Does Lionel Messi have too many failures to be considered the greatest footballer of all time?

All Of Messi's Assists in World Cup & Copa Games that range from being Absolute superb Assist to alteast a Big Chance Created. Messi has 25 Assists in Copa/WC And i would say 95 % of his Assist's pass the Eye Test as a "Real Assist" so it's a pretty reliable Stat for Messi.


MESSI HAS ATLEAST 41 GOALS+ REAL ASSISTS IN WORLD CUP/COPA AMERICA GAMES

1703490860594200723 is not a valid tweet id

@SayWhatIWant
@ganapordiego
@carlito86
@Sexy Beast
@lessthanjake

 

All of Lionel Messi True Failures in his Career that really hurt his Legacy.


- Copa America Final Perfomances

- World Cup 2014 from QF to Final

- First Season at PSG

- UCL Eliminations VS Bayern 2020, Roma 2018 , Real Madrid 21/22, Atletico 15/16. ( maybe should give us a 4th all Timer UCL Winning Campaign)

- Copa America 2019

- World Cup 2018

 

Yo, just ask for a friend: Does Messi still have too many failures????

 

It's not like the last 4 years have erased the other 20 years of his career. The failures still are there.

 

Don't cry..
Real Madrid and Brazil supporter...
I understand why you can't sleep...
He'll be remembered as the GOAT, whether you like it or not..

 

Well, unfortunately for you, he'll not. People now are comparing him to Pelé due to recency bias as they did with Maradona at the end of the century but it will pass and Pelé will continue being considered the goat. He has everything Messi has (i.e. alien dribbling, playmaking and finishing) but with bonuses (two footedness, heading, physicality, flair, etc...) hence, more complete and all rounded (even played as a goalkeeper lol). And if that isn't enough, then there's his legacy of being the first superstar of football, winning three world cups and being completely dominant at club level. His average for goals and assists is better than Messi even if we compare relative to their eras. It's just undeniable

 

Pele WAS considered the GOAT, as everyone knows, and he will always be considered one of the greatest footballers in history. It's clear that the 3 (Messi, Pelé, Maradona; in that order) will remain in the pantheons of soccer, with some players "quite" close to them (Cruyff, Puskas, Di Stefano, Cristiano, etc), but we have to be realistic, Messi's consistency in maintaining such a high level of performance is unrivalled and will remain so forever.
You can argue that Pelé was the first to do this or that (and I agree), but Messi did as well as he did, adding that he lived in periods when tactical sense was very important and space between the lines on the pitch was reduced by example.
I'm not in any way denigrating what Pele did, but on December 18, 2022 Messi definitively anchored his legend at the top, one small head above Pele.
Three World Cups (including one who got injured in the second match, thanks to Garrincha), a career in which he stayed in Brazil (despite himself)...
How many Copa Libertadores has he won? 2
Then there's the fantasy of a time when soccer was starting to be televised, when there were few video reports of these pre-1965 matches in Brazil with Santos, which generated all that.
I have the utmost respect for Pelé, and he will always be considered the first person to have loved soccer worldwide, but when it comes to strict footballing terms, Messi has taken the lead now by small inch, but still did.
Anyway, as soon as you find a way to take Messi down you do it, and you don't even try to be objective, but as you're back from Back to the Future, we'll say you know the future.

Anyway, Pele's career was perfect, but I still wonder why such a topic was launched, when in the end the reasoning of the people who post the answers are always oriented in the same way.
Democracy yes yes

 

1-Messi's concistency isn't "unrivaled" mate. Pelé himself had this level of concistency. So did Ronaldo, Puskás and Di Stefano for even more time than Messi (who went to MLS at 34)

2-Well I wouldn't say he did as well as Pelé since Pelé had as I said a better average for G/A relative to his own era and as the op says Messi had too many failures mainly at NT from the start of his career until Lionel Scaloni. And consistently failed at UCL after 2015 when his team were knocked out.

3-Tactical evolution is a factor against and also in favor of both Messi and Pelé. While it is true that Messi's opposing teams have evolved tactically, Messi's teams have also evolved. In the same way, the teams that Pelé faced were not as tactically evolved but neither was Pelé's own team. The most important thing here is how they played in relation to their own eras. And Pelé's Santos were the best team of his own era. And so were Barça in Messi's era. In addition, Pelé had adverse conditions, which were the pitches, the balls, the boots, the uniforms, the referees allowing more than today and everything else.

4-So because Messi won 1 WC he cemented his place as the #1? Congrats but Pelé won 3. You can say he only played the group stage in 62 but he still has another 2. What's more Messi also won a UCL carried by Ronaldinho. So no, 1 WC doesn't change the things. Before 2021 Messi has 15+ years of career without winning nothing with his NT while Pelé were winning it by 18 years old destroying his opponents on knock out stages.

5-Okay Pelé won only 2 libertadores but Brazilian clubs often refused to play this competition, Spanish-speaking countries (Uruguay and Argentina) were always favored by arbitration. Brazilian clubs didn't care so much about this competition and santos won much more money touring Europe. At the time, the state championships were in league format and the Brazilian championship was in cup format. And Santos lined up several Brazilian Cups, Copa Rio-São Paulo and Paulistas with Pelé as the most standout player. What's more the Brazilian league by 60s were as strong as any of the top 3 leagues at Europe back then.

6-In footballing therms Messi never surpassed Pelé. Pelé were as good as him at playmaking and dribbling but were more complete in the sense of being two footed, heading, had more flair, etc... Add 50 goals and 20 assists every season to Ronaldinho with the physique and consistency of Cristiano and then you have something close to Pelé.

 

Pele is obviously the greater player. I fail to see how this is even an interesting debate/discussion.

 

I think it is pretty reasonable (and even pretty rational) to think Pelé is the greatest player of all time.

 

It's funny how I wanted to check your arguments, and I saw already in the second line a lie "Messi went to MLS at 34".. Hard to argue after that

 

It's a good thing there's some debate.. Oh wait

 

Wdym? The only ppl who compare are those who haven't done their basic homework on Pele. Or fanboys who cannot even CONCEIVE of the idea of a player being better at anything than their hero... which is a mental illness

 

Sorry, it was an unintentional typo. He went at 36, right?

 

Do you have empirical evidence to support this claim?

 

No way?? Based on what

 

You have not yet provided any empirical evidence to support your claim. The games you watched are a very small sample size and not representative of Pelé's career.

His average of assists is better than Messi's and far better than Laudrup and and Zico so the hard data doesn't corroborate with your claim. Also, he had more flair than Messi when it comes to dribbling often doing sombreros, nutmegs, etc... While maintaining the same volume of dribbles as Messi. Pelé were at peak Neymar level of playmaking/dribbling and Cristiano Ronaldo's level at goalscoring.

 

"Pele is the greatest player of all time. He reigned supreme for 20 years. All the others, Diego Maradona, Johan Cruyff, Michel Platini, rank beneath him. There's no one to compare with Pele."
-Beckenbauer

"Pele was the most complete player I've ever seen, he had everything. Two good feet. Magic in the air. Quick."
-Bobby Moore

"Good dribbler but not out of this world"
-darek27

Well I think the best defenders of history disagree with you

 

Mate, there's really no point arguing with these people, they'll always play the same tune, even if you maintain that 1 + 1 = 2.
I'd started writing arguments to retort point by point, but I figured they'd stick to their guns.
Well, let's be reassured that it's only a small community they represent.

 

Exactly, very small, vocal, insecure bunch.. although I must admit an entertaining bunch.

 

Regarding Pele's dribbling, a very telling sign is that many people of that era regard Garrincha as better dribbler than Pele. On the other hand, no one in their right mind would consider anyone before, during or after Messi as his equal in terms of dribbling, not even Ronaldo fans (maaybe some Brazilian fanatics because of Neymar and the rivalry with Argentina).

Pele tho seems to truly be an all around, complete attacker. Him and Messi are the only two that clearly stand out above the rest in history of football imo. It is unfortunate that there is no more high quality footage and data on Pele. He would be a joy to experience.

I agree that Messi will stand the test of time because of accessibility of footage and stats. I dont think we will see anything close to him any time soon but i hope i am wrong.

 

Pelé and Messi were more similar in terms of their position on the pitch, both were attacking midfielders who often played centrally in midfield and moved up the pitch. And who achieved a high level of goals and assists over a long period of time. They were both physically strong, although not tall, were resistant to tackles.

We had other attacking midfielders, but they didn't have all those characteristics. Zico, for example, also played there, but he wasn't as strong physically and didn't achieve as much. Maradona in his prime moved around the pitch more, he wasn't so centralised. Then he started to become more of a pure playmaker, but he didn't get into the box as much to finish.

Between Pelé and Messi, i think Messi was better at controlling the ball, perhaps faster. Pelé was a more diverse finisher (he could shoot with both feet, head, etc), more agile. I like a phrase that a sports columnist once said: Messi was a hare, Pelé was a cat. Pelé was also a better defender. He often came back to fight for the ball. Messi rarely did that.

Pelé's other advantage was psychological. When Pelé couldn't win, he would go on the attack, try to draw fouls, like a hunted animal. For example, against Portugal in the 1966 World Cup. Messi often hid from the game, he was more passive in defeats.

Apart from these differences, I believe that the three World Cups and Pelé's advantage in raw g+a numbers make a difference, so I'm leaning towards Pelé.