyway, as you brought up above, Cruyff does have a marquee WC tournament (though unsuccessful) and a great club career to go along with it and yet he is widely considered to be in the tier after Maradona's. Yet, Messi without a marquee WC tournament to go along with his great club career is supposed to be above both Maradona and Cruyff now. The questions that Vegan and I have been asking are, why this sudden change in criteria and why apply it to Messi alone, considering that Cruyff should benefit more from it due to the above reason. That's the real nonsensical aspect, in my opinion.
I was referring to Maradona at Argentinos Juniors, back in the Primera Division of Argentinian league football.
This is offtopic, but my personal choices Senna for me, because of his talent. His class was especially visible in adverse/unpredictable circumstances like the rain or extreme temperatures where engines struggle to make the difference (similar to last Austrian GP race). In achievements he lacks behind the others but the fact of Schumacher racing with bespoke Bridgestone tires (with the rest of field forced to use the same brand, just not bespoke for them) giving him a 2 seconds per lap advantage and Hamilton racing in vastly overpowered cars (and outclassed by his team mates in some seasons, and not because of misfortune) sways it to Senna for me. Not a fan of all the hoompah around him. Senna did crash his competitors out of the race, but you can do the same for the others and especially next to Schumacher it isn't an unfavorable comparison for him. I also liked Hakkinen at his pomp, enormously fast and will never forget him crying in the woods after he crashed his car in Italy. Not sure. Only that Ali is in an absolute sense not the best. Never followed boxing very closely; it's not popular here. In a relative sense (i.e. robbed from some of his best years) and with context factored in Ali is maybe #1. I did read Hauser's very good book. Statistically Jordan is the best but Lebron his achievements with great teams and poor teams alike enthuse me more. I'm in the Lebron camp. I don't think Jordan could carry a team in the way Lebron did. Jordan had (statistically) the better support cast in any of his finals as the opponent had. He was always on the better team. This shouldn't be a discussion. It is Federer by a galaxy. I will be sad for a tiny bit when he retires. It isn't really close imho, not by any angle unless tennis stops being relevant beyond Paris. Remarkable though how those keep on being the very best well into their 30s. But others will see this different, lol. Well he certainly didn't listen to me!! Just as the whole of Thailand doesn't listen to me My problem is twofold: 1) Approach it as a science, as a math, but patching this up with arbitrary 'bonus points' and what more. 2) Some strange calls like ranking Germany the more successful and greater football nation as Brazil (and Netherlands below Czechoslovakia, Uruguay though the latter is less wrong). Tendency to give certain countries always and consistently the short end of the stick (one rare and odd exception is him ranking Xavi below Rijkaard). This results in a Modric ranked way too low imho (next to his semi-contemporaries certainly)
It’s more to do with a shift of perceptions in generational followers. Back in the Cruijff and Maradona eras the international scene was the pinnacle to validate the true greatness of a superstar. In addition, the skill-set was imperatively and thoroughly examined. Nowadays, young journalism and older crowds that assimilate to worshipping of a player plays down any shortcomings when in previous generations it would have been seen as a severe stain on the CV of a star player. Individual statistics has also grown in determining decisions by eliminating arbitrary and subjective opinions, but at the expense of overlooking context and time.
Is it? Di Stefano, Matthews, Best among others were very often placed high despite not having very notable international achievements.
Yes, but with the exception of Di Stefano (and it’s more rounded to a select group of European followers) history over the years has written or inculcated to our readers that Pelé and Maradona were the best players to fight for the true world crown. And now of course the GOAT discussion in all of sports has made its way, utilizing statistics and metrics in our obsessed-stats world to shift conventional wisdom. Off-topic, but I’m not sure Nadal or Federer would have dominated in another era but that’s just me. Just like I never considered MJ the GOAT : individually he was more athletically gifted than Bird or Magic but I have those other two in the same sphere.
That is not always wrong. Sometimes it is, but sometimes statistics help to assess established beliefs and specific claims about certain players. It is helpful for testing claims in a quasi-Popperian way. Also something as transfer fees are 'statistics'. You can't use one final number for a final conclusion but for testing specific claims it is inevitable.
It’s more to do with how comfortable he feels on Spanish turfs. Messi’s major triumphs are in the domestic arenas but outside that comfort zone he’s as earthly as anyone. Messi becomes a sheer mortal outside the Spanish arenas. Like Nadal, take away clay courts and his invincibility drops significantly.
You cannot involve the Primera Division of Argentinian league football in this discussion It holds little to no weight in a direct comparison with top tier European leagues Most argentine primera division top scores in the time of Maradona who tried their luck in Europe abjectly failed In Europe Maradona never once lead or even got close to leading in scoring/dribbling/playmaking in Europe This is what matters The stats of Maradona at boca were exponentially inflated by penalties He was a forward here for at least a season and he literally averaged more penalties than any historic scorer I'm aware of This is completely absent from your rose painted picture
There is no 2 GOATS in football . Di Stefano, Cruyff, Messi and Cristiano are in the same tier . And there is NO chance to Maradona is a GOAT. His skillls and WC 86 are overhyped. There is no single legend who's carrer is so heavily dependent on one single tournament/season. But of course, domestics leagues aren't primary competitions until is 80's serie A ( because of Maradona ) Other players failed here and there but when Diego failed at Copas, european cups, etc we have excuses, tons of excuses... In almost every post, You underrated current stars. You don't like Messi , talk about him like "product of european marketing". Talk about Messi and Cristiano wouldn't score above 15 goals in 80's serie A. But Maradona or Platini would score 30 today? Yeah right Now Nadal and Federer wouldn't have dominated other eras. Let's go and say that Laver or Borg would win 30 GS today Bird in the same tier as Jordan Who else is overrated? Bolt ? Phelps? Schumacher? James ?
Well this might spark a debate but prime Djokovic destroyed both Federer and Nadal in their confrontations at major tournaments. He's 5 years younger than Federer and short of 5 grand slam titles only (the gap might lessen further tomorrow). So yes I don't think the difference is that big Spanish turfs are made up of different materials? Jokes apart his UCL records are better than anyone not named Cristiano Ronaldo in the modern era and in some seasons he has been outright best
Rule of the thumb: Everyone who debuted after the year 2000 is overrated Everyone before is underrated Ronaldo scored 10 goals in 5 games vs bayern/atletico/juventus 2017 But he would struggle to score 15 goals in 30 odd league games against freaking mighty verona/lecce/sampdoria etc What dose of drugs are people on I want some of it now please
You previously asked me a question about Messi and seem to not agree with my views, which is fine, you don’t have to agree. However, you didn’t provide any rebuttal or shed any insight on why I should think otherwise.
Maybe you were not as vocal or persistent as some others. I have approached him only once myself IIRC. Anyway, I think it takes a lot of time and persistence to prepare such a list and my kudos to him for devoting himself to it, but IMHO the result might have been markedly different if he had read about and watched more football himself before starting discussions on message boards to rank players historically. Offtopic - Since you brought it up, regarding the Nazi fascination of Thailand, it might have something to do with how there has been ongoing propaganda since the end of the 2nd world war to link Nazism with Hinduism/Buddhism (Thailand being a majority Buddhist country), especially by translating the Nazi symbol of the Hakenkreuz into a "Swastika" (a Hindu/Buddhist symbol), when a more obvious literal translation for it i.e. the Hooked cross, could have been used. Its probably because of the proliferation in websites looking for content creators in addition to almost all newspapers and magazines having dedicated sports pages these days, thus making it easier for even non-expert content creators with little knowledge of football history to get access to publishing on platforms with a decently sized audience. Earlier I suppose it was only a handful of publications who focused on the sport and thus they could pick and choose to get more well-informed content creators who had more knowledge about the history of the game. With a large enough number shouting about the greatness of a player from every rooftop available, there isn't much for the rest of the voices to do but to fall in line with the popular opinion.
So what about his capacity outside the confines for Barcelona when he wears the Argentinian jersey ? What’s stopped him there from being a world beater ?
It's the fault is of his teammates, managers, the AFA, CONMEBOL, FIFA, etc. After all, he has been scoring at a goal a game for Argentina like he does for Barcelona. Oh wait ...
That’s my biggest issue: too many excuses and as an emperor of current football he must shoulder most of the blame (and all of it for his meddling in internal decisions).
You are not reading between the lines properly. I’ll address my points again: 1.) Maradona at Argentinos Juniors and Boca Juniors and Cruijff at Ajax were top scorers and creators for their respective clubs. But once Cruijff moved to Spain and Maradona to Italy that scoring dropped. They had to adapt to different circumstances and different defensive schemes that foreign stars were subjected with. 2.) There is no conclusive statistical information from Maradona’s generation, except for some rare Serie A data (1986-87) of certain categories of the game. Furthermore, you are overlooking what many younger crowds do nowadays, which is to lack the understanding of context and time. They count numbers and with that reach a superficial conclusion. If it was that simple then from 1973-1978, Cruijff in Spain was a phantom and Quini and Kempes were the best in the world ? Right... and in Italy Virdis and Serena were greater than Maradona ? Please... In the 1970s-1980s (at least until 1988) no player in Spanish and especially Italian league football could dominate scoring charts in ways that are permitted in today’s game. Serie A was at the pinnacle of its defensive game, with its man-to-man marking, with defenders obtaining usually higher ratings than famous forwards. If an attacking foreign player scored 10-15 goals in the league it was for the standards of that time a remarkable feat. Football has a cycle and high scoring in certain leagues has risen back to the 1950s. The low point of scoring of the 1980s in Italy will probably never be repeated unless the rules change again in favor of defenders.