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

Friendly games between rival teams like Barcelona and Real are highly competitive, as seen just this past summer, so the title is still highly contested (see Mourinho's finger meeting Tito's eye a few years back in the Super Cup).

But that's besides the point, and your comment on Busquets is a good and valid one but I wonder if he's simply the defensive linchpin, in the same sense that Messi is currently the offensive linchpin. Season is still early, much football yet to play.

 

I will repeat once again because i think it's important. I strongly disagree that Busquets was underperforming on the individual level. It's soley down to non functional system made by Enrique that enhanced more mistakes by Busquets

 

No doubt it helps if you have possibly the most dominant (attacking) player of all-time in your team, at club level at least, but it might be that history will look different on him if he's successful with his project at Manchester City. Doing a bit what Wenger did with Arsenal, but then perhaps better. If this turns out to be a success (and not just trophies) then it will shine quite well on his Barcelona stint (which remains the best in recent history) as well as his Bayern stint (in comparison to Ancelotti after him). It will complete the circle.

Imho he has at the back of his mind what one of his mentors did. Guardiola said these few sentences in July 2017, in a print interview:

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

He is the most influential person in world football of all time. He changed a club like Ajax, both as a player and coach, did not have enough and decided to go to another team. I can not visualize and understand Barcelona today without his figure.

In addition to knowledge, you need personality, charisma, courage, fight against everything you have to fight to be Barcelona coach. He had it all. He instilled an idea. What he did is only within reach of very few, unrepeatable figures, as is his case. I do not say that anyone else has his knowledge. It is possible, it may be, but to instate something new it has to be special. And so was Johan. Then there are your methods. A way to play, to train, that we had never seen here. When you lose, at rest, all the coaches in the world will tell you that you have to run more. He does not. On the contrary. He told you that you were losing because you ran too much. He also liked a kind of special footballer. He punched Koeman, the most expensive player, to play at the back, so he made the first pass well. He doubted a great goalkeeper like Zubizarreta because he wanted the ball that the ball that reached Koeman was already good.

His process was to give passes from behind until the ball came to Laudrup and unbalanced. Now it is done with Claudio Bravo, Víctor Valdés, ter Stegen until the ball reaches Leo Messi. Before Cruyff, that did not exist. Everything he contributed to football was so strong that he has been a mentor, not dissolved. He was a genius. It changed everything. It made many people think and wonder why things happen in the game. That's gold.

As you yourself remarked (and Laporta too), that "internal structure" has weaker parts and has been corroded from within (with consequences for 'La Masia' ever since Laporta was voted out), but it seems that the structure remains strong enough to integrate Valverde still. Who was relatively unknown before this year (I guess so particularly in the English speaking world) but yet pops up in the couple network analyses that exist from 2015 or earlier. Fascinating stuff.

Also interesting: since Rijkaard was appointed in 2003, only one coach stood really outside the network (one might say). This was the Argentine Tata Martino and he's the only one who won no trophies. Rijkaard, Guardiola, Vilanova, Enrique and now Valverde were all internal candidates, recruited from their own circle or the "internal structure" as you put it (with the arguable exception of Rijkaard, who was in part chosen because closer options weren't deemed ready yet). Martino is the only one who stood outside of that.

I'll maybe return to this tomorrow but in brief I think he is, and has been since Xavi took a step back after ~2013. His weaker periods also coincided with Barcelona's weaker periods. That is most clearly: the 2014 calendar year, the first half of 2016-17. Some make a blend between Keane and Zidane of him, which is too much, but he is very complementary to the team and the attacking stars. With his age, style and playing position he might last for another 4 years at the highest level. With the current players in world football, he's imho impossible to replace (at the same time, it's unsure whether he would be equally good at a team like Chelsea or PSG for example, or is then simply a poor man's Verratti). Saying this now, the recent OPTA book by Duncan Alexander has some interesting bits relating to this (but then applied to CR7 and LM10).

 

Let me use Einstein's words:
"...if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that is stupid."

It's simple, if Chelsea or PSG made systems that would highlight his qualities and cover up his flaws, he would excel in it, otherwise he wouldn't. I don't understand what's questionable about it. Busquets is an unique player, and if used right he can offer you things that only few players in entire football history could and that's why he is so valuable, if used wrong, he will fail.
That is the truth for every single player so it's about preferences more than anything else. Some players may suit more systems therefore they are called more complete, but value of completeness is down to an opinion of a single person.

 

.... yes.... that was pretty much what I wanted to show or share!

Here two examples, in that direction.








They also mention that CR7 and LM10 have 200 Champions League goals between them. To give an idea how many that is: it would put them 10th on the list of teams since 1992.

 

Well, the other side of the argument is that you can't simply deny what a player has done with the great team no matter how suited it is to him. Other than asking whether Messi would be able to perform with worse side like Napoli (Stoke), why don't you ask, would Maradona score 91 goals in a year span and add 22 assists in the same period while playing for that Barcelona or any team that would suit him the best? That thing is closely related to Busquets story from above. It depends, but in this case..
..the answer is no, and you can confirm that with a naked eye test just by watching them move and play, or if you really are into statistics, go run through some numbers accomplished by Maradona in Napoli's days, take away all of his penalties and go see in how many seasons he actually is a top scorer for Napoli team alone, let alone whole Serie A.. You can't have doubts about Messi's goalscoring abilities because he has been outscoring every world class player in his team since Pep's day one at the club even if you take away penalties.

I am saying this just to show that it's possible to compare different eras if you read the context right. Playmaking skills in the sense of pure vision and passing abilities is very arguable, but if we talk about general football inteligence, reading the game, spacial awareness, decision making, tactical knowledge of the game,.. it doesn't take a genius to see that Messi is a superior player in all of those areas (if you watch their full games you see that clearly) and big portion of that is visible on the scoresheet as well, which leads me to no other conclusion than that Messi is a superior player ont eh pitch.
Maradona is a great leader, has a bigger persona, etc, but when it comes to football on the pitch Maradona can't compare with, first and foremost, Messi's football inteligence.
(Debate is doable, if it's put in the right perspective.)


Back on the topic,.. let's look at this example. Pep is also widely criticized for never proving himself in worse teams so people claim that managers like Simeone, Ranieri(..) are better than him.
This is so closed minded opinion because, yes, maybe Guardiola wouldn't be capable of doing with Atletico Madrid things that Simeone has been doing for so many years, maybe Guardiola wouldn't be able to even come close winning epl with Leicester, that's all probably true, but i am quite sure that neither Simeone or Ranieri would be capable of doing things with Barcelona that Pep did, nor the things he is currently doing with City, but people ignore that every single time. (Ranieri already proved to be awful at managing great squads, and that's the skill of its own by managers that can't be ignored)
This analogy is right for Messi vs Maradona debate, who guarantees you that Maradona would be even close to the things Messi did in past 10 years if he played in the same circumstances? Nobody, so my question is, who gives you the right to decide that the things Maradona did at Napoli are greater than the things Messi is doing with Barcelona?
(the same goes for any comparison like that)

People tend to have that very linear logic as if doing it at worse team in certain circumstances (like being successful at Napoli) implies that he would be even better if he played for a better team in another circumstances,.. NO, IT DOESN'T because those circumstances are the key thing here. That's why that argument that Messi hasn't done it in different leagues or teams is ridiculous, nobody in any circumstances ever is close to the things he has been doing for past 10 years at Barca so think again over that argument..

(The truth is that Messi kept doing things he does even after Barcelona has changed so many managers (and systems), even after many world class players had come and go, even after Barcelona had miserable seasons, etc.
2017 Barcelona this season and its system is nothing alike Pep's Barcelona from 2009-12 and its system, so the argument that he can't do it outside Barcelona is foolish because Barcelona as a club itself has underwent drastical changes and guess what, he keeps doing it.)

So what do i conclude from that apart that Messi is amazing and that he is worth talking about?
- Nothing about football is linear, doing it against/wtih big teams doesn't imply that you can do it against/with weak teams, and vice versa. Certain players are good at certain roles/systems. Saying for example that role of a superstar in a weak team is more difficult than the role of a superstar in a big team is not quite true. You can't take one role over another, it depends on a lot of things.
- When two players are compared, it is essential to put their accomplishments in the context. Thropies they have won with the team is manifestation of the team and not them as individuals so the only possible way to compare them is by comparing their segments of the game separably by watching full games and extracting their qualites out of the context of the games (Like who is a better finisher, who is a better playmaker, etc.) (it alsotakes patience and a sharp eye to do that)
- Two different players don't excel in the same system. That fact has to be acknowledged, so the comparison (if is close enough) can come down to personal preferences at times (example would be comparison like Xavi vs Zidane).
- If we compare different eras we just need to be extra careful and need to put it in the extra context. It is many times doable situation.
(- the best player of all time and the greatest player of all time is not neccessarly the same player. Imo, Pele is the greatest of all time because he was so beyond his era that that's unbelievable, but Messi is the best player of all time because he plays it at different frequency from anyone else in history. Things might be different if Pele (or Maradona) was exposed to modern ways of training and modern tactics therefore reached different level of football, but that's impossible to know so irrelevant to argue. As it stands, Messi reached higher level of overal football so he is better...)

 

Yes, and that is a valid thing, to switch the question. Napoli is also not the only team he played for.

 

This doesn't just apply to categorization of big and weak teams.
Let's look at this hypotetical situation where Messi joins Swansea for example and becomes a top scorer with 30 goals and 15 assists and gets Swansea to something like a 6th position. The very next season he joins West Ham, but flops entirely in that team, he gets 7 goals and 9 assists throughout whole season without getting injured or something.
So would in this case Messi prove his worth or not?

It doesn't make the difference, because the initial point i made remains the same. Messi depends on the circumstances he plays in and every team has an unique circumstances (it's not just, big/weak teams distinction) so his performances will vary from a team to a team, and not only that but it will vary from a season to a season within that team itself. This hypotetical situation would show us that Messi is good at Swansea but bad at West Ham, that's all, nothing more than that. Those seasons are independent of each other and any other hypotetical season, which is true for every team.
(With logic of that Maradona's argument, in theory, to truely find out who is the best they would need to play in countless of different teams so that we can see their average performance taking in consideration all of those seasons.)

What that means is that maybe if Maradona joined Fiorentina at the time instead of Napoli he would be a total bust, or perhapse would have had even more remarkable career. It's depands on circumstances (which implies the system they played, potential egoistic teammates he would have, board, fans' appriciation of him, expectations, etc.)
So that's not what you can base your opinion on, but what you can base it on is the things you see on the pitch. I guarantee you when Messi dribbles past 5 Real Madrid players in Barcelona's shirt that he would be able to replicate the same thing wearing (being member of) shirt of any other team in the world so that "he hasn't proved in different team" argument is an absoltue bullshit. Nobody has proved themselves in all circumstances there are (which are infinte), so Messi not proving himself in one less than others is irrelevant.

And Messi's move to teams like Stoke or something like that would mostly depend on his ability to adapt to the culture, weather and such things unrelated to football, so i that's an additional reason why i think that's unneccasary.

 

Great post mate☺
You've said that Pele is the greatest, while Messi is the best of all time.
Could you put Yours TOP 5 ever both the greatest and the best of all time?
I'm corious what names do you have and what order.

 

I've never actual put together any lists of such kind, i find it too exhausting (because i am never satisfied with shallow thinking, and to think it all the way through takes time and patience which i don't have) and unneccesary in first place. Football can be appriciated without lists as well, also the difference are probably too subtle between some players it is impossible to distinguish.
But briefly, my greatest of all time list would look similar to usual lists, but for the best of all time i would take that goat list and just take, roughly speaking, into consideration how long ago they've been playing and make some adjustments so that it makes sense imo.. so players like Di Stefano might actually feature in top 10 goat list (which i don't know would he), but he would nowhere to be found in the best of all time list.

 

Congratulations to Ronaldo on winning this year's Ballon d'Or

 

Shoking..

Btw, Gattuso, as a manager of Milan, is proving and will keep on proving from now on, that leadrship is overrated skill in football.
It's far more important to know the shit you have to do on the pitch, then to be motivated by a leader.

 

Hype train... Neymar is doing himself no favor in PSG. He's no leader, even if he has the talent.

Next year will hopefully be determined by the new CL winners coupled with a non-obvious performer in the World Cup.

 

Right now two things need to happen though to break the duopoly by CR7 and Messi:
a) Neither Barcelona nor Real Madrid do well in the Champions League.
b) Neither Argentina nor Portugal do well in the World Cup.

Messi is still riding high in terms of goalscoring in La Liga (13 goals), while CR7 is rocking the Champions League with a record 9 goals in 6 games.

I think the world is ready for a new king, but dammit someone needs to take away a bit of the limelight.

 

Its pathetic really.

 

If Qatar can buy PSG, Neymar, and the World Cup, they can probably buy the Ballon D'or as well.

 

Considering (stupid) standards they have for ballon d'Or it is pathetic they have put Neymar 3rd in that list, but again considering ballon d'Or as it should be, the competition for the best player individually, he should be higher really. So they managed to make even a bigger bs out of something that was so pathetic in first place. I mean, they had flawed standards in first place, now they don't even stick to them... can it get worse? with Fifa i believe it can..

Neymar is only player on pair with Messi. It's them at top, three empty spaces and then everyone else... and to be clear, both of them showed that on the pitch in 2017. People don't realize that Barca last season was literally on the back of Neymar and Messi, if it weren't for their individual briliance Barcelona wouldn't even get top 4 in the league, but literally (believe me i've seen all games). Right now, Neymar, with his performances, is head and shoulders above everyone in the french league (as well as champions league), and whatever your opinion is on his departure to shit league, he is still proving to be the best there.
The fact that French league is not a good enough competition for his calibre, proves that he is by far the best there. Btw, if you have that opinion, you are indirectly acknowledging him as "3rd" best player.

Btw (x2), Neymar was already 3rd best player in 2015 so...

 

As i said before, Neymar is the next ballon d'Or winner not named Ronaldo or Messi... no Hazard, no De Bruyne, no Pogba, no Dybala. Neymar. That's clear as day if you ask me.

 

Poster @leadleader and I predicted his 5th BDO in January. He has scored more important goals in UCL than I expected, but apart of that, everything else was very predictable. I think he has a chance next year if Real find another striker in the next transfer window. CR7 is almost redefining individual awards since 2013. Best player of all times, according to himself.

https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/fifa-player-of-the-year-2016.2038095/#post-35013584