Next Ballon d'Or winner that isn't CR7 or LM10 (and when)?

The World Soccer and Onze d’Or were readers’ votes, isolated to Anglophile/Francophile audiences. I don’t usually count those sources since they are the fans votes. It’s like a Guerin Sportivo poll conducted for Italian readers in the mid-1980s which had Maradona at times at the top alternating positions with Platini. They are more like a popularity vote for the readers to select from a chosen selected group of candidates from the publication.

In terms of the Guerin Sportivo award, it’s well-documented from my GS thread that Maradona was the highest rated player in 1984-85 and the highest rated foreigner in 1984-85, 1986-87, 1987-88 with a top 5 finish in 1985-86. It’s not determined yet how he ranked in the other seasons since I didn’t conclude that thread yet. But it’s evident that you compare that to any other player in that era and Maradona is the absolute ruler on Italian fields.

Having said that, you are also well aware that in that era defenders boasted more favorable grades than famous attacking players; for Maradona to have the most consistent top rated seasons amongst foreigners of his generation points to two conclusions: either he was really better than the rest or simply receiving the best marks because of marketing and propaganda. Whichever the case, we have an emperor on the continent that’s considered the top or joint-top player with Platini.

Again, according to GS the final results from 1984-1988 position Maradona number 1 as foreign player in 3 out of 4 seasons with a top 5 finish in the other one. It’s undetermined yet the outcome of the rest of the seasons. In addition, you are overlooking the other half of his career in South American football.

Furthermore, you are comparing a ‘one club player’ that never had to shift and adapt to different continents with a guy that proved himself on different continents/settings.

I’ve already voiced my doubts on how Messi would perform outside that comfort zone in Spain and many in Argentina share that same view. And the only reference we have is at the NT where he’s not distanced himself from the rest of the pack.

 

There are no warriors in a "soft sport" as football
As warrior mentality is what novak djokovic showed today
He never lays down(Ronaldo has in some high profile matches)

 

No, because there was a big difference of perceptions at that time with those players you mentioned.

Hugo Sanchez and Gerd Muller weren’t remotely viewed like Cristiano Ronaldo is in direct contention for the world’s throne with Messi. Furthermore, those players you mentioned were virtually limited to one role: scoring. But with Cristiano we have a player that throughout his career has been more than that by functioning and operating in different ways: on the flanks, through the middle, and has become an excellent in-the-box executioner. In addition, he’s the first choice free-kick taker for many years now for his teams — all aspects of the game that neither Muller or Sanchez possessed.

What makes them about equal ?

Broken down into categories.

Technical skill-sets: A complete offensive footballer in every facet of the game. Strong and powerful in the air, ambidextrous, strong off the dribble, a fine touch, acrobatically spectacular, excellent crosser, high level of stamina/endurance, high level of work-rate, expert dead-ball specialist, brilliant finisher.

Consistency: maintains an absolute peak level of physical conditioning that rivals any player in the history of the game. It’s been at least 14 years in a row nominated as one of the top 5 players in the game (and for some the best).

Adaptability: has proving himself on different settings and environments.

Historical transcendence: Portugal won their first ever major trophy (Euro 2016) and Cristiano has been the closest in rivaling Di Stefano for contender of greatest Real Madrid legend. A case can be made that he’s a serious nominee for Manchester United as well.

Trophy haul: it’s a team game but glittered with silverware wherever he goes as the main guy. Winner of grand-slam tournaments for club and country.

He’s held his own and at times surpassed his main (media) rival Messi on the European continent.

All direction points to an emperor that hasn’t relinquished his throne yet and will be remembered for generations to come.

 

Ok why don't you mention the number of times Cristiano Ronaldo failed to deliver in KO stages while his teammates bailed him out?

The entire method is arbitrary as hell. It indicates nothing. At least make a fair comparison between goals+assists per game while comparing players from different generations under different circumstances. If we apply the same logic then Benzema who has won 4/13 UCL is almost as good as Van Basten. To make things even worse Baresi has won 3/10 major tournaments which is inferior to 7/21 of Sergio Ramos. Why isn't Ramos considered a GOAT tier defender yet?

 

Breaking Federer's service when he had 2 Championship points was quite unbelievable.

By the way congratulations to @PDG1978 for winning the first Cricket World Cup

 

Because nobody was suggesting that Cronaldo is at the pinnacle of the sport across eras or that he has never failed in the CL. I am not exactly a fan of Cronaldo btw.

How is the method arbitrary? Are you sure you understand what that word means? Counting the total number of attempts and measuring the successful ones as a percentage of the total, is something that is widely used in multiple different contexts, in order to adjudge the ability to succeed. So it is anything but arbitrary.

As for using goals+assists, get me these records for Di Stefano, Pele or any of the other older greats and I can do the comparison. Else including assists only helps players who started playing after assist records started getting maintained. Not to mention that goal and assist comparisons across eras have their own flaws.

Neither Benzema nor Ramos were the de facto main men for their teams in winning their international titles i.e. they did not get the most recognition for these campaigns when compared to their team members. Lacking such influence, this method's applicability to them suffers a great deal.

 

In addition, I’ve asked some on this board why such a discrepancy in NT major tournaments in comparison to former legends.

In another thread I’m attempting to establish the greatest NT player of the 1980s or roughly the absolute ruler of top contenders of an era.

https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/th...yer-vs-the-elite-and-darkhorse-teams.2088447/

When I measure a player and his greatness it must surmount to different settings outside of their natural habitat of their comfort zone. There must exist a marquee tournament for the NT (circumstances permitting of course) and a level of excellence that is in line with their domestic supremacy. It must also be imperative to establish success and a certain level of excellence vs the top elite teams of their generation. In Messi’s case, that’s significantly lacking in his CV.

How some people can excuse him of that despite playing for the top ranked side through certain phases of his career, having perks/circumstances set in his favor and staying injury-free, is quite astonishingly shocking in my view.

 

Agreed for the most part.

I do believe though that Messi still has at least a couple more chances (till WC 2022 in all probability, although he might continue playing even after that) to get a marquee NT tournament. I think that Messi in his heart of hearts considers Cronaldo as his one true competitor, and therefore will continue to play with his NT till he wins a continental championship at a minimum, like Cronaldo has done. At the same time, I also believe that Cronaldo will try to make a lasting mark in the CL with Juventus. Depending on which one succeeds, I think historically, that player would be seen as the one to climb the highest. If both succeed or both fail, then I think it would remain an eternal debate.

That's a good exercise that you have going on. Later on, you might want to do it for the same players for their club teams as well in another thread, if it makes sense and its not already done.

 

Thanks. I actually chose to watch the tennis and Formula 1 lol (I've been more interested in or entertained by those sports in present/recent tense I suppose...as opposed to 80s/90s when it might be more in the balance although not sure as specifically talking about British GP and Wimbledon Final vs CWC I watched the former more then too also).

I have been watching a little bit more Cricket lately again though, especially in some of the England World Cup games. Football has always been number 1 pretty much though I'd say for me. The Cricket team did well though, and yeah notable first World Cup win. From a personal perspective I wonder I'd have preferred Federer and Leclerc to both win as then I'd have a decent amount more money in the bank today lol! But considering the origins of the sport it's probably about time England had a win!

I thought I should acknowledge your post with some kind of comment anyway, although obviously more and more off topic the more I typed!

 

Because traditionally it is believed that the scoring itself is not the hardest job, but breaking lines and piercing defenses is the hardest position and a goal is at the end of that sequence. The odd circumstance is here though that in 1980s Italy typically the strikers were a lot closer marked than the guys playing behind; midfield became more congested in the early 1990s.

Then the assumption was too that Platini, Maradona etc. could score goals if they wanted to and needed. They had that skill - but there was a division of labor on the field and the more 'limited' guy was meant to score goals.

Now, modern data might back that up more so for one 'legend' than another legend. For Platini we can say: yes, the data clearly shows he was an accurate shooter and efficient with it.

Me too, and he played the better tennis imho. He lost against the more powerful guy, and raw power is in tennis probably even more of an advantage as in football (where you can compensate and limit damage to a degree with good positioning and movement). It really is a power game, where endurance and defensive baseliners reign supreme, which makes the sustained competitiveness of Federer (the best in the world in second half of 2003 and still the best in the world in the first half of 2018), who is a good athlete but not a beast like Nadal, Djokovic, Ferrer, Murray etc. all the greater. Okay this is off subject but I'm a big Federer fan.

 

Yeah, I was joking about gambling before (although would have been more pleased to win more money it's true!), but actually my preference as a viewer would be for Federer too.

I think it's true that Djokovic had a bit of an advantage athletically, given also that Federer is 37 (although it didn't seem there was some massive gulf in fitness/stamina even at the end). He's not perhaps a big hitter compared to some, but plays more of a relentless game with (on the whole) less varied technique/finesse I suppose.

Overall it was too close to call though, and there has to be a winning player, but obviously it wasn't emphatic but just came down to closing the match out. Funnily Federer won the more points over the match, by a fair distance, but lost every tie breaker! Which seems contradictory, but I guess tie breakers are not that simple and often get decided quite early in effect, when one player gets behind after losing a point or two on his serve (it's just that in general play Federer was losing them on his serve much less than Djokovic).

What we don't know (and to tie it into football - it's probably a bit harder to gauge visually maybe? - in football I guess it is more clear/evident when a player doesn't run as fast or as much as before etc, or his legs going start to inhibit his play) is whether Federer is significantly inhibited by being 37 or not. Although he did lose the match points (which is obviously a major example of dropping points on his serve outside the tie breaks!), it didn't seem to me like he lost it due to the mental side as both against Djokovic and Nadal he seemed to keep composed and avoid bad shots more than on some occasions from not so many years ago - I don't know whether the peak of Nadal's shot speed etc for example was several years ago too though (hence Federer finding it more comfortable to return them, as opposed to just doing it better). Djokovic and Nadal are obviously not young either in tennis/sport terms now - I guess on some Tennis forum there is a 'Next men's singles Wimbledon winner that isn't Federer/Djokovic/Nadal' thread in full flow lol!

 

Of course it is impossible to expect a balanced take from you when your mind is already made up.

If it makes a difference Lionel Messi himself said as late as 2018 that Cristiano Ronaldo is the only player of this generation he considers to be of his level


Who cares though when voetbal magazine has spoken (credible source? )

 

This is right but a later moment he still said he "sees it that way" (i.e. Maradona a class higher) in his own 'best 23' thread - therefore the confusion. And there are still many other things like ranking Matthaus a class higher than MvB, which to me personally is like ranking Modric a class higher if CR7 would break his leg at 27.

It must also be said there is a limit to how good a club team can be, over the long run. The upper limit is (for now) not '0 goals conceded', so at a certain level there is limited room for a Messi or Suarez to make it even more of a winning team.

Maybe in the future we'll see further uptakes, just as we are now scratching our heads at the 1950s Real Madrid team or the 90s Milan team that had at many spots the world's best player in their position (or somewhere near that).

Either way, this is an advantage Pele and Messi had. Readily recognized as the single best because their team was the single best. They made use of it in outstanding fashion hence they're the two most dominant players in history (Pele more so for country, Messi more so for club).

Maradona had not that advantage nor did the possibilities exist for getting to a dominant team (be it club or country, although his country team was still top material and it helped for his fame they were world champion at the beginning). Whether he always made the most of that circumstance is a second thing...

You fudge it now a bit but you've ranked him at the bottom of the 2nd tier. Thus below Puskas, Beckenbauer and the rest. Why has he the weakest case of them all? Yes it is a weakness to have played only two tournaments (outstanding in both, hard qualifiers and route in 1976) but that's more a matter of not playing than failing. A strong point is him still doing damage against top teams at the age of 37 (including eventual winners), in an era where it was less likely than the 1950s or now to last that long.

 

As an on-subject link, I did see this part in an article on that event:

"We all know about the importance of home advantage, one of the most powerful phenomena in sport. We know about how it can inject inspiration into the favoured protagonist, how it can boost confidence and creativity. We know, too, how daunting it can be to face a wall of noise offered to one’s opponent. When playing away from home, professional footballers have basal testosterone measured at up to 67 per cent lower than their opponents."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...l-win-more-slams-than-roger-federer-9bmckqn2s

That places certain 'failures' like Ronaldo Luis in Paris or 'Pythagoras on boots' in Munich (the home of six opponents) in perspective... And Cristiano Ronaldo was also on his way to a 'failure' in the euro 2016 final (played in Paris, against France) until his injury.

 

One of the problems when comparing Messi and CR7 with their predecessors is that their time is one when international football is devalued. They are judged by the Champions League, where one or other picked up a winners medal eight times in the eleven seasons between 2008 and 2018. They also won every Ballon d'Or between 2008 and 2017 despite winning only one international tournament (Euro 2016) between them.

Similarly Di Stefano's European Cup triumphs came before the World Cup was fully established. Mel Charles (John's brother) remarked that when he represented Wales at the 1958 World Cup, few people back home knew the tournament was taking place. Welsh sports pages were taken up with domestic cricket.

The reputations of Pele, Garrincha, Charlton, Beckenbauer, Maradona, Zidane and Brazilian Ronaldo gained a big boost when they were high-profile members of a World Cup winning team. Their club form was not always scrutinised too closely.

Which German and French players received a similar boost after the 2014 and 2018 World Cups? Arguably none. Most of the Spanish winners in 2010 are identified more by what their clubs achieved in the Champions League.

Would Messi's standing be that different had Argentina won the 2014 World Cup Final?

 

True, however the last three WC winners didn't have a clear standout player.

I assume the outcome will be different if we see a Cruyff '74 (ideally winning) or Maradona '86 type effort or even something like Kempes '78, Rossi '82, Ronaldo '02.

 

Not just the World Cup, but the EURO, the other premier international tournament, as well. There hasn't been a single legendary individual tournament by anyone in the EURO in the 21st century, and I think even less so in the 2010s.

It could be that there doesn't exist a player in the 21st century who can dominate like before. Or it could be that international football has evolved to a stage where it is impossible for a single player to dominate like before, the the champions will be the team with the overall best team.

 

Mbappé ?

 

If those tournaments had a premier player then often they weren't on the winning team. Hazard, Modric, Robben, James, Messi, Sneijder, Forlan, Schweinsteiger etc. For the hard matches earlier in the tournament.

I do think Lahm has received a reputation boost from winning as captain, and the same has also happened for Casillas.

 

I would also argue Xavi/Iniesta has had their reputation boosted by their international victories. Unlike Messi who is seen as 'can't win without Barcelona's supporting cast' Xavi/Iniesta are praised for being able to 'win without Messi'.

 

I assume that had Griezmann been in the winning side in EC16, his reputation would have received a boost.