Guerin Sportivo World Player of the Year awards 1979-1986

Discussion in 'The Beautiful Game' started by Vegan10, Apr 18, 2015.

  1. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member

    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    Croatia
    #401 Sexy Beast, Oct 19, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2017
    Also that specifically:
    There is such thing as trying too hard. You must have heard of that phrase. It's not about working the hardest way, it's about working the smartest way and when you are working too hard, when you want too much, your focus gets blurred so does the level of your decision making drops. You get in the state in which you play worse than you did before.
    A leader is supposed to make everyone around him focused, not invested so much into the game that they make ridiculous decisions. Have you ever seen players like Busquets, Kroos, Pirlo, Xabi Alonso, getting hyped up and energetic on the pitch? No, ask yourself why?

    Football is about making a good gameplan and despite the possibility that things might get out of hand, leaders job is to assure everyone that gameplan is the right one to play, and that way bring back their belief into it, and tell them to stay focused and do the job they are supposed to do in the gameplan.
    It's the quality of perfectly executed gameplan that will determine the outcome of the match, not how hard players are running on the pitch.
    What a good leader basically does is he reassures teammates that this gameplan is the best way to win and reminds them to be focused and stick to their assigned roles. That's aaaaall. No big deal.
     
  2. Vegan10

    Vegan10 Member+

    Aug 4, 2011
    To come back to this point. I think that the view of an upset was not entirely shared by some who understood that what Brazil had accomplished was based on their wins against weak defensive sides.

    The Scots, Kiwis, and Argentinians were very fragile. They were very fortunate that they overcame a solid Soviet side denied of two clear penalties. According to Ladislao Kubala, it remained to be seen how they would respond against a solid defensive team like the Italians.

    Point is, Brazil didn’t have any real threatening challenge until they faced Italy in an elimination match. The Soviets were a nuisance but Italy had more weapons and the stage was greater. I think Italy’s wIn wasn’t a fluke like some have proclaimed and they would have beaten them more times than some believe.


    Yes, that’s also some valid points. And speaking of Passarella, he was a strong personality, a leader, but once he played for Bilardo he divided the squad. He was a Menotti guy. He couldn’t accept that the armband went to Maradona. There’s stories that have surfaced over the years that he did some disgusting things in Mexico in 1986 that really annoyed his teammates. He also dodged friendlies for the NT at one point to avoid crossing the Atlantic Ocean in 1985. This wasn’t the case with Maradona. A great leader must set an example and not become a conformist or an egoist.

    I know out of frustration Messi decided he would quit the NT in 2016 but a leader shouldn’t set that example.
     
  3. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member

    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    Croatia
    #403 Sexy Beast, Oct 19, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2017
    Messi is not a great leader, that's obvious. He is an extreme introvert and not suitable for that job it still doesn't deny his talent as a footballer.
    Anyhow my point is that the majority of the job in terms of motivating is done (or should be done) by a manager beofre the game, to set the overal tone of the team, harmony. Captains (read leaders) are there just to reengage them when things don't go according to plan.

    If you have team full of matured adults, having a leader on the pitch is unnecessary cuze they understand the difficulty and importance of situation (for example, you don't have to say Maradona (or a leader in general) to get his shit together on the pitch when they are losing, he knows that naturally, just like every other mature man does).
    Having a great leader comes in handy if you have bunch of weak personalities (Ozil is an usual example) or premature 20 years olds in the squad, else is just a fancy argument to explain things that are hard to explain (sentimental, inspirational explanation so to speak),.. like that the reason behind Barcelona's success in Guardiola's era is Puyol's leadership and as soon as he left they dropped their performance, that the reason why Portugal won Euro is Ronaldo's leadership, etc. Those are completely misleading conclusions, because as we can see, there have been many great leaders over the years, even greater than Maradona, who ended up as a loosers.

    It's pointless to talk about it, because leadership doesn't win you anything. It has its relatively important part in football, but to be so important to end debate such is Maradona vs Messi?.. no.
     
  4. poetgooner

    poetgooner Member+

    Nov 20, 2014
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    I'm not so sure if this is true. Despite having the likes of Irwin, Schmeichel, Stam, Neville, Beckham, Giggs etc, not to mention one of the greatest off-field leader in the history of the game, Sir Alex Ferguson, the effects of Roy Keane on that team is well documented.

    Arsenal had a lot of men in their team. Hard men as well. Keown, Dixon, Winterburn, Campbell, Lauren, Ljungberg, Bergkamp, Vieira etc. Yet Tony Adams stand out as the team's leader.

    Someone like Vieira, for example, led by example. While Thierry Henry was never a great leader of the team, but he did provide inspiration. He gave the team belief because he was just so good. That can mean something.
     
  5. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member

    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    Croatia
    how is it documented other than people agreeing that that's the case?
     
  6. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member

    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    Croatia
    If we are going to give credit to leaders when their team succeed, what's up with all of those countless examples when team is successful without a charismatic leader. How do we explain those cases?
    As i said, when people can't exaplain something, they tend to turn to spectacular, inspirational explanations for the sake of a "movie effect", you know, to something beyond our meaning of life, God like effect, and other bs.

    How much better does it sound that Vieira's leadership is a reason behind Arsenal's invincible season, rather than obvious explanation that they were that much more talented and hard working than other teams that season, plus they had luck?
    People tend to go for extraordinary explanations
     
  7. poetgooner

    poetgooner Member+

    Nov 20, 2014
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    You're strawmanning the crap out of the point.

    No one is saying that Vieira or Adams or Keane's leaderships was behind the Invincibles/ Double/ Treble.

    In a long season, the vast majority of games are won through sheer superior quality. Some games are won by won magical moment by the star or even a lesser player (Macheda anyone?).

    However, it is also true that leadership has inspired performances. In a 50-60 games season, do you think there isn't a few games where the leadership was the deciding factor? Sometimes, those games are also key games. Pivotal games.

    Kean's performance against Juventus in '99 is a classic one, for example.
     
  8. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member

    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    Croatia
    yeah, i agree, vast, vast minority of games, so why are we talking about leadership as something relevant?
    Being a leader [on the pitch] is just as important as being ambidextrous, imo. It makes difference every once in a while. Are we gonna conclude comparison based on that then?

    You are completely off if you think that nobody is saying that... a lot of people say that.
     
  9. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    One thing that is often neglected (as opposed to other spheres) is that you can have different leadership styles. In football we often see that the 'great leaders' are the ones who fall in a pretty narrow band.

    Furthermore, we know things can be apocryphal at times, especially with certain players like Garrincha and Maradona. The more so in hierarchical cultures and/or cultures where fairytale stories find a fertile ground (it was how 'El Grafico' came of age after all!).
    http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/intern...3/01/1218505-30-years-without-garrincha.shtml

    I do agree that captains (or the leading stars) can set a motivating example, to some extent, although we are talking about mature pros and not little kids. They surfaced as a pro because they could perfectly motivate themselves, although - yes - not every circumstance is the same.

    There's the irony that the leadership styles who are most often associated with 'great leaders' in football, are the ones who make probably the least difference.

    The thing about cortisone injections strikes me as slightly exaggerated. It can be right that Maradona was advised to not play - I believe this can be a motivating example somehow, as well as running back at times to help indeed, but cortisone injections wasn't something special for him. It was - at times - daily routine ever since he was eighteen (source: Jimmy Burns his book; e.g. "The body-building injections of his teenage years had been followed by cortisone jabs to alleviate his injuries." Or Sports Illustrated in 1990: "Yes, Maradona has lost 20 pounds on a recent crash diet. But his regimen, which involves taking cortisone treatments, is considered risky by many doctors"). So I'd doubt it would motivate his team mates if they see him applying cortisone - as Goychochea said - it is then more like that he enters the field, I think. If Goychochea says "it galvanized the team", then I highly doubt this post-fact talk (i.e. "he himself applied the cortisone injections in front of his teammates and took the field. When he did this, I was told by Goycoechea that it galvanized the team").
     
  10. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member

    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    Croatia
    #410 Sexy Beast, Oct 20, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2017
    Leadership can have counter effects, drastic counter effects if done wrong (Brazil 7-1 lose is the major examples), but nobody talks about that ..
    I think it's called a survivor bias (if anyone is interested in that:
    watch whole video but especially 6:17 part. A lot can be connected to Maradona winning wc and Messi no winning wc thing.). When people talk about leadership, they only take positive examples into account, not negative ones.

    For example. Bill Gates dropped out of college, Einstein dropped out of college, so the conlcusion is that if you want to become successful you need to drop out of college, but an actual statistics say otherwise. That majority of successful people finished college and that they are exceptions to the rule... why wouldn't the same be for "leadership"? People are claiming things that can't be proved... It's Maradona's leadership that got them WC, it's this, it's that,.. absolute BS. There are examples that prove that, but there are also examples that contradict the whole premise of leadership.

    EDIT: Is video clear enough or should i interpret the point of it?
     
  11. Vegan10

    Vegan10 Member+

    Aug 4, 2011
    Because that ankle had been injected various times to the point that the medical staff was against further injections in the same spot. That’s why he himself applied the injection against their orders.

    Furthermore, Maradona was a vocal leader, motivated others in the dressing room and on the pitch. Argentinian and Napoli players have stated this, that they felt unbeatable with his sole presence.

    I don’t know if there’s exaggeration with what they said but it coincided across different squads. I think maybe in his early years he was not a leader by voice nor as motivator, but as he matured things changed perhaps. The reality is only those close to him can really validate this.
     
  12. Vegan10

    Vegan10 Member+

    Aug 4, 2011
    I was thinking about this because it’s not easy to look back and find vintage performances from him that is comparable to his exploits at Barcelona.

    That 2010 match you mentioned was the 52nd cap from him. If suppose that was his best game vs an elite opponent up until that point, it took him five years and more than 50 caps. This is quite alarming considering that other legends played less games in their NT and were more influential.

    Furthermore, his first real good demonstration against a title contender in the South American continent arrived vs Uruguay in the 2011 Copa América. A brilliant first half but then faded. It was his 61st cap.

    And then there are some reporters that say his first real great game in an important match was the other night vs Ecuador when Argentina needed him to demonstrate his club form into the NT. It took him 12 years and more than 120 caps at the age of 30. For many journalists he had come up really small for over a decade in important matches.

    The list of crucial games was endless:
    2007 CA final
    WC qualifiers 2010 vs Peru and Uruguay (final two games)
    WC 2010 quarterfinal
    2011 CA quarterfinal
    2014 WC semifinal and final
    2015 CA quarterfinals and final
    2016 CA final
    WC qualifiers 2018 vs Peru (home match)

    How can this be ?

    For some even the match vs Ecuador doesn’t let him off the hook because it’s well established that Ecuador didn’t take that game seriously and dishonored their country by sending players that were more interested in partying the night before than representing with honor their flag.
     
  13. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member

    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    Croatia
    #413 Sexy Beast, Oct 20, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2017
    What is there not to understand? At the beginning of his career, Barcelona and Argentina differed too much style wise and he couldn't handle the change being in late 10s and early 20s (also being managed by an awful managers like Maradona didn't help either). He was spoiled by the luxury he had in Barcelona, which he didn't have in Argentina. You can blame him for that, but not to any extreme because, how can you expect from 22/23 year old young adult to anticipate such problem or be capable of adapting to something like that. Out of all greats i can think of atm, Messi had the most extreme circumstances at the begining of his international career, hence why he "underperformed". Plus add to that that he has been actively compared to Maradona since 2009, his idol. Such pressure at that young age, with not much of a spectacular Argentina side and the huge difference in the playing style of his team and nation, what have you expected from him?

    He got criticized a lot for that so he began to adapt around 2011, and he has been adapting ever since (i already pulled out his stats from the begining of 2012. And they look quite different compared to his early period in Argentina team).
    Because national teams play every now or then, the process of adapting took longer then it would on a club level. In 2013 he suffered 3 major injuries (2013 is the only calendar year since 2010 that Messi didn't score 50+ goals in it, or played 50+ matches). The worst one was in the middle of 2013/14 season, which completely got him out of the rhythm... and then after the most disappointing season (individually) of his career, he went to World cup and won a golden ball (deservely so). He was clearly not at his best, but he was the best in the tournament,. and it took him months since then to get back to his pre injury form he had at the begining of 2013 year and before, but he never quite got at the same level.

    Basically, ever since WC 14, Messi has been playing at the level worth the goat status. Funny enough, since then, Argentina's quality went downhill, but Messi's form for Argentina went off the chart to this point when Argentina without Messi doesn't have good enough results to even qualify for WC and with Messi they do, while Messi directly contributes, in literally, 80% of all goals for Argentina (or something like that) when he plays.

    About big games thing:
    Firstly, the scarcity of big games.
    Secondly, it is a common sense to expect Messi's statistic to be more impressive vs weaker teams than against big teams. I mean, that's why they are labeled weaker teams in first place. it's easier to score against them.
    (Player who you should doubt is the one who scored in few big games but constantly fails to score in small games. if he is not capable of scoring vs weak teams, how much credibility those goals vs big teams have? It could easily be luck, that's something that has to be taken into consideration. There is no doubt with Messi in Argentina when Argentina is the dominant team (or at least, competitive) on the pitch. He clearly is beyond any other player on the pitch then, even beyond world class players like di Maria, Aguero,.. so the question is. what is the limit when Argentina stops being competitive attacking wise.. i think we got answer to that.)

    If you analyse Messi's performances vs big teams you won't see him being so awful that he misses a sitter after sitter after sitter. That would indicate that he clearly underperforms.
    In big games for Argentina, Messi usually doesn't even get a single chance to score a goal... that tells you something. It tells you that Argentina is not good enough to craft enough chances in big games so that Messi can show his full potential. Majority of things they create comes from Messi's foot. You can't criticize that.
    I would understand your criticism if Messi really was missing plenty of sitters, but he isn't. He is not even getting in positions to miss them, which is so important to take in consideration.

    I will again refer to R9's 2002 WC. Look how quite different circumstances he had in that WC. he had healthy attacking team in Brazil, in final he got 5 chances, he scored 2. That's the luxury and circumstances Messi just never had as an Argentinian.
    Now people will say R9 had one of the most impressive international careers, while Messi sucked, or at least underperformed. Having said what i said for the R9's luxury with Brazil, it gets clear that being either success or a failure comes down to details they are not capable of influencing.
    If hypotetically Messi played for that Brazil from late 90s and early 00s, do you really think we would be having this conversation?

    What you see is that Messi is playing for historically a big team, Argentina, and he fails in big games. What i see is that Messi doesn't have a good enough attacking support to consistently craft chances and half chances for him, despite him being the focal point of the team, unlike R9 who is thought to have an amazing international career.

    The summary:
    early international career. Wasn't good enough to adapt, plus nothing special Argentina side.
    mid international career. Matured. The stand out player. Adept a little bit, still doesn't have a good enough team for major achievments (we'll se how he does in WC this year).

    Btw, how many players who played for their nations can, even hypotetically, be proud to say that they have 47 minutes long compilation like this one:
     
  14. Jaweirdo

    Jaweirdo Member+

    Aug 19, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    #414 Jaweirdo, Oct 20, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2017
    Well you could consider that in 2010 Messi was only 22 years old and so despite having more caps he didn't have age/experience on his side. For example, maybe by the time Maradona earned his 52nd cap he was older and had more time to develop as a player at Napoli, or just through experience in general. In other words, at the age of 22 Maradona hadn't really done anything significant for the NT either.

    Furthermore, the only important tournaments Messi had the opportunity to play in at that point was the 2006 World Cup, and the 2007 Copa America. You cant really fault Messi for the 2006 World Cup because Peckerman didn't let him play versus Germany, and in the 2007 Copa American Messi scored in the QF and the SF. Saying he hadn't done anything of note by his 52nd cap doesn't tell the full story.
     
  15. Vegan10

    Vegan10 Member+

    Aug 4, 2011

    Let’s be reasonable here. Messi has over 120 caps, he’s part of the YouTube era, has cameras of all angles that follow him, and is the best player that receives most of the action. By the time he retires he may well be the most capped player in Argentina’s history.

    But highlight reels don’t tell us the entire story. Any clever video manufacturer can make a player look good with highlights. What matters is content and context.

    The greatest NT players delivered in the highest stages, against title contenders. For reference, I’d take 30 plus caps of Norberto Mendez with 3 consecutive championships as the decisive frontman over any Argentinian striker/forward of the past 15 years that may have doubled his appearances for the NT. Which means no Saviola, Tevez, Messi, Aguero, Crespo, Higuaín, etc.

    I’m not interested if any of those players were innately more gifted than “El Tucho” because what matters for me is the ability to go out and decide games, and put trophies in the gallery of hall of fame in Argentina, which Mendez did. I believe true champions and legends should be covered in gold and placed in a higher pedestal than underachievers.

    Before you question how binary this may sound, you have to evaluate the situation that was at hand of each superstar. Some legends are in a disadvantage to win a trophy while others are in ideal positions to make history. I feel that Messi has had more legitimate shots to win titles than many former legends but has come up short.

    You mention that it was hard for him to adapt in the beginning but has it ever occurred to you that that applied to others as well ?

    Had it ever occurred to you that a someone by the name of Gabriel Batistuta had only one cap in his entire career before the 1991 Copa América, but then went onto score 6 goals and become champion, which ended 32 years of a drought at the South American level ?

    Leonardo Rodriguez in 1991 had not much experience at the NT level but was the man that made the team role, as Argentina’s enganche.

    And the 1991 competition was a real tournament, not like the put together 2016 edition, which produced weak sides or top teams missing key players.

    The point is, if I had to choose who is a better talent and legend then I’d go with Messi, but if I have to choose who is a more legendary NT figure, then I’ll pick a dozen other guys instead.

    Russia 2018 could all change that of course because it would place him in an exclusive class with only 1978 and 1986 winners.



    That is correct and I expected someone to bring this up. The main difference is the amount of ideal situations Messi has had since the age of 20. Someone like Maradona had only one legitimate tournament at hand before the 1986 WC, which was in 1982 and he failed to produce his best in the second phase of the competition. Much was expected of him at that time but failed (if that’s the right word) but surely made up for it with the tournament of his life 4 years later. People should also remember that Maradona had struggled in key encounters vs Peru in the 1986 WC qualifiers, even though the press had criticized how the Peruvian defenders had gotten away with malicious defensive tactics.

    I think you are correct that playing in Spain and Italy helped him to grow and understand how to escape from the shackles of European markers, and I feel this is what may have affected Zico by not playing outside his comfort zone throughout his career.
     
  16. Vegan10

    Vegan10 Member+

    Aug 4, 2011

    Ronaldo’s case is also nothing to truly boast about for two reasons: the 1997 and 1999 Copa Américas were devalued events, with mostly A-B sides or teams that were rebuilding. The 2002 WC was won arguably as one of the easiest paths to a final against (in my view) the weakest German side that ever reached a final. But Brazil handled their business regardless. The same can’t be said of Argentina in 2004, 2007, 2011, 2014, 2015 and 2016. Teams that were in ideal positions to win it all but let the cup slip away.



    I don’t know. What I do know is that the 2007 team was stacked and were favorites to win it all but flopped in the final against a B side from Brazil. The 2011 squad was at home with all its first class stars and also failed to get past the quarterfinals.

    Argentina really struggle against title contenders in major events since 1998. Ever since that defeat to the Netherlands in the WC they haven’t been able to beat a top opponent in any other competition.
     
  17. Jaweirdo

    Jaweirdo Member+

    Aug 19, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    #417 Jaweirdo, Oct 20, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2017

    Going back to the 52 cap thing, the only important tournaments Messi had the opportunity to play in at that point was the 2006 World Cup, and the 2007 Copa America. You cant really fault Messi for the 2006 World Cup failure because Peckerman didn't let him play versus Germany. In the 2007 Copa America Messi scored in the QF and the SF, although I have to admit I don't think I watched those games and cant comment on what kind of players the opposition fielded.

    My point is that number of caps don't tell the whole story, and it is wrong to already write off Messis NT career based on how many caps he has had. I think it would be more worthwhile in just counting the games in tournaments that actually hold merit I.E. the World Cup and the Copa America, with the former carrying far more weight than the latter. Even in this scenario Messi is still runner up 3 times, and not a champion. That being said, if he goes on to produce Gold for Argentina in future cups (mainly the World Cup), will we hold it against him that things clicked later in his career for him. I don't necessarily think so.
     
  18. Vegan10

    Vegan10 Member+

    Aug 4, 2011
    The 2007 KO rounds was against Peru, Mexico and a B side of Brazil. Riquelme engineered those victories with his vision, passing and tactical awareness of where his forwards were positioned. At that point Messi did not have the responsibility that he has now. He played wide on the right and was an important piece to complementing Riquelme and Veron. Peru and Mexico were just not in Argentina’s class. They got thrashed 4-0 and 3-0. Argentina had a loaded team, with Tevez, Messi, Riquelme, Crespo, Veron, Aimar, Mascherano, etc. Many thought they would roll over Brazil but Ayala and the defense committed several mistakes early on and Argentina didn’t have the character to fight back and turn the result around.

    You are correct that the WC is the top title in the world and that the CA is significantly less important. Inclusively many times not given priority by top sides. Having said that, his runner-up awards are historically important in comparison to others that didn’t win any silverware but he can’t measure up to world champs or South American champs that engineered championships.

    Like I said, if he wins the WC he enters an exclusive club which ultimately would put him on the same pedestal of Maradona and Kempes, the two driving forces that led Argentina to world glory. It would be the culmination to a great career.

    But as it stands, I can’t judge him as a fan because I would be doing a disservice to other Argentinian legends. I have to judge him according to how he and others performed and where they belong in Argentinian galore.

    At this point he’s 30 years old. He’s not going to catch Moreno, Sastre, Pedernera, Mendez or Seoane and probably won’t ever reach Batistuta either at the South American Championship level. His best shot is at the World Cup now, which would put him above all those guys due to how exclusive that golden title means for the association of Argentinian football and in history in general.
     
  19. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    #419 PuckVanHeel, Oct 21, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2017
    Because there is real existing peer pressure in stating those things, especially by 'the church of maradona'. Look at what happened with Rio Ferdinand when he questioned some things of Zidane, and he doesn't have the same zealotic pressure backing him, the whole South American continent jumping the bandwagon that creates a 'critical mass'.

    I don't doubt much (i.e. "I believe) that entering the field might give a morale boost, but that "vocal leader" stuff; whatever he shouted around can't be of much substance or strategic merit (as proven by his managerial career). If you look at what's captured on films; it doesn't go much further than second rate amateur psychology and second rate cliches.

    So yes, the star player entering the field gives morale (or prevent it breaks morale !!!), and the body language can give confidence, as well as tracking back, but we're talking about grown up adults and not kids. They are pros because they can motivate themselves.

    Just as valuable - which actually adds something football pros don't naturally possess - is a brotherly figure like the older Pelé was. While Carlos Alberto was the captain, the vocal leader and one who made (limited) strategic decisions, Pelé was the older brother and father figure. This leadership type (while Pelé himself might not seen it as such) is however often not recognized in sports. Instead, we see a narrow band appreciated, culminating in guys who shout with a red face random and unsubstantial things in the air.

    And, like I said in the previous post, it tends to overexplain things. There are better (and substantiated) ideas behind why 'luck' went his way, than the "intangible leadership".
     
    Sexy Beast repped this.
  20. Vegan10

    Vegan10 Member+

    Aug 4, 2011
    I don’t necessarily disagree with most of these points, but intangibles aside, I have a problem with how some people position Messi’s historical standing for the NT up until now.

    Before Messi Argentina historically had only lost finals to Uruguay, Brazil and Germany. No shame at that, but to lose to Chile not once but twice is inexcusable. We are talking about Chile!!! Before anyone comes forward and says but it was a defensively tight game, I’d tell them that similar situations occurred with past legends that went out and decided games under similar circumstances. For example, the 1991 Chile team was as good or better than the 2015-16 versions but ran into some superior competition. And Chile were at home, with the pitches in terrible conditions. This didn’t stop Batistuta from deciding the game in an individual play in the group stage.

    Bottom line, too many excuses have been made over a decade to exonerate a player that simply hasn’t shown to be the best when things get tough. The South American tournaments are currently even less challenging than some older editions. Beating on minnows like USA, Panama and Venezuela, which wouldn’t even have existed in older editions of the Copa América to reach a final, is nothing to boast about. And then to lose to Chile is something that Argentina had never experienced. It’s just inexcusable.
     
  21. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member

    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    Croatia
    #421 Sexy Beast, Oct 22, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2017
    There are 21 other players on the pitch along side Messi... to even think of blaming Messi for not winning those games shows you complete lack of basic sense on football.
    No argument, such is, Maradona did it, can change that because that's "survival bias", not rational argument. You miss data.. go watch video if you don't understand the bias.

    It's your deluded mind that can't comprehend how easily Maradona could have not won 1986 WC if few things, completely out of Maradona's control, happened. His legacy would be infinitely worse despite his performance in that tournament would remain just as good. So whether Argentina won it or not makes no difference on the individual level for Maradona,... the same implies for Messi.

    If you want to get the most precise picture of both you need to completely shake off the idea that outcomes of the matches truthfully manifest performance of an individual in any way.

    The only case in which your chain of reasoning, like "Messi underperformed in finals", make sense, is when you can explicitly point out huge moments in which he ********ed up (there is one). Since Messi had little to none chances in those finals to do anything, your argument, that he hasn't done anything in finals, completely falls apart:
    [​IMG]
    This picture represents Messi in those finals... how on Earth you can expect him to perform in such circumstances.

    Football is too complex to be looked at your way of looking.
     
  22. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member

    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    Croatia
    Those are not excuses, those are explanations that are obviously too complicated for you to deal with.

    Everytime it gets a little bit tricky to follow logic (it gets too complicated), you completely give up on the explantion. If you weren't just that f limited in your head so that you can go along with logic thrown at you for more than a second, you would have got it already.
    but i guess you are here to win the argument, not to get to the truth.
     
  23. Vegan10

    Vegan10 Member+

    Aug 4, 2011
    This is the typical response of someone that is in idolatry of this player. They resort to insults which doesn’t offend me that much because it tells me more how desperate and low his fans have gone to exonerate his inabilities to turn destiny in Argentina’s favor.

    Back to the specifics of the intangibles. Messi walks in finals, doesn’t show “la garra” (Spanish term for courage) to imprint his stamp in a match. When things aren't going your way, you can’t just walk unless you are injured or sick. He does have a tendency to vomit in some of those instances which may explain something. But if he’s healthy there’s no excuse.

    I saw Brown, Argentina’s sweeper in the final of 1986 with an injured shoulder, carry on and show more movement and courage than Messi in 4 finals combined. I saw Maradona throughout the 1990 WC injured from the get-go show more movement and defensive coverage than Messi in any tournament with the white and blue.

    The semifinals of the 2014 WC vs the Netherlands was another demonstration of Messi just walking and rarely being participative. This lack of commitment to trackback and sweep at the legs of other opposing players is inexcusable.

    You mentioned him being tightly marked in key matches, well that’s nothing new. It happened to past greats as well. In fact it was worse since they were frequently fouled and received less protection from the officials. Furthermore, Messi’s lack of movement negates him the opportunities to create more danger since he’s static which only makes the life easier for defenders and their schemes.

    You belittle his teammates but those guys work hard for Messi, pluck holes where he never contributes. Argentina virtually play with 10 men when he’s lethargic. It affects the team and as a result the strenuous jobs of others have a negative affect in the long run since as time goes on they get consumed physically to the point that it caught up to them in the final in Rio de Janeiro.

    In the 2011 CA the defender Burdisso admonished Messi for not fighting back a lost ball but even though it made the headlines it was swiftly not mentioned again by the press. As time went on it became a certain taboo to criticize him. (Although off cameras the press say things that aren’t mentioned). There are still some that have the guts to say things publicly like I say because I don’t kiss ass regardless who plays.

    Unlike you Sexy Beast, I don’t swim with the tide, I’m not a conformist. When Messi shows that he’s the best or the key difference-maker, then I’m glad to acknowledge it but I’m also not intimidated to criticize him when he doesn’t show up in important matches.

    You excuse everything that he does when he comes up short. If it’s not the team the problem, it’s the managers or that the game was too defensive for his capabilities.

    I repeat, it took only 7 caps for Batistuta to be a decisive contributor to a championship team in 1991. (A real tournament not like the 2016 competition). It took 20 caps for him to be a double champion by 1993.

    It took Maradona a second go at the WC to crown himself champion in 1986 without the need of overtime or penalty shootout wins.

    Norberto Mendez went undefeated in three consecutive championships in the 1940s as the decisive frontman.

    Messi needs so many attempts to really deliver and even when he had things in his favor like in 2011, 2014, 2015 and 2016, he’s come up really small.

    Too many excuses Sexy Beast. It’s time to man-up and accept that Messi hasn’t performed generally well when it matters most.
     
  24. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member

    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    Croatia
    #424 Sexy Beast, Oct 22, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2017
    You know nothing about psychology as well. There is no difference between Messi fans and Roanldo fans and Maradona fans and fans of any other player, those are all people functionating in the same way, but they have different experiences which result in them liking different players. Saying things like, Messi fans do this or that and seperating them from other fans is wrong
    .... just one of many wrong assumptions you make.

    actually completely irrelevant topic because if he did have that thing you talk about, Argentina would still lose. It makes no difference whether he presses central defenders when they have ball in their possesion, or not. It makes no difference especially in team that doesn't press oponents very high, which Argentina is.
    If he was playing under Klopp and Messi was only one walking on the pitch during pressing time therefore ********ing things up for the team, you could argue this.. in this case is just a lousy attempt to make Messi look worse than he is.

    Btw, Messi presses when he feels like it could benefit his team, aka 2nd goal vs Ecuador, 3rd goal vs Colombia...

    And i think it's pretty clear now that in terms of leadership that doesn't make much difference at all.

    Football in 1986 and football these days are two completely different things. Being tightly marked by a nowadays team is incomparable to Maradona's era despite players being allowed to tackle harder. Tactics and knowledge on football is on whole new level.. a quick eye test reveals that.

    Lol, Messi has always played that way, and literally everything he has done in football he did it with "lack of movments". He doesn't play like that because he is lazy, he does it because it is different than things defenders encounter in general and it allows him to do all sort of things like this:

    Just look how uninterested he looks, but he ends up scoring the goal, why? because when ball is going forward, defenders are going backwards at the same speed as the ball, and if Messi slows down his movement, defenders lose the track of him and he ends up in the place you can't anticipate in matter of few seconds. It's extremely hard to defend that,as ilogical as that might seem to you at first look.
    I have been a defender for awhile and as a defender you need to respond to ball being moved around, which is something Messi counts on and with players like him you must never lose concetration because you never know when he will make a run. If you don't have two blocks of well organized defense in front of him it's almost impossible to stop him..
    Plus that is very complementary style of play to the movements of other teammates and it brings variety to the team. There are generally players who attack open space behind defenders (attackers), players who are trying to find space to recieve the ball and then play it (playmakers) and then there is Messi, the guy who walks on the pitch, which allows him, as the ball moves around the pitch and defenders following it, to create space for himself doing nothing, and then booom.. he explodes and scores a goal. Btw, it's far from the fact that Messi never moves.
    I don't understand how can anyone doubt that. The reason we talk about him right now is the fact he does it. When his team doesn't win, that's the problem, when they won, he is out of this world. That's hypocrisy.

    The fact you are even questioning stuff like that proves my words from above. You have no advanced knowldege of the game.
    Yeah, you might know how many goals Rummenigge scored in 1977/78 season with his left foot outside the box, but when it comes to the game and tactics, you trip over first advanced obsatcle.
    Guardiola saying that Messi is the best player ever, by far, while managing so many talents in his career is the major compliment. He obviously knows the game of football (proving haters wrong in City as well as in Bayern and Barcelona) and what it takes to dominate it. And i am pretty sure that that lack of movement thing is Pep's idea in first place. If Pep didn't have problem with it, who are you to criticize?

    You think that one player has more influence than he actually has on the game, which is a major problem here. Whether Messi doesn't show up at all in any big game till the end of his career, it won't change that he is better than Maradona.
    You see, the thing is that you are judging players based on how they proved themself rather than how good they actually are in overal.

    If we have hypotetically player A who out of 100 attempts manages to curl 50 shots into the top corner from the same spot, but happens to miss the one curler in final by few centimeters.. and player B who out of 100 attempts scores only 10 curlers, but happens to score one of them in final and win the game...
    You claim that player B is better than player A despite the fact that if both players, A and B, continued to play more finals, player A would eventually score more curlers than player B.
    Messi gives you more chances to win the game than Maradona, the fact that he didn't prove that in few tournaments for Argentina (in totally different circumstances) makes no difference on overal picture. You put too much empashize on that.

    Player A, despite being 5 times more clinical with curlers still doesn't have faith 100% in his control, because as you can see 50 times out of 100, he will miss... so it's down to luck that player A's 50% chances didn't happen and player B's 10% chances happened.
    but that's all too abstract for your mind and you will probably deny fundemental logic like this as an excuse..

    The fact you keep comparing achievments of different players with Messi tells me all i need. Did Batistuta play along side Messi in 2014 WC and ourscored him? then what's your point. Football is not fair, football doesn't give everyone the same chances of winning... get that shit our of your head. It's incomparable. I think i made that perfectly clear by bringing up R9's performance in the final..
     
  25. Jaweirdo

    Jaweirdo Member+

    Aug 19, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC

Share This Page