The Case For Messi and C. Ronaldo as Best Ever

No. The discussion wasn't about "credit." It was specifically about what would have happened if Messi had not been there. In the context of that discussion, it is highly relevant that the Dutch would not have hamstrung their attack in order to neutralize Messi. You seemed to be making the highly simplistic assumption that it would've still ended a scoreless draw without Messi. But it is plainly true that without Messi there, the Dutch would have been able to send more men forward without making their defense any more vulnerable. Thus, the chance that the Netherlands scores against Argentina goes up a great deal if Messi weren't there. This isn't about giving Messi "credit" for any of this. It's about a simple understanding of football tactics and of the fact that teams often hamstring their attack in an attempt to neutralize an opposing player. The mere fact that that player is actually fairly neutralized doesn't mean his presence wasn't a positive to the team. In essence, his presence was a boon to the defense because it occupied opposing players. It's naive to ignore this and act like Argentina's defense would surely have still kept a clean sheet even if Argentina didn't have a player like Messi whose presence made the Dutch attack so cautious. I'm not saying they definitely would've conceded, but the chance would certainly have been higher than their chances of conceding with Messi in the game.

 

ON THIS DAY: In 2006, Zinedine Zidane bowed out from international football with ​*that*​ headbutt.

Ten years ago! pic.twitter.com/a23hPBWGLr

— Squawka (@Squawka) July 9, 2016

Already 10 years,I know it's a bit of a cliché but it feels like it was only yesterday
The wc 2006 is the last great wc I can remember where the superstars of the day actually performed when it mattered

 

Hahahaha. Why did you used it against me then? Calling me a cop-caller and talking about Chicago street-cred? I have never expressed myself as some "internet gangster." And I still don't understand why you thought mentioning Chicago in any way would help your case. It didn't. In fact, if anything, you came out of it an even bigger fool, which is saying something.

Well I'm wiping the floor with you, which is the same as wiping it with shit. So yes, the statement above is technically correct for a change. And also yes, I do agree with you about you being equivalent to shit.

You are an expert at doing literally everything you denounce. "Weaseling out of your statements" is the best ability that you have in your remarkably limited repertoire. When you aren't shamelessly misrepresenting statements, you are making racist or homophobic remarks that you then are pathetic enough to defend as "humor." Honestly, I think you're a truly evil person, and I mean that in the purest and most honest sense; I honestly don't know how pathetic and angry a person must be, to say and do the things that you "contribute" to this forum. You are racist. You are dishonest. You are homophobic. You clearly hate yourself, and I'm not sure how many shades of crazy you need to be to be able to actively drown yourself in such deeply depressing and repugnant ideals.

That being said, I want to make it abundantly clear that you are a dishonest troll. Here is a brief collection of your nasty dishonest rhetoric at work,

http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads...portant-matches.2015055/page-12#post-31652644

That is the entirety of my very concise statement. At no point do I say that Zidane's face is the reason why Zidane is rated more highly. I said "prettier in technique and also in image" alluding to the fact or opinion or consensus that Zidane was rather majestic with a ball at his feet, in a way that even a similarly elegant player like Iniesta can't quite match -- Zidane was faster and bigger than Iniesta, liked to do flashier foot-work than Iniesta (as is often if not always the case when you compare small-and-short technicians against tall-and-big technicians; the tall-and-big technicians will tend to do the flashier tricks, whereas the small-and-short will tend to have closer control when it comes to pure-and-less-flashy skills), etc. Overall, Zidane's technique was more sensational and ultimately prettier than Iniesta's -- that is the primary or underlying statement, and that's the reason why I include "and also in image." The word "also" alludes to the fact that it is merely a secondary note, and not the underlying statement.

http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads...portant-matches.2015055/page-12#post-31652793

1. I stated that Zidane was "prettier in technique, and also in image." The image segment of the statement was (as made clear by the "and also" intermission) clearly secondary. Obviously, you could only focus on the SECONDARY element of the statement, because the SECONDARY element of the statement would allow you to define me as a "latent homosexual." Which you obviously think is an insult, which isn't funny at all no matter how much you try to justify it as humor, and which is definitely homophobic in intent and nature.

2. The imagery I invoked was the fact that Zidane had model-like looks, whereas Iniesta looks like a boy scout. Obviously self-evident fact.

3. Iniesta has a bald spot, but I'm sure a balding average person doesn't pull off the "skin-head look" quite like prime Vin Diesel did. Obviously self-evident fact.

Bottom line: you completely ignored the underlying/primary statement, and instead you entirely focused on what obviously was the secondary element of the statement, and you then ridiculed me on the basis of a statement that cannot be attributed to me since I simply never stated nor even implied what you claim I stated. Of course, Edgar, your blatant homophobia quickly followed after you created the context where you could say "You are homosexual because you think Zidane is sexy..." Because, obviously, an obviously good-looking man like Zidane -- I would need to be a homosexual in order to be aware of the fact that my own sister and females in general were quite crazy about Zidane (hint: because that dude was in fact a sexy dude). Apparently that makes me a "latent homosexual."

http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads...portant-matches.2015055/page-17#post-31663440

The statement above reeks of homophobia, and saying "there's nothing wrong with that" does not erase the clearly derogatory context in which you carefully-and-intentionally inserted the term. Your carefully-worked context isn't a joke, isn't humor, but rather is the final paragraph after having insulted me for what was walls and walls of text, even lasting for pages and pages of the thread. You do the same exact thing with your racist remarks, which are blatantly racist, not humor, not funny, but that you then try to excuse or justify as "humor." You are pathetic.

http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads...o-as-best-ever.2016490/page-682#post-34231680

So-called "latent homosexuality" has nothing to do with the statement that "Zidane was prettier in technique, and also in image." Zidane gets widely defined as the most elegant player ever -- acknowledging that, does not make me a latent homosexual.

http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads...o-as-best-ever.2016490/page-742#post-34297714

1. Salivating over how Cronaldo hangs in the air = not homosexual in any way.

2. Saying that Zidane had pretty technique and also a pretty face = latent homosexuality.

Bottom line: you definitely are a hypocrite, and you arguably are a homophobe.

More of your sad dishonest rhetoric.

A person as moronic as you has no business speaking about "genius." And also, everything you denounce above, is literally everything you ever do yourself in this forum. It's sad how much you clearly hate yourself -- clearly explains why you have so much time on your hands; you're drowning in your own hatred towards yourself and all the humans that you project to be like you, cynicism when you don't seem capable of enjoying the laughs is always a sad and ugly sight. But please, by all means, do tell me more about how a Spanish-speaker who writes English better than you do, is "below average in every way." LMAO you're sad.

I told you time and time again, that voters themselves are greatly influenced by public opinion and by propaganda, two big factors that are greatly swayed by both technique and image (image being much less of a factor). I mean, do you understand how daft you sound around 99% of the time?? You scream and shout about how Messi's technique gets overrated, and how Messi's supposed "genius" gets him votes, and how that's the reason why Cronaldo didn't win the Ballon d'Or in 2012 -- because Cronaldo doesn't get perceived as a genius the way Messi does, since Cronaldo doesn't have that visually-and-permanently-impressive technique.

Of course, when I say that Zidane received a lot of votes on the basis of how pretty his technique style is (when in reality his technique was nothing great nor special efficiency-wise), you then react by defining me as a moron and as a latent homosexual -- spot the irony.

All of the above is painfully obvious, and it completely misses the point. You are talking about James and Mueller; that is, players who are not regarded as legendary, even though they are considered world class. On the other hand, I'm speaking about actual legends: Messi, CR7, Henry, etc. Conclusion? Your argument does not correspond to my argument, because my argument was about legendary players ---Platini, Zico, Laudrup, Gullit, Van Basten, R9, Del Piero, Figo, Totti, Henry, Riquelme, Ronaldinho, Kaka, Xavi, Iniesta, Messi, CR7--- not about James and Muller and Griezman.

For legendary players, is it easier to be great for one full year, than it is to be great at that one World Cup to be played that one time per every 4 years? Yes, because legendary players will tend to be much better the greater the sample-size.

For average players, is it easier to be great for one full year, than it is to be great at that one World Cup to be played that one time per every 4 years? No, because average players will tend to be inferior the greater the sample-size.

As is typical of you, you completely ignored the entire context of my argument, and then you arrogantly and blindly proceded to define the argument as "asinine and inane." And it is indeed asinine, inane, and borderline retardation, to disagree with your argument when applied to your context. Of course, the problem with your argument, is that you claim to be "debunking" statements that cannot be attributed to me. And that's literally all you ever do; you impose your context as if that was the only context that could or should be used, and then you heartily insult any person who doesn't submit to your arbitrary self-imposed superiority.

Players who have the ability to become legendary, have a very easy time being great for one entire year; the fact that they can be great for full years, is why they are regarded as legendary to begin with. For instance, Ronaldinho was great for 4 consecutive seasons, and Ronaldinho's prime is considered short. And so, when a player who gets defined as having had a short prime, was great for 4 consecutive seasons, then what does that tells you about the average or typical careers of legendary players??

Most of the legendary players are not lucky enough so as to hit "peak form" for that one month per every 4 years. Legendary players who were not at their best: Platini, Zico, Francescoli, Gullit, Van Basten, R9, Del Piero, Figo, Totti, Henry, Riquelme, Ronaldinho, Kaka, Xavi, Iniesta, Messi, CR7, etc. Legendary players who peaked at the correct time of the year: Pele, Eusebio, Cruyff, Maradona, Hagi, and Zidane. Do you really want to act as though the latter is the easier??

List of non-legends who were legitimately great at the World Cup: (1) Schillaci, (2) Rossi, (3) Thomas Muller, etc.

List of legends who were never at their best at the World Cup: (1) Zico, (2) Platini, (3) Francescoli, (4) Gullit, (5) Van Basten, (6) Dennis Bergkamp, (7) Ronaldo Brazil, (8) Del Piero, (9) Raul Gonzales, (10) Figo, (11) Totti, (12) Henry, (13) Ronaldinho, (14) Riquelme, (15) Kaka, (16) Xavi, (17) Iniesta, (18) Messi, (19) Cristiano Ronaldo, etc.

LMAO you're insane.

Dazer (Cronaldo fanboy no. one), SayWhatIWant (Messi detractor no. one), Carlito (Cronaldo fanboy no. two), and ADG (a person who hates my guts and actively shows it, for reasons that I find insane) -- that's not "everyone" by any stretch, and each one of them openly express their animosity towards me. And furthermore, the only sane person out of those names is ADG. But anyways, it's somewhat nice to see how consciously you are about the fact that the only "everbodies" in your small little mind, are the insane fanboys who agree with your laughable act, because deep down you know that nobody even remotely neutral takes you seriously. Long story short: you are a sad and pathetic little man.

 

Personal insult once again, you have a serious problem with anyone not sharing the same view as you, when they challenge you, you then attack them personally. I can like Edgar APs posts all I like as he raises a lot of valid points.

You have continually attacked some of the most placid posters on here, so overly aggressive, for a start you name Leadleader, could you get a more arrogant name than that.

Try and have a discussion for once and when points raised against you dont lose your temper like a child and revert to personal attacks. For someone as intelligent as you say you are surely that should be easy.

 

I know ,its sheer arrogance from pele..The great Giles Varley would agree with you on that.

 

"Leadleader" was really arguably a bad name for me and my intentions with it. I was thinking about "Lead" (the metal) attached to "Leader." The intention was to create a somewhat silly but imaginative double-entendre. Instead, most people read it the way you do, so it ended up doing kinda the opposite of my intention.

I also thought about changing it into "Ledleader," but between multi-tasking and laziness I obviously ended up leaving it as "Leadleader." I somewhat honestly dislike that name and what it stands for, but it just kinda got stuck. The name is purely a mistake that got stuck due to laziness. But anyways, the fact that you even dislike a silly name, just sums up the fact that you simply hate my guts -- I have done nothing against you, that could even begin to justify such blatant animosity.

Furthermore, you mentioned "placid" posters; who exactly is that?? Surely not you. And of course, it can't be any out of EdgarAllan, Carlito, Dazer, Estel, SayWhatIWant, Puskas1988, Benficafan, Comme -- not one of them is "placid."

See how actually "placid" posters get treated by me. Go ask any out of @giles varley, @PDG1978, @lessthanjake, @Milan05, @ko242, @celito -- ask any of them when was the last time that they felt offended by me, compared to the times that they felt they could exchange words with me in a civil and honest manner.

EdgarAllan didn't raised a single valid point in his hate-mail that you "liked." You are also not raising a single valid point in the above post. And I did tried to have a discussion with you about an opinion that you shared, and your immediate response was insulting me by saying that I had "once again put words in your mouth." Which I didn't do. And which I've never done. I used to think that you were a good man who just disliked me -- and I was absolutely ok with that, since I think I'm not a very likeable character anyways, since honest characters are typically disliked wherever they go (which is particularly true when such characters happen to also be intelligent). But now it's become evident to me, that you are quite the passive-aggressive killer, who will hold a grudge over any perceived offense, and there's probably nothing that I dislike more than a person like you, which now finally does explain why you actively disliked and attacked me despite the fact that I'd never done anything against you that could even begin to justify your defensive passive-aggressive attacks on me. You are the typical person who likes to hate but then tries to act like he's above hate; you won't "reduce yourself to that," but you sure will "like" it when EdgarAllan dedicates an entire novel to the subject of how dislikeable I am, and the more laughably unfounded the hate-mail is, the more you'll like it -- and that makes you a pathetic coward.

 

@leadleader you are literally an all time legend in big soccer forum history.
Zidane looked like a model and iniesta like a boy scout
WTF!!
I find this comment of yours bizarre,funny and frankly just plainly ridiculous.i have to say for a person who seemingly has no issues with homosexuals you have talked about them probably more times than all the posters on this thread put together

Over the past 10-20 pages you have talked about homosexuality or at least mentioned it over 50 times . now the last time I checked this was a football related thread not a thread where we spend dozens of pages discussing whether you find Zidane more attractive than iniesta or vice versa . I'm sure there are enough forums on the net that would be better suited to such a discussion

As for r10 being great for 4 consecutive seasons I agree and disagree.if by great you mean world class then I would agree if you mean legendary NO WAY
In 03/04 Ronaldinho was below ,Henry,sheva,r9, and arguably zidane
r10 was the best player in the world for 2 consecutive seasons 04/05 and 05/06 but he was never the best over a complete 2 calendar year span.

In 2004 Henry and Shevchenko were arguably above,he ruled in 2005 and in 06 he was the best till the wc where he flopped playing on the most stacked team in the 2006 wc.

In the first half of the 2006/07 season cr7 was the bitw and r10 wasn't even the best player in Barcelona and not even the best on his own nt
And by the end of 2007 many fans would've placed an the in form robinho over him

R10's actual peak(that was legendary)was only 2 seasons. he was great( meaning world class) but not greater than peak Henry in 03/04 and in 06/07 there were quite a few players ahead(cr7,Messi, totti,kaka were all definitely better)

 

So the discussion wasn't about "credit" however a hypothetical scenario is created on what would have happened if Messi wasn't there!!! What is the purpose of this scenario if it is not to give credit to Messi's presence?

For someone who's always saying I'm making simplistic assumption you just can't stop to create your own assumptions. Basically all you want is me to believe in your assumptions and ignore the facts while at the same time my simplistic assumptions are wrong!!! Btw please stop with this thing of making your assumptions and opinions as facts . "plainly true"???. As a resident expert who seems to feel he understands football better than others what if I tell you majority of semi-final games are cagey irrespective of whether there is Messi in them?

The rest of your post is doing exactly what you try to say you are not doing. I.e finding a way of crediting Messi for a 0-0 score line.

 

Zidane was considered great-looking by a majority of women. And I'm speaking from experience when I tell you that Spanish gals absolutely adored him.

Iniesta simply isn't a sex-symbol, in any way, shape, or form. I'm not sure what part of that is "ridiculous" or "bizarre" to you.



^ No woman or man will ever say that about Iniesta. The reasons as to why are as self-explanatory as they come.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://newrepublic.com/article/118541/eternal-cult-zinedine-zidane

"What attracted people was his shyness; his winning, self-deprecating smile; his charm ... what my mother called his gentillesse, which is far more than kindness. His looks too. He was handsome but seemingly unaware of it; this wasn’t the kind of footballer you’d imagine preening for hours, transforming his body into an object of desire; this wasn’t the kind of footballer you’d imagine preening for hours, transforming his body into an object of desire. In fact, he’d never looked a natural athlete, even after bulking up impressively while playing in Serie A. The early baldness, which he did nothing to hide, suited him and was yet another proof of his normality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zidane was obviously a good-looking man. Zidane obviously pulled off the "baldness" like a boss. Women adored him when he was still a young player. Spanish women absolutely adored him, and I doubt that Italian women were any different. I don't understand what part of anything related to Zidane being obviously good-looking, is "bizarre" or "ridiculous." Maybe you are so afraid of "homosexuality" that you don't even dare thinking about it (LMAO).

I have only ever mentioned "homosexuality" in response to EdgarAllan and in response to you. You guys brought that up -- I'm merely pointing out that you guys do in fact sound like textbook homophobes with how you use the term.

No way in hell was Sheva 2003-04 better than Ronaldinho 2003-04. In fact, I think Ronaldinho 2003-04 was CLEARLY better than Shevchenko 2003-04.

Henry 2003-04 was arguably better than Ronaldinho 2003-04. Ronaldo 2003-04 was not better than Ronaldinho 2003-04. Ronaldinho 2003-04 was much better than you give him credit for. Long story short: Dinho played at a great level for 4 consecutive seasons. That's my opinion, at least.

 

Well Cruyff 74 for me is one of the best, I rated him above Maradona 86 in R3 (Bulgaria), R4 (Argentina) and Final (West Germany) in respective performances. But I also rate Robben 14 equal of Cruyff 74, and Messi 14 equal of Maradona 86. Round by round:

Round 1.
Messi 14 (Bosnia & Herzegovina)
Maradona 86 (South-Korea)
Cruyff 74 (Uruguay)

Round 2.
Messi 14 (Iran)
Maradona 86 (Italy)
Cruyff 74 (Sweden)

Round 3.
Messi 14 (Nigeria)
Cruyff 74 (Bulgaria)
Maradona 86 (Bulgaria)

Round 4.
Messi 14 ( Switzerland)
Cruyff 74 (Argentina)
Maradona 86 (Uruguay)

Round 5.
Maradona 86 (England)
Messi 14 (Belgium)
Cruyff 74 (East Germany)

Round 6.
Maradona 86 (Belgium)
Cruyff 74 (Brazil)
Messi 14 (Netherlands)

Round 7.
Cruyff 74 (West Germany)
Maradona 86 (West Germany)
Messi 14 (Germany)

It's obvious that Messi was carrying his team more in beginning, which tired him out latter stages relatively, and rest of players couldn't really respond. I think it depends on a person which you appreciate more, carrying your team from beginning to just short of title, or having better team performances and being more decisive at the end.

 

Yeah, I don't believe Messi carried Argentina in every match. No player has done that ever throughout an entire tournament no matter what the nostalgic people might wanna claim about Maradona and/or Pele. My point is only that Argentina probably don't get far in that WC without Messi. Very unlikely to reach the final, and probably don't get past the quarters.

I mean what I wrote: Argentina don't finish in the top 2 of their WC group half the time (i.e. 1990, 1994, 2002).

 

Yeah, I remember your posts of course (and mine are on the same thread of course - with different perceptions/conclusions/even 'method') so we know where each other stand. And like I say I won't say you're biased/blinded or anything today or question whether your valuing of start of tournament (for me it'd be similar comparing Cruyff to Maradona actually - Cruyff's edge would be in group stage there for me performance wise rather than stats wise) would alter if it was vice versa (or it was a C.Ronaldo vs Messi situation) as I know you say that is speculating which I suppose it is.

I was just making the point really that it's possible to make a round by round case for various players (although Cruyff being a prime example of course) and perhaps be favourable to the player in question with the descriptions and opinions (like the 'best pass in World Cup' for example).