The variance means nothing here because the amount of goals the player score is directly proportional to the amount of goals the team score. Of course 1/2 is more than 1/4 but reality is not like that, Reality looks more like 0.5/2 = 1/4, because players score less goals in a team that score less goals. If a player has a G+A contribution of 50% in a team that score 1.5 goals per game, the player score 0.75 G+A If the same player played in a team that score 3 goals per game, that player very probably would has a G+A ratio of 1.5
And why the incredible and amazing brazilian clubs were that bad in the Copa Libertadores? don't come up with conspiracy theories, brazilian clubs played the cup like any other country, but his way of play just wasn't that successful. I think there is a lot of analysis that can be done on this, but to say that the clubs were harmed is simply an excuse.
@Gregoire1 Also if you like football I suggest you to watch this video completely. No other player come even close, with all due respect to Pelé, he is not even the half of Maradona in terms of general ability with the ball, dribbling, vision, passing, and also a great scorer being a midfielder, Messi is the only one who has come closest Without a doubt the most talented athlete in human history, the more videos I watch the more I sit-in amazement. If he played in today's game he would be a nightmare. One day AI will analyze all the greats in all sports and I have no doubts he will be the greatest.
Firstly, you could not repeat same incorrect and biased tables, its anyway not relevant and noncence for me, so I dont read it, its just made difficult reading and quoting your posts for me. 1) Its not correct and all but "well-documented", its just one spain-language source without double-check. But comparing to your other sources and "estimates" maybe this is really "well-documented". Minutes for Pele is rough estimate and obviously incorrect even if you would say its coreect 100 times without evidence. As well (or even more) for Di Stefano, Puskas and Muller. Just arbitrary numbers. One more itme, even if you say 100 time without evidence that this numbers are "100% correct" they didnt became coreect magically. There are a lot of matches then they didnt play full matches.
I watched this full video many times and other ones about Maradona, Pele, Cruyff, Messi ect. This suggestion just made your fanboyism clear. I dont biased contrary to you and I think Maradona is not close to Pele, with all respect. Messi a also better player, maybe even Cruyff (but its debatable). I talk about effectiveness, not just "game beayty" (and even here Pele is better IMO, Messi and Cruyff not do much). For example, prime Pele (if we talk about him) had better "ability with the ball" vision, effective dribbling (but close), shooting, scoring ect, close in passing. Messi better in dribbling, ability with the ball, scoring, shooting, control, tie in passing. If you love football then you will grow up and will watch other players you will understand than its just bias.
Yes, very much agree, but:what makes it easier to analyze players is consistency - we need to see you play constantly against high-level opposition with a variety of skill-sets to determine what are your strengths and weaknesses and if you've been able to adapt your game or utilize new skills to change the approach. So, I prefer the season and not game, 10 games ect, because this eliminates "fluke" factor and"favorable matchups" factor.
Maradona is overrated and is not even a TOP3 all timer player, without the WC 86 neither TOP10 he would be. Messi can't match Pelé greatness. Pelé and Cruyff are like the two best and more impactful player of all time with Pele being the best.
Without the WC86 he's still one of the finest player to play the game of football (if not the best) . Why do you penalize him for lack of team trophies like other players. Pele, Messi, Cruyff , Di stefano, Beckenbauer all played in Superteams. And why would you take away 86wc away from Maradona? Take away 2 WCs from Pele -58 and 70 and lets talk then. Do the same for Messi as well. Among his 4 CLs, first one he hardly had contribution in the knockouts, the 2nd one they robbed Chelsea with controversial referees (If one of those penalties were given how many CLs would he win?) He'd not even play CL in 2014/15 by rules of Maradona's time. So by supposition how many CLs does he have now? Cruyff's ajax were also strong and dominant , which is why they won 3 ECs in a row. None of Maradona's team were dominant at club. Even Argentina went up and down. And the stuff you mentioned about World cup , its mostly because of how lazy most people are , because of their faulty way of ranking players in a team game like football by using team success.
Its just wrong and just narrative about Maradona's teams being worse than Pele and Messi. And about "superteams" its just nonsence. Maradona's Agrentina was way better than Mess's and that affected results. http://www.averageopposition.com/2012/03/the-myth-of-maradona.html Actually only Pele's superteam was Brazil-70, other was comparable. And Santos wasnt superteam by any means (relative to league), Napoli was comparable or even better. Actually Pele and Messi played in both superteam and nonsuperteam scenario (Maradona only in non-superteam) and its more difficult to contribute and fit in both, you need to have "scalable" talent. Not to mention Maradona wasnt big game scorer or contributor: pele, Messi, Cruyff was all better. http://www.averageopposition.com/2012/08/top-50-big-game-scorers-5-1.html
Agree totally. Maybe I will put Messi above Cruyff, but maybe I dont see Johan enough, will do better research.
I think maybe this is going too far Maradonas napoli is equal to the Santos of Pele? Even Tropiero couldn't say something like this You probably need to research into guys like Vasconcelos,Pagão,zito,Pepe later coutinho and after him toninho and Carlos Alberto The first guy was 10× greater as Neymar according to Pele himself That is Neymar "arguably the best player in the world in transitions " The second guy was even more talented than Pele according to many Brazilians at that time Zito was a prototype of Sergio busquets Maybe even better weighing in his leadership qualities Nothing needs to be said about pepe or coutinho who were Defintely both some of the best players of their generation That is a superteam relative not just to the campeonato paulista,Brazil, the wider region or even their era That was one of the most stacked teams of all time Offensively stacked To give an accurate depiction of what kind of team Pele joined in 1956 These are his first 12 matches for Santos That is 39 goals by Santos 2 goals by Pele You need to maybe look at the state of napoli prior to Maradona joining in 84/85 Pele is arguably greater than Maradona but not for the reasons you mentioned
Absolutely not. Messi's Barcelona were the arguably best football club team in history and played in a league and time when they were way ahead of others teams in the league and europe (except maybe Real madrid) and were stacked with best players of the generation in a lot of positions. Maradona at club level never had a team close to that. These are facts. The difference between top one/two teams and others is larger than ever before. Whereas in Maradona's time and lot of portion of 70s and 90s , it was way more balanced between the teams. There's a reason why Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo scored a lot for their clubs teams and when they played in a more balanced circumstances for their National teams, they can't score anywhere close to that rate. Same for pele. Santos were very strong in Paulista (although they declined in late part of 60s and were not good in 70s) . Pele's national team was best ever , significantly stronger compared to Maradona's on average. I don't say Maradona's national team was just mediocre or rubbish , they were strong as well in earlier part of 80s and then they went through ups and downs a lot. And messi's national team was no 1 ranked side for many days . They were strong for a significant portion of time , and yes they went ups and downs at times , similiar to Maradona's team . And it also coincided with worst Brazilian generation ever, latin football became much weaker imo than before. Superpowers like Italy are also passing their worst time btw in this era, even teams like netherlands, france also went through transitions. And i saw the link you provided before. I never said Maradona won things singlehandedly/alone (thats what the article is about) , this is a team sports after all. Also i don't necessarily buy the popular myth that he won everything at Napoli alone. Napoli slowly improved their strength and team in the coming years buying players , and like other top teams in Serie A they had a good defense. But having said that, its completely different from playing for a dominant superteam which scores 150+ goals - something which likes of Messi, Cruyff at Ajax, Pele in his initial years at santos, Di stefano etc have enjoyed . That was the point. Also, the gaps between the top teams and other teams have increased way more now than before due to financial factor becoming prominent.
Disagree with a lot of points. 1. Messi was in super team not a lot in his career. Other years ( current included) Barca wasn't dominant in Spain or in Europe even more. You just exxagarate. Napolu and Barca in Marsdona time had comparable strength relative to Euro teams. 2. Messi Argentina is not stronger than Marsdona's. It's just facts. 3. Pele Santos was not super team by any means without Pele. Like Messi., it's he who give his team dominance mainly. It's very comparsble to relative strength of Napolu and Barca of Maradona. 4. Brazil of Pele was stronger, but not "significantly" Or "not close". This words could only be used for Brazil 1970. 5. Football today is much more balanced and difficult overall, contrary that you said, late 70-early 80s wasn't golden era, contrary maybe weakest era, lack of top end talent and talent overall. Today it's just different level ( it's important for comparing Maradona and Messi).
1. Messi was in a superteam for significant part of his club career. I don't even need to talk about the Barcelona of 2009-2015 period. Even after that they were pretty strong. They have faltered in Europe , but in Spain they have been super dominant for most parts. Not only them, its also true for Real Madrid too. Both these teams stacked their teams with some of the best players in their position. If you check the point differences of them with other teams and amount of goals generated by them on average , it becomes very clearly. Its only recently these two teams have downgraded massively and that's what made the league competitive. Even in Europe, hardly there were teams who could challenge RM or Barca at a stage. Check the points tables, win percentages of teams back then and now and u'll see the whole picture 2. I didn't totally assert with confidence that Messi's Argentina is stronger than Maradona's . But they were good for significant portion of time and had the privilige of coinciding with worst Brazil team ever, and some other footballing powerhouse like Italy going through their worst period. Of course, Messi's argentina went through ups and downs like Maradona's too. But when you see Messi CR7 etc outside their superdominant club teams and playing for NT where usually things gets more balanced you can see how their stats and production falls , as their teams aren't as high scoring. That was my intital point 3.Well, we'll never know that fully . And santos with pele were dominant totally. They were the best club in the world and destroying every teams they were facing. Scoring loads of goals everywhere. I agree , on paper ,probably Botafogo looks more stacked but they probably had tactical or team combination problems. And i also agreed Santos were probably not that good after mid 60s too. And obviously Pele took them a level up,none is taking that away from him. But Maradona's team was never so dominant . You can check results of Napoli , Barca and the goals they scored etc. 4. Brazil were stronger than Argentina of Maradona , i think its pretty much that straightforward. Which again doesn't take things away from pele who performed very well whenever he played and against big oppositions. But Maradona's argentina were not as strong and thats a fact. Especially offensively. 5 . Football today is much more balanced and difficult overall, contrary that you said, late 70-early 80s wasn't golden era, contrary maybe weakest era, lack of top end talent and talent overall. Today it's just different level ( it's important for comparing Maradona and Messi) This made me laugh literally ! You must be joking when you said the first line. You mean football today is more balanced where in every league there's one/two big bully in the park which hoards talents from other teams as much as they can and bullies all other teams in the league. Thats what you call balance. And it not only affects the league . But other competitions as well. Players playing in these teams and some of the offensive juggernauts stacked with best players of their generation statpads heavily against teams which are way inferior to their teams in strength . And whenever they played under circumstances where things were more like older eras, their productions dropped off massively. These patterns shows you everything. And not to mention ,there were hardly teams that were scoring 150+ goals consistently back then when parity between the teams were much more. With three foreign players allowed in your team and money factor being not that prominent , hardly you had teams stacking their teams with best players of the generation in almost every position. And what top end talent are you talking about?? This is the same period where players like Mane, Salah, lewandowski etc who are technically mediocre are being considered among the best players in the world . Roadrunners and sprinters with Pace and Power gets generational talent shouts now. The overall individual and technical prowress among the players has gone down massively in recent decade. If you watch games from the 80s or 90s , or see the players from those periods and now, it becomes very much clear. And as per my knowledge more players from those periods will make it to the list of top 50 players than the players of the last decade in any good list.
You can search and check Elo points of different teams and in different leagues throughout history from this site. Which imo is a very good methodology (takes into account wins,margins etc which indicates how dominant you're team is etc), adopted by Fifa in their ranking methods , and for club football there is a huge set of sample size , not much variance like the International stage where teams play once in a while : http://clubelo.com/1984-07-01/ITA If you check the differences among teams during different timelines what i said you will get absolutely clear. This was at the end of the year which maradona joined , look where Napoli is : This was during the 1987-88 season when Napoli became stronger : Look at the difference between Napoli and other teams. The difference between Napoli and 16th place team is like 190 points Average difference between Maradona's napoli and other teams : 116 points (Thats the most , in other years it was even less) And here's the distribution in La liga in one year from the last decade : Look at the difference between Real Madrid, Barcelona with other teams in the league. The difference between Barcelona and third placed team in the league was 232 points . An average difference of 335 points with other teams. (pretty similiar case for Real Madrid and other teams) Messi and Cristiano's scoring rate against teams within 150 points difference is much lower than what they've been scoring against in general . Check post #664 : https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/g...ootball-history.2088557/page-27#post-38600885 This gives you the picture of what's been going on. In that site you can check it for most other timelines and leagues and you'll see how similiar is the case for most players and teams in the previous periods .
1. Not really. Pep's team and thats it. In other periods Maradona's club teams were ocmparable (relative to era), trophies disparity is much bigger. Actually its maraodna who padded stats in much worse Argentinian league for 5-6 seasons in his career. Messi dont have such priviledge. 2. I could say with confidence that Maradona's Arg was better (relative to level of opposition). late 80s was poor time for most of squads, so Argentina shine because of defense (see like earlier). And Messi is as dominant statistically in NT as he is in club (only without trophies). Its Maradona who played significantly worse at club level and honestly even in NT had just one great moment (86). Its give a lot of questions about "flukeness"... 3. No, we know it, there are on-off stats. Brazil and Santos on-off stats for Pele is better than analogues for Maradona. And santos wasnt such dominant on paper, its Pele who give them win for most part. You say Santos was dominant because they win, but its not how it works. On paper Barca and Napoli was evenly or little less stacked (defense matter too, no forget). You could check on-off or contribution of both or how many NT players were there. 4. Its just wrong. If we took only offense - maybe, but still not huge gap. If we take defense too - its close. Again, you say Brazil wwas better because they won, its not how it works. 5. Honestly its your sentence which give me even more lauching. You really dont see that football is just better now? Its just plain ridiculous. And you always give number of goals of the team af proof they are better? You really think its work like it. All players you mentioned as "not technical" would be better in your 70-80s era, where lack of talent and less defense just give impression that somedoby is "more technical". Its just different level. Really if you unbiassed will watch games form 70-80 and now its became cleare that its just different game, different level, plain and simple. Even 16th team in Spain today would crush a lot of good teams of 70s.
You give Pele words as some evidence?? He said a lot of sh*t (like Maradona too), but its not that he became lesser player after it. You need to research Valdano,Pasarella, Burruchaga, Alemao, Zola, Careca ect to get some clear and unbiased picture. Santos was maybe better but not by much if we exclude Pele and maradona. You need to know not only results prior to join, but squad transfers ect. And Pele get to santos in 15, Maradona get to Napoli in 25. I dont know who is "greater", but Pele is just better player.
Might sound bit rude, but you need to learn a lot about change in footballing landscape. Some of your comments are so hilarious i don't know where to even start from! 1. Messi other than Pep era had MSN period at Barca. Even post -enrique , they were beating the hell out of every other team in La liga (yes they worsened compared to before) but its still much different from what Maradona had to deal with. For 1000th time now Maradona's Napoli grew stronger and into one of best Italian teams. But what matter's is the average difference between the teams . That was my whole point which u seem to give a blind eye too. Even without Pep, Messi's team was way ahead of other teams in the league (except RM and maybe at time Atletico) - none of the other teams were remotely close to his team lol. Whereas in Serie A Inter , Samporodia , Turin , Milan ,Verona ,Rome etc all could challenge Napoli . I have even given you elo points difference between in two periods as an example. Similiar was the case for Maradona at Barcelona -they were top team in Spain but difference with other teams back then was nowhere anything like now. Please kindly learn about the Bosman Rule and check the squads of back that time , and then come to make these assertions. And funny you mentioned statpadding ,Lol . Do u know what statpadding is ? When you play for the biggest bully in the park who can hoard talents and buy players and get themselves far far apart from other teams in the league , later during the season score 150+ goals , put 5/6 goals in back of the net against much much relatively inferior sides that adds up extra goals to your goal tally - that's what you call statpadding . Something Messi, Lewandowski, Cr7 all has been doing in their leagues. How many goals Argentinos juniors scored and how dominant they were in their league, please see that first . And it seems like you forget this is a teamsports which is contested by teams , not one single player . I will ask you question , then why can't Messi score at the same rate as he scores for Barcelona when he plays for Argentina . Same for CR7 (Please don't give me the logic of their team being worse or less productive, since u're the one who don't take it into count) 2. Maradona's team was obviously better compared to the average level of oppositions they faced. Same was Messi's . But if by "level of opposition" you mean the international football as a whole , u're turning yourself into a joke. Messi's period coincided with shittiest generation of Brazilian football and shittiest generation of Italian football ( both of them two biggest superpowers of footballing world) Even Netherlands and many other teams have faltered occassionally and gone down. The Latin football in Maradona's day had one of the best Brazilian team ever, best colombian side ever, even uruguay were very good . Platini's france, Italian side with all those Serie A defenders, Basten's Holland , German side that reached three WC finals in a row and a strong English side at start of the decade . And here comes your ridiculous assertion. Messi is as dominant at NT as he is for Club statistically . I suggest you to check before posting what u're writing . And i have been folowing Messi's international career carefully since 2008 . And have watched Maradona's matches with Argentina from what's available online. And here's another thing you're doing again without context, Messi has scored more goals for Argentina , that's what makes you think some of that. Maradona was playing largely in midfield area from around 90s when his prime was near end/over . He had like 2 goals in last 20/21 games .That affected his gpg a lot. And let me show you Messi's stats with more context. Messi's non-pk gpg for Argentina is 56/142 = 0.39 . For so much of him being statistically as dominant in the NT as club. And that includes - 2 goals vs Nicaragua , 3 against Panama , 2 against HongKong , 3 against Haiti etc... I am not going any further. Without goals against these type of teams , his gpg for NT drops to like 0.34 per game . And you talk about statpadding . Maradona without Pk had 0.35 gpg (32/91) for Argentina. (And that even ignoring the fact, Maradona played much deeper and spend most of his later career from around 90s in the midfield , unlike Messi who for spend a significant part of Arg career in the forward line -ss/ inverted winger or even false nine at times ) Back in those decades , Argentina or Brazil hardly faced these type of teams. Please do the research if you have doubt. Do u know the funny thing? Maradona had a better non-penalty goal rate in competitive matches so far than Messi (despite of all these things i've said ) . Maradona’s gpg is 0.33 (14 in 42) while Messi’s is 0.31 (29 in 95) .(please don't mix facts though , i still regard messi a better scorer of two) 3-4. Its not only got to do with because they win. Brazilian football in 60s was the most stacked footballing generation ever produced by a country. As a pele supporter, i hoped you knew this. Even guys like Pepe,Coutinho, Toninho couldn't get into first team. Ademir De guia , who is regarded as one of the best no 10s produced by brazil couldn't even get into the first team. Palmeiras once played as the national team and beat uruguay (one of strongest teams in latin america that time) 3-0 . It takes nothing away from Pele obviously who proved himself everywhere.
Anyways about your no 2 i have already answered above , you can still ask someone like @Vegan10 , an Argentine who has been seeing football for decades now , what he thinks and has far more insights on this. 5. This literally is so embarassing the assertions you made like some clueless modernist , i first thought of not even replying to such cheap things . Firstly , football is better based on what? Because of propagandas and social media accounts, clueless guys working media preaching it ? (most of them clueless about football history and changes in landscapes anyways) Secondly , i never said number of goals are literal proof of teams being better. Yes more dominant teams obviously dominate their opponents and scores a lot of goals. My initial point was about accumulated stats being dependent on team goals hugely among few factors. Then , All players i named would be more technical in 70s-80s? So they would suddenly grow technical abilities if they were transported then. I have nothing to say after hearing this lol. And have u even seen Salah ,Mane ,Mbappe, lewandowski lol . Guys like these can't even dribble good, or have a great amount of technique , individualism lol . It depends on your talent. Talent doesn't grow by era. And what lack of talent in 70-80s ? some of the most talented players ever played in that era, more than many of limited , robotic players playing now. No offense,but you need to upgrade your football knowledge of players if you think that. Then, less defense? Wow ! So why was the Gpg much lower in that time than now , the period of great defense.Who are so called defensive giants of now compared to then? A guy like Ramos who's for most of his career wasn't that great defensively is considered the best defender of the generation by most people. Guys like Beckenabeur , Passarella, Scirea, Baresi , Figueroa etc played time , maybe you forgot and was a violent and harsh period for attackers , producing very low stats and harder to score. Then the last line shows it . Do you even know how to analyze considering the playing conditions -fields , boots and rules for the attackers? Maradona played when Cruyff was playing, Maldini played when Maradona was playing , Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi were playing when maldini was playing,so what is this mysterious year, Human beings evolved suddenly and footballers/football became better as per your assertions LOL And revisiting that stupid remark of them looking technical because of less talent etc. (LOL which is a joke at best) , they looked technically more sound even playing in worse fields and footballing conditions . Even then aesthetically they look miles better than most of todays footballers ( i don't rate players based on aesthetics lest you should go there) . Then according to your words a cadiz, leganes would beat Tele Santana's Brazil or Cruyff's Ajax then ?? Wow what a piece of footballing remarks ( On their day even a lower level team from back then would beat a powerhouse now) . And based on what u make that remark? Your conception of built on modern teams with all sort of facilities they enjoy in modern comfortable conditions with teams back then playing in far worse conditions. Put these players in such condition and let them play with them and we'll see. Fun fact is these players are the ones who starts crying when the pitch is bit uncomfortable as you could see the case with Messi in copa america and many other players on certain occassions.
And once again, sorry if i sound rude, forgive. But you seem to fail to apply context while making these assertions . And lastly i will ask you this. Based on your last para, Pele played in 60s by your logic then. Then how come you rate him as the best player to play the game , taking your assertions into account? I would like to know. The things you said rather goes against him and often are used by modernist pseudo-intellectualists having lack of football understanding and awarness of history.
Man, im not want to be rude too, but IMO you need to research football and its evolution prior to give such a dishonest or just wrong statements. Its just ridiculous sometimes. 1. You just "shield" yourself by Bosman rule, but reality is todays football is another level than Maradona's time. If you just dont accept general evolution and "alignment" of football you just dont know football of fool yourself. Even if weakest teams in Spain is weaker, strongest is stronger. And Real Mardid is stronger than any team maradona faced in domestic competitions. So, beat Real is more difficult than beat 5 "average" Italian teams, which better that Spain average teams. Not to mention if we take Europe Barca (outside of Peps time) is not stronger in average than late Napoli. But Messi in this circumstances.won more titles. 2. In Maradona time Brazil was average (they didnt win anything, its not about beauty, defense matter), England, Italy, Uruguay, other europeans were weaker (if we talk about 1986). Avegare level in NT and alignment are worse. Your problem than you take beauty and think this meant it was better, than every unbiased fan say you than evolution in football for this 30 years is gigantic. Its became much nore difficult to dominate as a player. Do the research really. We talk about rerlative strenght and you give goals average cherry-picking? Its you who just mix facts here. Messi is better scorer - its fact, so its meaningless. 3-4. I dont say that Brazil 1970 wasnt great - its fact. brazil league was another leve. I just say as a team Brazil 1958-1966 wasnt much better than Maradona Argentina. And as you say Pele proved himself in different circumstances, Maradona not so much.
Man, if you just dont accept evolution in football, if your IQ and even "eye-test" dont see it, I dont want to discuss. If I play in my schoolyard and dribble 10 players and it seems "more technical" for you than Messi dribbled 1 player in division A... I cant say anything, you could be in your dream about "old better football". Old generations have grat names, but its doesnt mean they are actually better. Dont let this museum logic fool you. Its just like prove to somebody than Earth is not flat. Trolling. Sorry if rude, but this is fact.
This is first good question. One note: my logic is right, its your logic is "used by old school fappers pseuro-experienced and we-know-all intellectuals". Now about Pele. If player A is more dominant in league 2 (worse, 1960s allegory) than player B in league 1(better, present time) he may be better or worse, it depends of extrapolation. I agree that older players are generally more dominant because of more disparity, but maybe they just so good that they could dominant even today. I think its about Pele. Like in NBA I think like this about Wilt. Pele was just so talented than if he played in our era (tougher) he still would be more dominant thna Messi. To explain in numbers for example: Level of dominance: Pele - 10 (form 10) Messi - 7 Maradona - 7 Level of competition: Messi - 10 Pele - 8 Maradona - 8. Overall "godness": Pele - 18 Messi - 17 Maradona - 15
Omg , you're so clueless looool . I am feeling pity for myself to reply. You are the one who's been trolling and making ridiculous assumptions . And the ignorant guys you meant who sells "better than it ever was" marketing bs are the epitome of Flat-Earthers lol , if you use bit of social media and their propagandas and narratives you'd see it . All ur ridiculous remarks can be summed up by one simple fact - The conditions and surroundings where these players has vastly improved, if anything that allows them to play them to play in far ease and comfortable circumstances . These players hasn't magically grown into another species, human body didn't evolve magically suddenly lol . And a huge portion of these tactics are closely related with the change in rules and circumstances of playing, but basing off your remarks u wouldn't get it, so leave it. Maybe reading @Gregoriak's posts on other posts might give you a clue and bit of reasoning. I'm not gonna reply to you anymore on these clueless remarks , so drag it more, i won't reply to this
Lmao . How did you determine dominance . How is Pele 10 based on dominance but Messi only 7 if Maradona 7 (Presuming you go based on trophies and stats) Level of competition ,hahahaha back to square one. Firstly maybe Pele's competition was less as the top level football of country was divided predominently into two regions - Paulista and Carioca, and also considering his team was very strong in early 60s . (Although i know there are loads of top teams in Brazil and obviously Latin football was stronger back then). But also considering his national team was very dominant. Now coming to Messi's part, i've said it before. Maybe in later stages of UCLs and at WCs , Qualifiers he might've faced great deal of competition. The circumstances for him at National team was more balanced even though it was one of the weakest era of Latin football and lot of powerhouses in intl football had their worst period. Now what great deal of competition messi faced as u write it there . La liga : 08-09: Barca 9 points ahead of Madrid , 17 points gap with third team of league 09 - 10: Barca 3 points ahead of Madrid, 28 points gap with third team of league 10-11: Barca 4 points ahead of Madrid , 25 points gap with third team of league 11-12: Barca 9 points behind Madrid (thanks to Madrid winning at Nou Camp) ,still 30 points gap with third team of league 12-13: Barca 15 points ahead of Madrid, 24 points gap with third team of league 13-14: Atletico (miraculous and suddenly improved) 3 points of difference of Madrid and Barca (If 2nd goal of Barca weren't disallowed on last matchday wrongly they'd win) 14-15 : Barca 2 points ahead of Madrid, 16 points ahead of third team of league 15-16: Barca 1 points ahead of Madrid, 2 points of Atletico ,the next team finished 27 points behind 16-17 : Barca 3 points below Madrid, 12 points gap with third team 17-18: Barca 14 points and 16 points off the 2nd(ATM) and 3rd team(RM) in league 18-19 : Barca 11 points of Atletico. 19 points gap with third team of the league These were the seasons during Messi's prime years. So called competition of 10. Even if we go by Elo ratings, you'll find a similiar scenario for most of the matches he played in champions league and other competitions. Go and plz compare with the points table distribution and difference between teams Maradona faced. But maybe i am just wasting my time in vain , because i know you will not and walk away with the same repititive bs with prejudice filled narratives. Not going to entertain this thing anymore, so i'll not reply anything more on this topic. Those who are not biased and prejudiced can themselves do the research find the truth .