Cristiano Ronaldo ~ Your Favorite Player Is So Much Better!! Thread

I dont know how you conclude that Messi had it easier because his team scored more when it can be argued just as easily that Messi's teams scored more because Messi did play better in non-goals/assists department which allowed his team to score that much?

And as pointed out, there are football algorithms that suggest that as well

Also, elo rating is flawed when analyzing an impact a particular player had on his team in a sense that it doesnt exclude his contribution.

It is impossible to determine how much positive impact Messi and Ronaldo had on their teams based on such crude data.

Having that said, that doesnt mean we should simply conclude that Messi played better than Ronaldo. It is debatable and better and more intelligent ways need to be found to evaluate their performance.

It is absolutely not one sided debate as many try to make it seem like.

 

I already told you. I consider Ronaldo better than Messi overall because of his adaptability, physicality, leadership and goalscoring record in critical moments. See, the goal record on big stages is just part of my argument, not him all. Regarding WhoScored I also already told you that WhoScored is biased towards Messi's strengths.

You said the whole point of Messi's teams doing better is because of Messi but what can you say about Ronaldo doing better in the games in which his team were eliminated? Wouldn't this be an indication that Ronaldo did better than Messi and that's why he managed to win more Champions Leagues? Since even when he didn't win he played well? The fact that they are comparable only on R16 and Ronaldo wiping the floor with Messi in the rest of the rounds wouldn't be an indication of Ronaldo being better than Messi in more difficult games? The only logical answer would be yes and other than this is just you using sophistry and verbose because you don't want to admit it

 

Thankfully I’m not the only one who sees this

 

Ronaldo doesn’t “wip[e] the floor with Messi in the rest of the rounds.” For instance, Messi has a better WhoScored average by far in every single round except the QFs (9.12 vs. 7.83 in the Finals; 8.15 vs. 7.39 in the Semifinals; 8.44 vs. 7.98 in the Round of 16).

And you can suggest that Ronaldo’s teams did better at times because Ronaldo played better, but the problem is that’s not really what happened. As I’ve shown in detailed fashion before, the difference here is that when these guys didn’t play amazingly, Ronaldo’s team still won the tie half the time, and Messi’s team almost never did, and at the same time when Ronaldo played amazingly his team always won and Messi’s didn’t always. See the exhaustive analysis here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/is-messis-cl-legacy-disappointing.2124676/page-5#post-41205835. It’s a very stark difference and pretty clearly explains the difference between their teams’ successes in the Champions League.

So there’s a difference in these arguments. You’re saying Ronaldo’s team did better because Ronaldo did better, but we see that Ronaldo’s average ratings were lower, and that when we control for their individual ratings, Messi’s team did worse than Ronaldo’s team. So that argument that Ronaldo’s team did better because Ronaldo was better really just doesn’t hold much water. Meanwhile, the argument that the team with the guy with the higher rating (Messi in the Round of 16) did better because he played better makes a lot more sense.

As for WhoScored being “biased towards Messi’s strengths,” please explain how. I’ve addressed that argument in response to a different poster, here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/d...er-of-all-time.2114820/page-120#post-41705827. While there’s of course things that go into the game that statistical measures like WhoScored cannot account for, I don’t think there’s a strong argument at all that Ronaldo has more impact outside of things encompassed in stats than Messi does. In fact, I’d argue it’s almost certainly the opposite. The effect of Messi dropping deep and thereby providing a midfield overload for his team is completely game-altering in its value (being a main tactical factor that allows his teams to control the midfield) and yet the value of it really isn’t encompassed in stats virtually at all. There’s nothing Ronaldo does that doesn’t get captured by stats that is even remotely of the same value. The reason statistical metrics say Messi is better is because Messi is better, not because there’s some idiosyncratically high value from Ronaldo that isn’t captured by stats.

In any event, all of this isn’t meant to say that WhoScored ratings are authoritative. They’re not. It’s perfectly fine to disagree with them, but they tell us more than raw goalscoring stats. And the fact that WhoScored ratings are strongly in Messi’s favor in the Champions League knockout stages at least suggests there’s a good argument for Messi’s superiority in Champions League knockout stages, even if there’s certainly an argument for Ronaldo.

 

You are going to say that because of few more deflected shots that went in, open net tap ins, unintentional shots, offside goals, 5 meters backwards assists and the other "garbage" goal contribution that Ronaldo unequivocally wipes the floor with Messi and when presented with whoscored data (something that other members use all the time to draw strong conclusions on pretty much everything else except this one argument @carlito86 ) and a major gap in Messi's favor, you will just brush it off as a bit biased.

If in reality Ronaldo wipes the floor with Messi, Messi averaging 0.3/0.4 better based on whoscored can not be explained by being a little bit biased. It would be completely biased towards Messi rendering whoscored ratings useless.

So two things are clear from your post and logic used. You believe there is nothing remotely as valuable as goals and assists in football and whoscored ratings and such football algorithms are completely useless.

What is happening in reality is that KO stages in ucl is the only part of competition and a sample size ever in which Ronaldo is comfortably better than Messi in terms of crude stats so we see the last breath effort by Ronaldo fans to trivialize matter and reduce it to just goals and assists while all of them use much more nuanced arguments and data when they see fit.

I can not understand how you can be so comfortable with a cognitive dissonance to the point you double down even more with ironical comments. At least avoid responding whatsoever and hope nobody sees hypocrisy.. then you can be thankful.

 

These are all repetitive arguments we've been over and already a while ago this has turned into a show of who will voice their opinion louder and whoever shuts up first has lost.

So I will just post these here again and shut up:

Ratings and analysis of all meaningful games in ucl in the period from 2014-2019 (chosen to encapsulate Ronaldos best period)

 

So for you, is a WhoScored rating better than scoring goals and assists? Guess what? You need to outscore your opponents to win the games. Messi can keep his high WhoScored scores and his MOTM awards based on his WhoScored "score". Ronaldo prefers titles. You can have a "rating" of 10 on WhoScored without scoring any goals or assists but your team can lose while you can have an 8 by scoring a hat trick and advancing your team to the next stage. And that's why Ronaldo's teams have gone further especially post 14/15 while Messi has collapsed against teams like Roma

What about the EVIDENT FACT that Ronaldo did far better in the games in which his team were eliminated from UCL?

You continue to use these "ratings" biased towards Messi as arguments when Ronaldo wipes the floor with Messi in ending results.

Are you serious? Touches, through balls, key passes, dribbles, are all Messi's strengths, not Ronaldo's. Ronaldo's hardest job is without the ball while WhoScored's ratings are based on the player's actions with the ball. You can't reduce the performance of a player like Cristiano to just "goals" and "shots" and say that that's the whole information you need.

Agree with the bolded part. And I didn't just use goals. I used G+A And you yourself said before that the only way to look at this objectively is to look at the ending results

 

"The hardest job in the world"

 

I think you miss this one ignorant troll

 

No. You did, with all the quarter finals onwards stats.

 

Anybody has Messi's CL knockout away record. Whether with peak Barca and after?
Those are the most difficult matches in world football. That Messi is as competent a goalscorer as Ronaldo could have been a valid opinion back in 2010, but 13 years later, it's assuredly bot the case.

Whoscored ratings are meaningless when 3 dribbles are worth more than a goal.

 

That goal vs Bayern is the best example of Ronaldo in the champions league QF to final rounds


Not the bicycle kick vs juventus?
2018 QF

Not the Puskás goal vs Porto?
2009 QF

Not the legendary freekick vs APOEL in the 2012 QF
(yes APOEL)
If Johan cruyff can play Panathinaikos in a champions league final and be praised and lauded for this for the past 50+ years then I can include this team too.

Not the Goal he scored from out the box vs Spurs(35 yards) in 2011 and another volley in the QF?

Not the goal vs Roma in the 2016 CL QF

Not the legendary header vs Roma?
2008 CL QF


Not the 40 yard freekick vs Arsenal?
2009 CL SF

Not the counter attack vs Arsenal
2009 CL SF

Not the great header vs Chelsea?
2008 CL final

None of these goals are worthy of being mentioned but Ronaldos 3rd goal vs Bayern Munich in 2017 is the one sexybeast will choose from all the ones I have mentioned and all the ones I have not mentioned

And you are the standard bearer of reason,impartiality and objectivity?

I would hate to lose a war to you
Defeat is one thing but you would completely eradicate and distort any and every favourable piece of information associated with your opponent

You are the type to never give credit when credit is due
You are in fact the worst type

 

The argument is that Ronaldo's off the ball movement is the reason he scored more goals than Messi in KO stages.

That particular goal is completely gifted to Ronaldo. Goal that you and I could score in a world cup final in 95th minute to win it.

So you essentially admit that this is a trash goal that required little to no skill whatsoever so consequentially if a player accumulates bunch of those it is not really a demonstration of all time great goalscoring abilities but of something else.

We could go on with examples and compare who has more of this kind of goals of the two.

Messi has few of those lucky, spoonfed goals as well, but nowhere near as much as Ronaldo.

If we analyzed all goals and sort them out by the quality, it could actually turn out that Messi and Ronaldo score at the similar rate except Ronaldo has dozens of these kind of goals (and assists) more that explains the whole gap in stats.

And that is simply down to a role. Ronaldo is more forward (undoubtedly) poaching in a penalty box, while Messi is deeper therefore unable to score these. Barcelona had players whose job was to score these type of goals (Suarez) and his name was not Messi.

Expecting a player of Messi's role to compete with these type of goals is ridiculous. You cant be a player who creats plays, passes and also scores rebounds at the same time.

And Messi unquestionably was much better at creating plays and contributing in prior phases of attack hence the whoscored ratings.

 

Except the whole issue is Messi is a forward who can't play back to goal:

1:44
He is incapable of playing in these zones when deployed centrally. He can't occupy opposition CBs and stretch the field vertically.

He is a natural inside forward, but he does not provide these types of runs:


30m, diagonal off-ball run.
Messi in this position would wait to get the ball at his feet, and would try a dribble or something against a compact organized defense. Now, ask yourself which action provides more value?
@OffTheBallMovement

He is NOT a reliable header of the ball or presence in the box, an INVALUABLE asset against low blocks:

• If Messi is on your team, forget about even thinking breaking down a team like this is a legitimate option.

He is an inside forward with little to no "play" ability with his right-foot, which is a HUGE weakness:

• He has not provided any sort of right-foot cross with any notable regularity. It is simply an absent facet of his game:

0:
2:52
For that matter, in the tens of thousands of passes, he produced, you will never find a right through ball of this caliber:
6:34

So where can Messi play?

• The only positions he can occupy with any regularity are deeper positions where he can receive the ball to feet.
• The consequences of that is that opposition defenses have an easier time organizing in compact blocks and congesting central areas.
• The notion that Messi "dropping deep" with any sort of regularity is a good thing is completely erroneous, unless he is initiating rapid transitions. Otherwise, you are failing to stretch defenses, slowing down play, and compacting central zones. Against the highest quality opponents, with Messi's diminishing physical qualities, it becomes extremely hard to score without long-shots - long-shots he can only take with his left. And crossing and heading is no longer an option for his teams.
• This is tactically deleterious for the team at the highest level.
• Messi has immense quality with the final ball, but this is a separate skill from ball reception in "deeper zones".

 

Apologies, for the "passing" segment, the timestamps refer to this video:

 

If Messi is playing deep that doesn’t at all stop the team from having a player who is a good header get on the end of crosses (if Messi is dropped deep, he wouldn’t be taking up that space at all). Indeed, Messi’s crosses into the penalty area from deep are one of his signature moves (that’s what that diagonal ball from the right wing is), so this would in many ways play into Messi’s strengths. Barcelona just never had a forward that was very good at heading the ball, so it never became a major tactical option for them. Just because Messi isn’t someone you typically want to get on the end of crosses into the box (though Manchester United 2009 might disagree) doesn’t mean he’s not suited to excel in that playstyle, because it doesn’t tell us that he wouldn’t be great at providing crosses into the box (which we pretty much know he would be, as we’ve seen that pinpoint diagonal cross a million times).

 

Correction: They never recruited a forward in the Messi era that was renowned for heading (though Etoo was a very capable player in the air, he just did not receive many crosses).

The whole point is that Messi does NOT offer these qualities as an inside forward or center forward. An additional player in the front line bypassing and stretching defenses at a high rate is obviously immensely valuable tactically - more potent in transition and prevents congestion of central areas.

Most high-level WC / CL goals from open play are scored in transition, crosses, or long-shots (few).
This is the case even for possession-heavy teams.
Messi "dropping deep" is of NET POSITIVE value only if this leads to rapid transitions (think 2014-15).
Otherwise, you are far better served with Messi providing incisive runs behind defenders and preventing defenses from settling - or offering a crossing/heading option or dribbling to the byline and providing low-driven right-footed crosses. None of these are in Messi's locker - certainly not after 2008-09.

 

Messi dropping deep is a net positive regardless of “rapid transitions,” because it creates a midfield overload and makes it massively easier for the team to keep and progress the ball. Having an extra man in midfield really puts ball progression on easy mode for the team and therefore substantially increases the team’s ability to get the ball to dangerous areas in the first place.

Anyways, the idea that Messi couldn’t fit well into a team that wants to score some goals from crosses is odd to me, when Messi is outrageously good at sending crosses into the box. It’s legitimately one of his most signature moves, which you yourself have complained that he does too often. If Barcelona had players who were great at heading the ball, those passes would’ve produced tons of header goals, rather than the types of goals that they produced instead. Saying Messi couldn’t fit well into a team that wants to score some goals from crosses is fairly akin to saying the same thing about Kevin De Bruyne (who scores header goals less often than Messi, but also is an elite crosser).

 

Can you provide examples of Messi dribbling to the byline and producing either a lofted right-foot cross or square ball - something most inside forwards can and should be able to produce if you want to fully exploit the wing?

Slow progress the ball. While the opposition team has time to organize into a low block that becomes difficult to break down.
I never said there is not immediate added value - I said there is a negative net benefit. Unless you want to argue that Messi's Argentina midfield and Barcelona midfield are INCAPABLE of reliably advancing the ball compared to other top teams? Is that the hill you would like to die on? That Argentina and Barcelona's midfielders are so incompetent they are incapable of moving the ball forward, such that losing an attacker to create space between midfield and defensive lines, providing an additional receiving outlet or stretching the last line horizontally is justifiable? I do not think this is a tenable argument.

There are four facts that anybody can agree on:

1. -Messi cannot play back to goal.
2. -Messi cannot dribble to by-line and produce a right-footed cross reliably.
3. -Messi cannot provide a headed option.
4. -Messi does not provide diagonal runs / receiving outlet past a certain quite young age.

There are four observations that I do not think anybody on this forum is willing or capable of genuinely challenging.

Working with this premise - you are left with the conclusion that anybody can reach, that Messi can only play his natural position with ball-to-feet at a distance from defenders (right inside forward) - with the caveat that he will always be working into central channels

OR

That as a center-forward he is only effective as a false-nine or from deeper positions, where he can start runs and generate plays with the net ahead of him and at a distance from opposition center backs.

These are the only logical conclusions that explain the tactical deployment of Messi throughout his career.

If you can DEMONSTRABLY show that Messi has the qualities to play in a more advanced role, please DEMONSTRATE them. Because Messi playing centrally anywhere but deep positions, would get absolutely bullied and isolated.

 

I mean, just off the top of my head, you can see that in the 2020-2021 season, where Barcelona aimed to cross the ball a bit more than before. You can also see it in the 2007 Copa America, which I recently watched again. Obviously Messi doesn’t actually do this much since it wasn’t the team’s tactics, but that doesn’t mean he can’t do it. You don’t have Messi do things geared towards assisting header goals when you don’t have players that are good at getting on the end of those. That’d just be silly.

Yes, I’d say that, particularly in difficult matches, Barcelona’s midfield has not been as capable of reliably advancing the ball to dangerous areas as they wanted to be. This was not really true when they had Xavi, but then of course that’s why Messi didn’t drop deep as much back then (and when he did, they’d often just totally strangle other teams—see, for instance, the 5-0 against Real Madrid). He had to drop deep more as the years went by because Barcelona’s midfield couldn’t control the midfield to the extent the team wanted. Do you really think that post-Xavi, Barcelona’s midfield was as good as Real Madrid’s for instance? Of course not. The reason they still managed to control games and get the ball to dangerous areas similarly well was largely because of Messi creating a midfield overload.

Of course, as you point out, there’s a tradeoff to that, as I’ve said many many times. Messi can’t be at two places at once, so if he’s dropping deep, then he’s not on the forward line waiting to pounce on a final ball. So this makes it easier for the team to keep and progress the ball but harder for Messi to score goals. It’s a tradeoff that leads to Messi having fewer goals than he’d have if he did that less. Indeed, we saw that with how Messi scored fewer goals in general and especially against top opponents during the years they no longer had prime Xavi. And that’s something that you and others ding Messi for. The obvious response is that Messi wasn’t scoring as much but that was because he was doing something else that was getting large value but took him out of areas of the pitch that would maximize scoring chances (even if you think Messi can’t play with his back to goal and stuff, he obviously is in better position to score by being further forward ready to use his quickness and acceleration in short distances to pounce on throughballs). And now you’re basically saying that that other stuff shouldn’t be valued because he wasn’t in a position to score as much. But that’s the whole point! It was a trade off, and you can’t just point to lower goalscoring and refuse to acknowledge the value of the things Messi was doing that made it harder for him to score (which is value that largely doesn’t show up in stats—obviating this idea that stats are biased in Messi’s favor)!

I’d also quickly note that the value of the midfield overload isn’t just progressing the ball. It’s also keeping the ball. Having an extra man in midfield makes it way easier for the entire midfield not to lose the ball, and losing the ball in midfield is really bad defensively, so the midfield overload also is a substantial defensive benefit.

The logical conclusion is that both Messi and Ronaldo were generally deployed in the manner that was most optimal for them tactically. And that’s what we’d always expect from a team that has players at the level of these absolute monsters. Messi would not be as good in a tactical system that’s optimal for Ronaldo, and Ronaldo would not be as good in a tactical system that’s optimal for Messi. This is essentially irrelevant though, because they’re both so ridiculously good they’d always be put in a tactical system designed for them. So the only argument you could make here is basically just that a tactical system designed for Messi is inferior to a tactical system designed for Ronaldo. And indeed, that seems to be what you’re saying. Your entire argument basically comes down to thinking that tactical systems that are optimal for Ronaldo are better tactical systems. Your argument seems to be that against tough teams you need to do the things that Ronaldo is more suited for. That’s really just a philosophical point, though. And it’s not one that’s really backed by the evolution of the sport. You yourself just said earlier today that “In today's era, MOST GOALS are from through balls. TACTICAL EVOLUTION.” And that’s right, with top teams essentially all moving towards a more possession-based style that aims to dominate possession, work the ball into dangerous areas, and score more from through balls. This tactical evolution has happened because those tactics are very effective. Obviously, Real Madrid found significant success with slightly different tactics (though even they moved towards a more possession-based style), but I think the idea that a more Messi-suited tactical style is inferior to a more Ronaldo-suited tactical style is a little odd in the face of top teams having widely moved towards the more Messi-suited tactical style in this era.

 

Please provide actual footage of Messi making right-footed crosses. Do you realize how serious incapacitating a team from being able to cross on the right flank is? These can be low-driven crosses as well.
Barca produced a decent number of left-flank crosses.
This is not silly and no trivial matter. It is incapacitating to remove the option of of right-flank crossing.
Messi definitely played with players competent and capable of heading. He does not need Ronaldo-caliber players. (Later in his career, player recruitment was based on his playstyle - whether at Argentina or Barcelona.)
There's really nothing to argue. This is definitive. If Messi produced a right-footed cross - it is at a LOWER frequency than Zidane scoring weak-foot volley wonder goals outside the perimeter.

Again, is your argument that Messi played with a midfield with both Barcelona and Argentina that was incapable of advancing the ball reliably in a manner that is demonstrably inferior to any "top team".
What you are effectively saying is - if Messi does NOT play with the "greatest midfield of all time (your words)", he has to drop deep. That is a ridiculous statement.

Further, there are unsubstantiated assertions:
-That Messi occupied a deeper position later in his club career. (Heatmaps say otherwise).
-That Barcelona did not feature a capable midfield and to such an extent, Messi dropping deeper was necessary. Again, the idea that Barcelona and Argentina's midfields outside "greatest midfield of all time" era are relatively incapable is an OUTSTANDING CLAIM.

Of course, as you point out, there’s a tradeoff to that, as I’ve said many many times. Messi can’t be at two places at once, so if he’s dropping deep, then he’s not on the forward line waiting to pounce on a final ball. So this makes it easier for the team to keep and progress the ball but harder for Messi to score goals.

This is not a true statement. All it does is it changes the composition of the match:
There is benefit it clustering, but there is also immense benefit from distancing.
Clustering can be beneficial, so long as it is not to the detriment of stretching the field - which creates MORE space and time - which is ultimately the most necessary element in football.

• Stretching the opposition back-line creates SPACE and TIME for midfielders to progress forward and more advanced passing options. This is why Xavi has more progressions in 2008-09 - because he played with attackers that stretched the backline, giving him free space to advance. You lose those attackers, the field collapses, and build-up slows down. This is an ELEMENTARY concept.
• Having attackers hug the defensive line, creates SEPARATION between opposition midfield and defense, and immense space for midfielders to take advantage of.

There is no planet where a Messi short pass or dribble provides MORE VALUE than Mbappe threatening the defensive line. No planet. The disruption and threat and space Mbappe creates here is incomparable to Messi playing triangles and slowly moving the ball up.

@OffTheBallMovement Anybody who watches the sport should know this. It is intuitive and a basic premise of game theory.

The trade-off is not just Messi scoring less goals. The trade-off is Messi and the team scoring NO GOALS against high-level opposition and getting tossed out of Europe systematically.

Your point would only be even TENABLE if Messi actually advanced in the CL outside the Barcelona golden years.
In fact, the point is actually TRUE for 14-15, because he still had SPEED and Neymar and Suarez were both very mobile. So they threatened in transition.

I’d also quickly note that the value of the midfield overload isn’t just progressing the ball. It’s also keeping the ball. Having an extra man in midfield makes it way easier for the entire midfield not to lose the ball, and losing the ball in midfield is really bad defensively, so the midfield overload also is a substantial defensive benefit.

Yes, it does help keep the ball, circulate the ball, what have you. If you think Barcelona passing around a low-block is a viable strategy for scoring goals, I invite you to demonstrate it to us. If you perform goal analysis, you will be shocked by what you find.

I have not even spoken about Ronaldo yet. I merely demonstrated that Messi "dropping deep" is a playstyle born out of necessity - not some miraculous additional ability.

I made 4 simple points that cannot be refuted:
1) Messi centrally cannot play back to goal
2) Messi as an right inside forward cannot reliably dribble to the byline and cross from the right flank
3) Messi is not a reliable header of the ball (nor can he be a good presence in the box centrally)
4) Messi stopped providing a meaningful volume of diagonal runs past a very young age.

We can discuss further if you cannot refute these points and work from there - which I suspect, nobody can, given they are quite fair observations.

 

I’m sure I could dig up instances if I went and watched videos to find them, but it seems like a waste of time. At a fundamental level, why does making right-footed crosses in particular matter when we know that Messi is one of the greatest ever crossers of the ball from the right wing? It doesn’t matter if it’s with his right or left foot. Barcelona not only had the option to cross from the right wing, but actually had one of the greatest ever options for it—someone whose signature move is a devastatingly good cross from the right wing.

It’s all relative. They would be incapable of advancing the ball reliably to the level that a team like Barcelona wants. Again, post-Xavi, this wasn’t a team with Real Madrid’s level of midfield. Could they keep and advance the ball without Messi dropping deep? Yeah, but not to the level they wanted to. Messi providing that had huge value for them, and it’s value that stats can’t measure.

Also, your argument doesn’t really make sense when we realize that other top teams are finding tactical ways to create midfield overloads too. This isn’t me saying Barcelona needed to do something that no other top teams did. Creating midfield overloads is a very common thing for teams to do. Not every team does it with a forward dropping deep, but then that just means they’re doing it in other ways that carry other downsides. Like, for instance, you can invert your fullbacks to do it, but that takes away wide options in attack and leaves the wings vulnerable on quick counterattacks. There’s tradeoffs no matter how you do it. The way Barcelona did it basically just meant that that tradeoff negatively affected Messi’s goalscoring (which they obviously felt was fine since he’s really great in that role). In other words, it lowered Messi’s statistical output, while providing value that stats can’t really measure—which is part of why I find the argument that stats are biased in Messi’s favor to be odd.

Barcelona wasn’t running a 4-6-0 formation. They still had attackers on the defensive line (including, for instance, Suarez). It just often wasn’t Messi. Anyways, you can try to argue that having more attackers sitting on the defensive line makes it easier to progress the ball than having someone dropping deep (i.e. that progression would’ve been easier if Messi was upfront too), but the tactical innovations of the last decade make clear that the world’s top teams generally don’t think that. They’re mostly just working out ways to overload the midfield. It’s a very valuable and effective thing to do.

That video literally shows Mbappe making space by dropping into the midfield. The defender sticks with him because he doesn’t want Mbappe to be able to receive the ball in space. But in doing so, the defender leaves space behind him that Mbappe’s team could potentially exploit. Definitely a valuable play. But this is the type of tradeoff Messi forces on other teams all the time (and, at its heart, is the type of tradeoff that the entire #10 role was born out of). If Messi drops deep, you don’t want him to get the ball in space, so you have to mark him tightly. And that can create scenarios similar to this, because he drags that marker around. It’s the kind of off-ball gravity that I’ve been talking about that Messi has in spades. Ideally for the opposing team, they’d instead keep their defensive shape and when the player drops deeper they’d pass off responsibilities for Mbappe/Messi to someone else who is in their midfield. But when you do that, it just means someone else in Messi/Mbappe’s midfield is in open space, which results in easy progression of the ball. Is that progression of the ball more valuable than creating huge space in the back line? No, I don’t think so. But that progression of the ball is what you get instead when the opposing defense is disciplined and communicates well about how to deal with the situation.

Your argument is basically that Messi must’ve been less effective because his team didn’t win as much. This is an obviously overly simplistic argument, when we’re talking about an 11v11 sport in which players have different teammates and different opponents. That tradeoff we’ve spoken of can result in Messi getting substantial value even if his team loses. Surely you can see that? But at bottom, your arguments basically seem to always come down to “Yeah, but [insert Real Madrid player] won the Champions League 5 times, so he must be better than someone who didn’t.” It’s not nuanced analysis at all. Messi can have been a highly valuable performer for his team even if they didn’t win the Champions League, and I think if you can’t see that then there’s no way to continue discussing the topic.

Again, this stuff isn’t ultimately all that consequential. Like, is Messi a reliable header of the ball? No. So has he been put in a tactical system where he’s asked to do that? No. Other all-time great players also aren’t put in tactical systems where they’re asked to do the things they’re least good at. That’s just not what happens with guys like that. They end up in tactical systems that best suit them. The only relevant question is how effective they are in their own tactical system, not how effective they’d be in a different one that they’d never be asked to play in. So the only follow-on question from that is whether a tactical system that best suits Messi is actually inferior to a tactical system that best suits other all-time great players. You’re trying to argue that it is inferior. But the problem is that, during the course of Messi’s career, the entire footballing world has moved more towards trying to play that sort of tactical system, so obviously in general people do not think it is an inferior model. And if it’s not inferior, then you really don’t have much of a point.

 

I think you are derailing the discussion with tangential points. What inferior model are you even talking about? I am talking about Messi collecting the ball from deeper positions instead of threatening the defensive line and stretching the field. What does this have to do with philosophy, models, systems? These are individual qualities or lack thereof that dictate a particular playstyle.

 

ATTACKING A LOW BLOCK


In high-level matches, when the low-block is settled, the options are:
1) Low-driven cross on the right
2) High cross on the right
2) Low-driven cross on the left
4) High cross on the left
5) Long shot
6) Some other type of header - be it set-piece, corner, or long ball from other position
7) Through ball

At this level, on a settled-low block a through ball is by far the least likely and frequent strategy. It is incredibly difficult, nigh impossible as a strategy to break through. The key is to work around it the defensive structure.

If Messi plays a few things are certain:

1. No type of cross, be it low-driven or high on the right side
2. High cross on the left possible, but less likely
3. No headers

You've robbed his team of a huge amount of possible strategies of attack. Further, you are more likely to find yourself against an organized low-block than in transition states which carry the highest likelihood of scoring (since defensive structure is disrupted).

Here, in 2008-09, you can see a game-state where Messi is occupying a high position during Phase 1 build-up:


The vertical space between the opposition defense and midfield is SO WIDE because SPEEDY attackers are threatening the defensive line.
This creates space for the midfielders to easily progress the ball forward, since the effective playing field is less congested.



Another example of Messi creating immense separation between defensive and midfield lines. The threat of his run forces the defensive line back, while the midfield line presses. More space between the lines and easier progression of the ball.

Messi 2018 vs Liverpool.

Messi participating in Phase 2 Build-up. The field is far more compressed. If he's occupying the defensive line and providing threat, there would be more space for midfielders to breathe.

Obviously, I took these screencaps to be illustrative of a point:

• You would like your forwards hugging and threatening the defensive line. This has massive OFFENSIVE repercussions, but as well as DEFENSIVE. Liverpool congesting the field this much HELPS THEIR BALL RECOVERY / GEGENPRESSING.
• You want to stretch the field as much as possible, to help the midfield breathe and provide receiving outlets from your attackers.

This is why a PATTERN of dropping deep is a NET NEGATIVE:
-It congests the field, slows build-up, neuters transitions (when Messi lost his speed. In 14-15 he was excellent in this role), and GIVES TIME FOR THE OPPONENT TO ORGANIZE INTO A LOW BLOCK, and INCREASES their CHANCE OF BALL RECOVERY.
-THIS + LOW WORK-RATE and HUGE RATE OF TURNOVERS is why Messi failed in Europe. This is why (plus mentality issues, but this is subjective).

When the Oppenent's team collapses into a low-block, then Messi is left with LONG SHOTS. There is NO BOX PRESENCE, NO CROSS, NO HEADERS, NO RIGHT WING. DEATH. Suicide. RIP.

What happened with Messi is he took a hit physically. His shot-creating ability lowered as he was no longer able to reliably create the same kind of separation from opponents, his dribbling effectiveness lowered, his engine lowered (less runs, less touches in the box). This and more organized low-blocks is WHY HIS OUTPUT TANKS IN HIGH-LEVEL MATCHES.

The whole "Messi playmaking" is a myth. He is an all-time final ball provider - but his contributions elsewhere ARE NOT NECESSARY and RESULT FROM HIS DEFICIENCIES as a CENTER-FORWARD / INSIDE FORWARD.

 

This is just nonsense. Messi is an all-time crosser from the right side. You keep just ignoring that, even though one of your most consistent past criticisms of him is literally how often he crosses from the right side. Messi is also incredible at making a line-breaking diagonal ball to the wing (often to Dani Alves, but he makes them to both wings), from which other players on his team can and do make penetrating runs following by crosses or squared balls into the box—usually low-driven ones given the typical composition of Messi’s team (and Messi is fantastic at getting on the ends of these). Indeed, that’s a significant element of how Messi’s teams have scored (for instance, those sorts of plays are a huge reason Dani Alves got so many assists). And, since Messi is often dropped deep, his teams could certainly score headers if they happened to have someone occupying the forward central areas who was good at that (instead they’ve typically had great players like Suarez who aren’t great at that particular thing).

The rest of this is just based on a bunch of random screenshots from games in different game states against different opponents with different tactics, from which obviously essentially zero conclusion can be drawn. And it completely ignores the point that Messi’s team wasn’t just playing a 4-6-0 with no one on the defensive line. Messi’s teams have had Luis Suarez (as well as guys like Pedro, Villa, etc.), who can and did pressure the defensive line while the team advanced the ball.

Anyways, the idea that creating midfield overloads is bad is just completely divorced from the tactics employed by top teams these days. They’re virtually all trying to figure out how to overload the midfield with the least negative consequences elsewhere. If you drop an attacker deep, the consequence is less presence up front, making it harder for that attacker to score (and, yes, less pressure on the defensive line). If you invert fullbacks into the midfield, the consequence is less attacking presence on the wings and more defensive vulnerabilities on the wings. If you have a ball-playing central defender roam forward, you leave tons of central space to be exploited if you lose the ball. So there’s tradeoffs no matter what you do. But yet top teams are widely finding ways to do it, because the benefits are worth it. You can argue with the tactics, but you’re really just arguing against a tactical evolution that’s happened. You can say it’s a net negative, but top clubs generally don’t agree with you. The point I’m making is that, because Messi is the one creating the midfield overload, he was providing significant value that does not get measured in stats, and the negative consequences of doing so is literally that it makes it harder for him to do things that do get measured in stats. But yet there’s arguments being slung around about how stats are biased in favor of measuring the stuff Messi does, and I’m sitting here thinking that’s crazy because his tactical role is literally a role that sacrifices some amount of personal statistical output in order to provide value for the team that doesn’t really show up much in his personal stats.