I think there is also a problem with the premise that because nobody has done it, then nobody could have done it though if you know what I mean. It assumes almost in itself that Messi and C.Ronaldo are indeed the pinnacle of football talent and effectiveness (in all aspects, in all scenarios), at least to date. For those of us who don't really see it that way, it's still evident that the game has changed at International level in some respects to be fair yes, but I wouldn't say it necessarily leads to the conclusion that a Cruyff or a Pele etc would seem much less impressive in modern International football and become much more impotent in terms of their affect on the game if they had played in those circumstances. The other side of the debate will I suppose also contend that it's not a given that they'd have mega stats and shine fantastically at their best in La Liga, the Champions League etc. I suppose when all we can do is speculate and theorise, based on logic and/or visual footage of various players playing, then it's going to be an uncertain question though. I suppose I couldn't claim I'd definitely be right that there would be no reason Cruyff couldn't have an outstanding World Cup in modern conditions (except the reason of his birth date obviously that prevents us seeing it!), but then I don't think anyone can say the stats or certainly level of play of Messi/CR7 would not be challenged or surpassed by certain former players in club football if they'd played in this era. I know it does seem a bit different to the Josef Bican scenario because then maybe it was logical to think Czech football would allow for him scoring at a more prolific rate than International football would, but in some respects it's still similar - one form of football has clearly proved easier for Messi/CR7 and it's not all been down to form/fitness when it comes round to the tournaments - the sample size has been big enough to give them plenty of opportunities. I think there have been, and will be again, many players who would be better at opening games up with subtlety and guile than C.Ronaldo for example. There will have been, and will be, players that can shine in certain types of game where Messi has been a bit ineffectual too. I think it's if people start off with the hypothesis that these two are some sort of perfect players, that then the conclusion seems to be that it's impossible to do better in International football. I hope I'm being understandable enough here and it's not really a point/argument addressed directly at poetgooner specifically (again it can be part of my answer to the new Bada Bing even I guess...but I know Bada Bing in his original guise was not C.Ronaldo's biggest admirer let's say so I really don't feel like I need to go into details about 'team edge' as he would have described it, shots off target etc - I will perhaps still give a summary response though at some stage still since it's my own fault I brought myself into it with a comment I guess and his reply was polite enough to be fair!).
I don't believe it is categorically impossible. One factor is here that Portugal is simply not a big team (has some excellent players, but also weak spots) and they're rarely seeded or with their favored base camp (when they were seeded, in 2004, 2016 and 2018 they reached the final twice; just as Netherlands reached the final in 2010 when they were finally seeded). Still, they have had some wins against the top tier and second tier the last 20 years. For Argentina it is a factor they haven't had a win against a big side in a major tournament since 1991 (though some wins vs major sides in qualifiers). Remarkably, the 'Das Reboot' book mentions Germany didn't have a competitive win between 1990 and 2010 vs a big team either, with the exception of the qualifier vs England in 2001. Though at closer inspection by myself there were wins vs the second tier (Croatia 1996, Portugal 2006 etc.). England has not a good record there IIRC, often losing the first time they meet a team of quality. Zidane and Ronaldo played for proper teams and the 'destruction' was likewise. Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler N.B. Re-reading the Reboot section, I remembered the charming episode our FA and players honored Matthaus when he reached his record breaking 144th cap. And yes, for me he's the #2 of his generation https://www.volkskrant.nl/sport/het-is-steeds-minder-nodig-om-matthaus-weg-te-honen~b336574f/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/sport/lothar-matthaus-verdient-applaus~b6a81eb2/?referer=https://www.google.com/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/matthaus-geniet-van-het-leven-en-van-voetbal~b3b1c1a07/ Remarkably, his example was JC14; I didn't know that before https://www.ardmediathek.de/ard/pla...Y5OTQzLTJjODUtNDJjZi04YjBiLTE5ZjA1Y2QwMzU2Zg/
Has the game changed that much since Ronaldo scored 7 goals in WC2002 ? I don't think so. Better yet : Griezmann -inferior to both Messi and CR (or Platini, or Maradona)- managed to surpass everything Messi or Ronaldo did in international competitions (in EC16 : 6 goals + 2 assists). Mbappé was probably close to do that in WC08 too... and yet both play in the same area, depending on the very same modern context you've described. Could it be that -quite simply- CR and Messi aren't just as good when they play in 'normal' circumstances, ie when they face more parity between teams than they usually do when they play with their respective clubs ? Just asking...
I don't think I explained myself well, so you misunderstood me. I'm not saying it's impossible to play well. I'm saying that in the modern game, how well the superstar plays is much more reliant on the team than on the individual. Teams are too good at neutralizing individual-based approach now. At the same time, they're also ridiculously good at providing the platform for their stars, which is why Messi and Ronaldo numbers are probably inflated when playing for their clubs. Messi, Ronaldo, Maradona, Pele. You name it. If they were playing today, I think they would all struggle in a dysfunctional team, while look even better in one of the elite teams.
Yes. The game has changed drastically since 2002. Griezmann has never even come close to reaching the level of past legends when playing for At. Madrid. He has been more productive than Messi and CR while playing for France. Do you really think he would score as many goals playing for Argentina? Switch places between Mbappe and Messi in 2018, and you think the result would have been greatly different? Also, it's not clear they have performed better than Messi or CR at int'l level. For a start, they've never won a World Cup Golden Ball. Effective teamplay is so important now, no individual can overcome it for a team that lacks it.
Interesting thread on voting patterns here: Ten years, ago, FIFA began revealing the votes behind its Ballon D'or / Best awards. In that time, Messi and Ronaldo have dominated; I've taken a look at their rivalry through the prism of voting patterns. Thread!— Omar Chaudhuri (@OmarChaudhuri) September 28, 2019 Joachim Low never had Ronaldo in his top three and Messi only twice?
Not enough to make what Ronaldo did in 2002 impossible.The game changed more between the 80's and 2002, than between 2002 and now. I' m not claiming Griezmann is as good as legends of the past or as Messi and Ronaldo. I' m saying that he's better than his two contemporaries in a certain context - ie in knock-out tournaments, in which a certain parity bewteen teams exists. When Griezmann started his in international his carreer, France NT wasn't in a good form and lacked teamplay. Is it a coincidence that the team started to improve from the moment he took the charge of the team ? I don't think so. What Griezmann did, Messi failed to do the same despite being a superior player and having tons of opportunities. I bet Griezmann would do quite well playing with Argentina, actually... For M'Bappé, it's too early to say. I'm just saying that he matched everything Messi and Ronaldo in international knock-out tournaments from his first attempt... See above : players of Messi's caliber are supposed to make their teamplay effective. Griezmann did it. Messi -a better player- had plenty of opportunities to do it since he started, but he regularly failed. It's not a matter context, but rather a matter of personal failure. At least CR did it sometimes with a generally sub-par team, even if I think his international carreer is not as good as some suggest.
Although I always liked his performances a lot and I think he is unfairly disqualified for very popular mistakes in England, I don't feel that he would have become so undisputed (in world terms) not even in his prime (although it's always hard on goalkeepers). Anyway, what position would Fabien Barthez have on this subject for you? That is, one as broad as all the players in the history of Europe. Even for my own system it is more comfortable for me to separate the goalkeepers into a different category and Barthez is not one that I considered in the sample, to be honest, although he could be (at least I think he would be the best French, possibly). What about Blanc and Desailly?
I understand your point very well. If you gave me a choice, it is true, van Basten seems to be a player with an extra dimension in his game, a striker with superior technical resources and in no smaller doses that has those episodes as an extraordinary conductor. This makes a difference with Müller, who no matter how much we could point out that he was not exactly a simple poacher with many opportunities, he was not in the same step in these terms and probably notoriously distanced. But... yes, Müller should probably be classified as a more specialized footballer, but I feel that he achieves practically a 10/10 on this specialization in terms of productivity (from 1966-67 to 1977-78, for 12 consecutive seasons, he practically became an unstoppable scoring machine, with no ups and downs in his numbers), impact on all competitions (all of the most competitive of his time: Bundesliga, DFB-Pokal, European Cup, European Cup Winners' Cup, UEFA Cup, UEFA European Championship and World Cup (including the qualifying stages)) and an unusual consistency, a point of view from which van Basten could have certain problems for his shorter career, for his injuries throughout that career and because, although there are indirect influences, he did not the same impact on all fronts (especially in the World Cup). Of course, they are not conclusive details alone, but the sum of them does generate at least doubt about what should be worth more. On a different scale, but being a similar case, I think that is the reason why Ronaldinho can be seen as the best player of a whole decade (2000's) with supreme skills seen beyond his consistency, but fails to curdle as such a great case when discussions turn into historical scales. I hope you notice that I stress that it is not exactly the same case, it only exemplifies a general idea about skills vs. consistency. Finding the correct or more accepted balance is complicated, I could not say that I think I have found it nor I will never change my mind or I will modulate the value of each variable, I just think they are different ways of approaching the comparison, but none really wrong (at least by the idea itself, there may be data errors and interpretations, of course). I do not like to assume for some cases, but in the exercise of replacing Müller with Papin or Lineker I do not feel to be close to a certainty that that same consistency had been reproduced. What really happened about Papin is that he was very productive in these terms among the end of the 1980's and the beginning of the 1990's in France, but in a notoriously shorter period when went to Italy (affected by low performances and injuries), while not so categorically relevant with France.(yes, probably affected by a complicated generational change), while the Lineker case has some more and downs with not the same production in European competitions (even considering an average for matches played), lower in terms of numbers on a not very different average for his era and a period that corresponds almost to half of Müller as his prime. To see it in another way, I think it is possible to find many more cases similar to Müller of attackers in their prime compared to van Basten, which is more unique in that regard, but it is much more difficult than it is believed to find one that has been sustained in the same way and has had the same effect in all the great competitions of an era and that makes the case of Müller quite special in their own way.
Ronaldinho is not a similar case (despite Peru FC, predictably, rating him higher in his own generation). Ronaldinho has not nearly the same record in major finals, the same big game record and what more. He hasn't the same number of outstanding years in the Champions League. Nor did Ronaldinho have anywhere near the same (statistical) impact on his teams (Deco was that player for Barcelona, Ronaldinho less so). Van Basten his scoring record against the major national teams (as spelled out on previous page), in the big (club) finals, the big game scoring in general is actually roughly similar or better as Muller, in a lower scoring era. Scoring a goal in two major club finals is better as one. Plus: four goals against Napoli is more outstanding than four or five against (semi-)amateur teams. https://sappytips.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/best-goal-scorer-in-big-games/
Thus you fall precisely in the misunderstanding that I prevented and remarked, that it is not a direct comparison about them, but the exemplification of the background idea.
Gary Lineker has btw ten goals against elite teams for England. This includes two semi finals (then, additionally, there is also a goal against the later winners in 1988) against the big boys. Papin is at 3 goals. Wayne Rooney is at 4 goals. All in friendlies.
The point is you rate Ronaldinho as #1 of his generation, while he is much more a case of form over substance. From a top down and bottom up approach.
I never said doing hat Ronaldo did in 2002 is impossible. The 2002 Ronaldo wasn't as impressive as Ronaldo 1998 anyway. My premise is a simple one. Team performances affect individual capabilities more than ever. Individual quality has less influence on the game than ever. This goes both ways. Top talent can't carry teams as hard, but their performances always get inflated by the multiplicative effects of superior quality of their teammates. I'm not even suggesting that Ronaldo or Messi have done particularly well. I don't think that. In the context of international knock-out games, it is not clear at all that Griezmann has done better. For a start, he's never won a World Cup Golden Ball like Messi. Why do you think that Griezmann would have done better than Messi in Argentina team? What have Griezmann done to make you believe so? Messi couldn't close the gap that existed between the two teams, but Griezmann, can? Not even to win, but made Argentina competitive. What performances have Griezmann had that would suggest so? Have Griezmann ever taken France, as the weaker team, to upset better teams? In the one game where France faced an even opposition, Belgium, did Griezmann put in a special performance? Griezmann couldn't even carry his team to win against Portugal in the 2016 EURO final! How has Mbappe done to match Ronalo and Messi? Can you show me in what way Griezmann has made his team play better as opposed to what Messi has done for Argentina? How would Argentina have played better if they had Griezmann instead of Messi, for example?
As I think you can notice in the statistics of that link itself both appear close in game-changing goals (by ratio), but Müller on the sample of more matches, which is precisely what relates to his longest time in that rhythm, while in the 3 tables with advantage (in fact, in my opinion the first is the less relevant in general terms and is the only one in which appears van Basten). What is certain is that in Italy van Basten faced a lower general average goal, so the statistics at that stage may not be so decisive, but it remains a short stage in comparison and with evident ups and downs beyond that average (basically 3 and a half seasons: 1988-89, 1989-90, 1991-92 and half of 1992-93) and only 3 times below the statistical average in the European competition (1986-87 with Ajax, 1988-89 and 1992-93 (and even in the latter scoring 2 times against a weak competition of Olimpija Ljubljana in the first round)). P.D.: I don't think that plus makes sense.
The first table is the most relevant one because it shows match winning goals rather than the goals who decorate matches... That is not hard to grasp. Also not hard to grasp are the number of goals against elite sides (and yes, 2 assists and 0 goals in 4 World Cup matches is not great) He has match winning goals and match winning assists in various big finals. 8 goals in 10 games against Napoli (the number two team), 7 goals in 8 against Feyenoord etc. See: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/gr...ootball-history.2088557/page-19#post-38158275 Anyway it is clear you systematically don't rate dutch footballers (while - this is important - Suarez and Romario in the eredivisie are rated by you) so I leave it here. You belong to the triple handicap and downgrade machinery. Eight out of ten serious lists agree with my position and my assessment. Ronaldinho is far more a player of form over substance, both in the sense of goals and assists in a season (particularly 2004-05), and in the sense of making teams (significantly) better.
That's not the point of my message (you could exchange him for Henry), but how a player with so widely superior perceived abilities in few seasons can be beaten under a logical criterion by another without so many resources, but more constantly productive at all levels.
So that is 'weak' (while winning goals and assists in the other matches are ignored) but topscorer titles on the back of *only* scoring against Koge and Banik is strong. Got it.
It is a false analogy, at many levels. Indeed, you rate Matthaus ahead of MvB while you never do that for Henry and Ronaldinho. Ronaldinho doesn't have ten years where he is competing for topscorer titles in serious leagues and competitions (if fit and healthy). 'Serious' enough for you to give Suarez, Ronaldo, Romario conveniently a pass. Leave it here now.
You quoted me, not Carlito. Ok but we're going in circles there because this is what I specified : that Müller played for the two same powerhouses all his career long. Lineker played about all his European clubs games for Barcelona, mainly as a right winger. His last games in Europe were in Tottenham in his last season in career, in Europe (if not his last season in short). Papin, yes, only played in two tournaments. In '86 as a recent revelation in Belgium and a total beginner in NT and in '92, with an ankle injury. He left for Italy too, at one point. Like Lineker he started in rather "modest clubs" and by the way, the bulk of the Lineker's beginnings were at the time when the English clubs were excluded from all European competitions anyway. Then, he has that one season as vice-champion with Everton before his move to Barcelona. Müller was not the only one who scored 20 to 25 goals in a Bundesliga season. We have this picture of the tough German defenders in mind because of the NT mainly, that relied more on teamwork than on the indivdualities in general, in gross, but it' not like the Bundesliga is for all of that a goalless league. Never been, still is not. Rather the contrary. We can't take away from him his constant numbers in the League, his important goals in Europe (but making all his career as the focal point of the attack of Bayern helps... as well as his talents for putting it in the nets, that's why I say it's both ways... well that's football, that's collective sports) and in NT, until he decided to leave it for some reasons. He could create goals out from nothing too but so did Lineker who created also chances by himself and so did Papin in some extent, when at his prime (before that he liked to be served most of all and was not always efficient when he tried his luck alone, what started to noticeably change about since '88 if we want or '89 more exactly perhaps). In the facts, they don't have the same longevity as scorers of goals compared to Müller but in terms of potential given the different context and circumstances they had to face there's not a big difference in terms of player so I still think CF's like them two could have done as well in his situation/ location. Obviously, as the facts are what they are, Müller will always rank above them two if we do a ranking but that's not the point. As for Müller and Van Basten, there's a world between them - exaggerating a little bit but not that much when we (re)consider it closely, if really needed. We can appreciate the qualities of Müller and can't deny his accomplishements (without what nobody would care about his qualities... though he had to impose himself at Bayern to begin with, true, well that's the thing) but at one point the comparison has not much reasons to keep going as Van Basten was one of the best players (in short) in the Serie A and in the world playing for and being the star of one of the most innovative and brilliant teams in History and was thus sitting next to his most illustrious predecessors in the Ballon d'or palmarès. Going in circles.
I don't think so. Once you start from the idea that you are measuring the number of goals in those matches and obviously not its difficulty to specify them (which you could only establish through individual variables and impressions of each goal), I think it is fair to understand that the word "decorative" has more to do with the consequence of the result than with the merit of the scorer, which can vary interchangeably. Each list has its own but in that sense, but the first is the one that becames more subjective in terms of each goal. At this stage, the anti-Dutch card is already somewhat trite. Apart, I think it is somewhat curious (genuinely curious, not said with irony) that you usually believe that the most serious rankings/opinions support you (I usually notice you have several particular opinions away from the common consensus, not necessarily in this case). I will answer the other points shortly, in any case.
Messi's Golden Ball was a joke, if you ask me. Griezmann has 8 goals and 4 assists (without counting Mandzukic's own goal in WC18 final) in 10 knock-out games (EC + WC). I was not thinking about that particular 1/8 final game. But over the long term I don't think Messi was surrounded by inferior team-mates. Precisely, between 2014 and 2018 the French team was not better than -let's say- the Argentinian team between 2012 and 2016. In other words, I don' t think Griezmann wouldn't have done worse playing with a relatively equal Argentinian team. Germany 2016 ? His record against big teams is actually quite good (2 goals vs Netherlands, 2 goals vs Germany, 1 goal vs italy, 1 goal vs Argentina, 1 goal vs Uruguay, 1 goal vs Croatia : 9 goals out of 29 were scored against elite teams... What is exactly Messi's record ?). Even without particularly shining against Belgium, he still delivered an assist. In the context of WC, he's already done better. That doesn't mean he'll match them overall (club carreer and all). But I don't think Ronaldo and Messi did something similar in the multiple international competitions they played, despite having multiple opportunities. See above : better in knock-out games, better vs elite teams. And I keep stating that for most of his carreer Messi wasn't particularly handicaped by playing in a sub-par, dysfunctional team (to his credit CRonaldo played for a NT that was generally seen as the underdog... and he actually won something).
I'm aware my views on David Silva, Iniesta, Pique and Casillas are not the consensus (and I can support it with evidence) but unlike you I don't place whole countries down across the board. In fact, the whole idea of Iniesta as big game scorer is based on three games against a big team. That is all there is. As mentioned before, here is a good start (it also links to the IFFHS vote): http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/best-x-players-of-y.html One way to look at it is the sheer numbers and trophies. The second is to see the the record against the closest rival in the league (Feyenoord, Napoli, Mönchengladbach), the record in major finals, the record against the elite national sides, the decisive goals record against elite club teams in Europe (that finished high in their own top league). He won three times the world player of the year as well as BdO, in a time with Maradona et al. active.
Placar says the coaches voted him as best player in the world in 1991 and in 1992. https://books.google.com/books?id=E...l&pg=PA54#v=onepage&q=Van Basten 1992&f=false That's subjective of course, obviously, but it's there are various facts in support (the range of the grades differ as we have seen, yet they are also in a relatively small bandwidth, to the extent it is not significant).