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

MJ being the true GOAT is arguable when a player like LeBron exist.

 

Well, you forgot Real Madrid 2010-11. By any reasonable definition, they had a good defense.

Your comment about Bayern is also highly debatable. Just because a team has good forwards doesn't mean they aren't good defensively.

 

Imagine thinking Messi hasn’t been great against defensive teams. A notable performance from him is against Mourinho’s Chelsea in 2006 CL R16, when he was just a teenager. Man Utd under Ferguson wasn’t always an attacking team either. They played defensive football against Barca in 2008 CL semi finals and Messi had a great performance. Another one is against Mourinho’s Real team in 2011 CL semi finals, which had a good defense.

 

This is like talking like those typical millennials out there on social media who never consider context or situations and judge almost everything by today's paradigm.

1) When he joined Argentinos Juniors they were towards the bottom of the table and they progressively started improving season by season during his time there.
Hardly came close to making it to the Libertadores during that duration.

He joins Boca Juniors and they won the championship. But they were not in Libertadores that season. Qualified for it next season , but Argentina team probably was taking preparation for the World cup by playing friendlies and probably national team players couldn't continue their club season.

2) Then , at Barcelona both of his La Liga campaigns were disrupted, one by Hepatitis and next one via that tackle from Goikoetxea.
They won the Copa Del Rey against Real Madrid and lost to Bilbao (with their dirty game) in the next season. And they were knocked out in cup winners cup both season , one by that comeback by United and next season on tiebreaker

So far tell me how could he have a career ladden with trophies? First he started out in a team that seems to be average or below average in Argentina and slowly and progressively got better. And got disrupted by bad lucks like Hepatitis and that Injury for Barcelona. Probably you could point to those two Cup Winners Cup knockouts where he probably could've done better

3) Then he joins Napoli who were in the lower half of the table when he joined. Then with him and more new signings they progressively started getting better in the following years (much similiar to Argentinos Juniors) and won those two Scudettos (their only league wins in history) . And Serie A in 80s was one of the most competitive league with so many title contenders and not much gap between teams . They also won the UEFA cup with him . They played the european cup only twice and he was out of his prime by 1991 and maybe you can hold that tie against RM against him (ignoring the fact that RM team were significantly superior to Napoli)


With National team , he reached a WC final in 1990 (injured) with Argentina and everyone knows about 1986 . And talking about Copa America , in those days Brazil and Argentina didn't took the competition quite lightly (you can see in Vegan's reports) and how many Copa America did he even play?
1979 - 2 games and then left for the Youth WC which was valued more by Arg
1989 - played the the tournament with Injury like 1990 WC
1987 - only CA he played fit


So tell me based on how situations and conditions was there in that era (with top players distributed among teams and not much gap between the top and middle, bottom team like now) , how could he have a trophy ladden career?

Unlike someone like Messi who was sort of born with the silverspoon. Always played in one of the two Superpower that duopolize La Liga (Who had lot of instabilities and injury affected league seasons and basically none to challenge his team for the league at times), team winning titles under Ronaldinho and deco when he started , and Barcelona having arguably best football team in history and few years later one of the best Attacking Trios of all time.
And not to mention advantages like how multiple teams are allowed to play in the Champions league every year which wasn't the case before.
With the previous rules , Messi and Barca wouldn't even played the UCL in 2008/09 and 2014/14 ( so basically 2 out of 3 Champions league he won as main man)

Completely opposite and polarizing circumstances. This statements like What X or Y player won , are easy to make by casualistic approach but when proper context and analysis is made, things get far more clear

Thats why taking context of era

 

Do you even watch the full games which you talk about like those fanboys on social media ? Mourinho's team in 2011 CL semifinal played Pepe in the midfield and managed to lock him down for most of that game . Pepe being sent off wrongly by referee due playacting of Dani Alves , was what changed the game completely and collapsed the structure and Barca took over the game then. And thats where the space came in , first with that Affelay assist and that solo run .

I have to rewatch games against chelsea and united . But as far as my memory recalls , those were rather more like of good dribbling performances probably. Not sure about united's setup in that tie but they were generally very attacking side

 

Good defensive structure which was disrupted by Pepe's red card when the game opened up for him and Barca

Bayern's strength was attack and they were struck with Injuries ahead of that tie as far as i remember .Infact they had likes of Benatia (who was returning from an injury and not fully fit), Badstuber who was also always in and out with injuries as CB options . Bernat wasn't also very good defensively back then from what i remember.
And Guardiola is know for overthinking and messing up his tactics ahead of the big games in champions league . And he literally did that in that game , changed his formation totally to a 3-4-2-1 or something like that and Bayern were on backfoot from start of the game. And after they conceded the first goal, they were clueless literally. However , its also true , credit must be given to Messi because he beat Neuer with that shot and opened the scoring and then beat Boateng to score the second goal.

 

Having said that, i would say it is not true Messi didn't produce good performances or faltered against defensive teams .
Simeone's Atletico Madrid are one of the teams that are known to be tough and prioritize defense first . And he has delivered good performances or unlocked the matches against Atletico quite a number of times . I remember the 2015 season for example , when RM were failing against Atletico over and over again. But Barcelona had no problem agains them , with messi, neymar, suarez and iniesta with their movements ,dribbling and linkups opening them up . He was having problems against them back in 2014 but then , have done fairly well against them. And i am sure you could find more such examples.

 

You salvaged that post by adding a little balance at the end but one can literally make excuses/explanations about any great performance that any player has ever had in a football match, including all of Ronaldo's.

Since we are talking about defense-first teams versus those whose strength is in attack, its worth pointing out that Madrid started that match with 7 defensive-minded players (many of which were world class) plus the world class goalkeeper and a defensive-minded manager, so it doesn't become easy to break them down just because they lose a midfielder. And Barca had some key injuries in that match hence it was pretty much up to Messi to do something about the 0-0 game.

PS... Has anyone seen Ibrahim Afellay since that match?

 

The point of your post is that Messi had it easier in club football than Maradona...

Sure I agree.

Although Messi has a club resume that includes 10 La Liga titles and 4 CL titles whereas Maradona won 2 Serie A and 1 EL title (then UEFA Cup). It's not like their achievements are anywhere near comparable.

Maradona seems unfit in a lot tournaments. That's not an excuse to me. The best ability is availability. Messi playing for 12 straight seasons around his prime level would already put him well above Maradona in career value. As in if you had a choice which player to take for your team for their entire career, you'd pick Messi because he'll be great for a lot longer. Who was the better player at their best? I don't know. Different eras, different teams, different circumstances, even different positions... It's very very subjective.

Anyways I am baffled by the entire premise of this thread. Saying that one of the most winning players of all time has too many failures makes no sense.

 

First of all you are again saying the first line and then proceeding on to do the same thing with that number of trophies won count. I literally analyzed almost single season of Maradona's career with context and revealed how someone can expect him (also true for most players in those eras) to win so many titles . Then its literally a common knowledge that you couldn't play CL and Continental compeitions every year like now back in those days. Despite that you again resort to the trophies count after saying the first line.
Also to note , i never said Maradona's better because he won few titles with much lesser teams .That's when that argument about how many titles they won becomes prominent (because winning with lesser teams doesn't necessarily make you better. Only could be a success if you achieved similiar success with a lesser team) . Also i am ignoring the fact that he was sitting on the bench for his first two league titles and CL title when he began, whereas Maradona didn't start his career with silver spoon in Argentinos Juniors. The circumstances are so different that its hard to make a cross era comparision because of that.
It all can't be summarized by simply saying Messi had it easier in club football and then pro

Maradona was injured in 1989 Copa and 1990 WC (both of which was towards end of his prime days as player ) firstly , not in the tournaments before and still he played with painkillers . So your premise about availability is false. He didn't have a good Copa , and in WC although he didn't play like 86 but, didn't he make that assist to Caniggia against Brazil in the second round? He also had a wonderful performance against Italy in the semifinal playing with painkillers.
How many times has Messi had an overall performance like this (not just goals) for the NT in knockout and he was playing at full fitness :

Then i already mentioned to you that, back in those eras their NTs didn't take the Copa seriously. Maradona wasn't injured for the 1979 Copa America, rather he left after two games because of the youth World Cup.

At club level , he literally played more than 95% of league matches for Napoli and Argentinos Juniors and cup competitions , continental matches as well. So how come that availability thing arrives here. He only missed a stretch of games at Barcelona. Only someone with ignorance would think it his fault completely for those incidents that made him miss games at Barca.
And talking about no excuse ,seriously , how can he control Hepatitis ?
Also seems like it is his fault (no excuse) , that butcher of Bilbao tried to cripple his legs ?
Unlike the circumstances Messi plays in now with all the protection from the referees , where in LaLiga now if they even sneeze on him, they gets carded most often. Messi will have more longevity than other Goat candidates true. Although i agree its partly Maradona's fault to some extent, he could've stayed on top a bit longer like 2-3 years more if he didn't have those off-field issues. But not to mention the advantages players now have in diet, nutrition, improvement in healthcare & technologies which allows them to stay on top much longer than ever before. Guys like Zlatan, Modric etc are still dominating top leagues. Players can comfortably play on the top level till 35 very easily now unlike before. So there's comes another element of debate.

And as per speaking for myself , i like to rate players based on what they could do on field more than achievements, longevity etc factors. Longevity for me is important but to some extent . If you had a decent amount of longevity (9/10 years at world class level is pretty decent ), then you should be judged based on your prime or things you could actually do on the field . Being worse and playing for long doesn't make you the best player automatically. Nobody considered Puskas to be better than Di stefano , or best player of all times ahead of Pele (who practically had nothing to play for when he retired at santos). Luca Modric is still on top level at 35, he can play till 38 but he is never going to better than zidane . These are the type of thinking that some of these fools on social media uses , for example CR7 fanboys who think he will suddenly wake up next morning as the best player of all times after he reaches a scoring milestone or playing until 40 LOL

 

Agree with you on he's won a lot of trophies. But i think point of view of creator of the thread (@darek27) is quite different and also probably because of some context. And also here again some of these cross era comparisions and change in footballing landscapes and competitions comes up .

A large portion of his trophy haul for Barcelona consists of spanish supercups, uefa supercups and Copa Del Reys . A lot of these competitions/contests don't exist for a large portion of football history. He won a lot of league titles but also LaLiga was a seriously unbalanced league with humungous gap between top two and others . How many genuine threat/competitior has his team had in their charge to their league title in 95% of that time? Only one - Real Madrid. And even they had injury problems , dressing room instability , sudden change, transition etc in some years which also helped Barca win a title without much competition in a handful of years as well (2009, 2011, 2013, 2018, 2019). Not to mention , RM hardly took the CDR competition seriously for most of the spell ( Yes i know they celebrated with a bus parade in 2011 because they were mentally broken at that stage with Barca's domination and since the final was against Barca)
And due to how much the gap among top teams and mid tier teams, UCL and Europa now, European and Latin football , Uefa Supercups, Spanish supercups these are kind of like free trophies/easy to get .So in most cases if you win the league and CL , you basically kind of get some extra trophies along with it in most cases.
Also the part where @Tropeiro mentioned he has had the luxury at club level unlike most of other Goat candidates. So of course, he's going to win a lot of titles especially in domestic arenas. Basically you will find it for a lot of players of current period, enjoying that benefit over players in similiar positions due to change in circumstances.

Having said that, its not his fault playing for a dominant team due to change of circumstances and he actually dominated the domestic competitions with his performances as well as winning trophies with his team (Its only when someone use these trophies count to prove superiority of a player over a similiar level player playing in a far adverse circumstances is where i take these contexts more into account) . So please don't do the mistake by assuming i am downplaying messi's achievements and trophy haul with Barcelona especially in domestic competition.

As for @darek27 's point of view, i think he is mainly saying it from the perspective of aside from domestic competiton (where his team has only one genuine competitior throughout the years), his team's failures in the Champions league especially for later half of the last decade. Barcelona were consistently always the best team or a 2/3 favourite for the competition throughout the last decade in the competition and relatively won less ( 2 CL wins is still decent, but as i said it is also the period where you can play CL every year + like any other point in history Barca were always a top 2/3 team entering the competition)
And along with his four losses with Argentina , results like bottling back to back 3 goals lead in first leg , 8-2 humiliation to Bayern etc add to it perhaps.
And especially a player with less talent than him in CR7 , playing as a main man in relatively worse team than him in club level , won more in the competition (CL) might raise the issue to many people's perspective.

 

He won a lot of La Ligas and CLs too.

Obviously he lacks int'l trophies but let's not get crazy here. He's won more major trophies at club level than just about anyone.

 

The argument that Messi has too many failures to be the actual goat, would appear to be self-evident just by looking at the one-sided facts over the many years of Messi's career...

I mean, I'm not even talking about the actual results; my concern is Messi's actual performance in so many of these games; Messi is one-dimensional and/or two-dimensional in most of these games, far removed from his alleged creative genius greatness.


1. Messi was a non-factor against Chelsea 2009. Barcelona still advanced, thanks to the aggregate random luck factor that was Iniesta and Ovrebo; but Chelsea deserved to advance, and Messi did little or nothing over the two legs, which happened again in 2012.


2. Iniesta was the official man of the match in the Champions League Final 2009. You can agree or disagree with this, but the argument is reasonable and sound in the worst of cases.


3. Messi was, again, not impressive at all vs. Inter Milan 2010. Barcelona failed to advance; Andres Iniesta was injured and did not played either leg of the semi finals. Andres Iniesta was the man of the match in the World Cup Final 2010, as he scored the goal to win the game.

Iniesta also, quite obviously, was the best player at World Cup 2010 and self-evidently the best player for Spain; but then again, Diego Forlan somehow won the best of the tournament... which yet again demonstrates how much of a farce the World Cup 'Golden Ball' is a lot of the time.

So far, Andres Iniesta has a much more linear and logical 'win factor' to both Barcelona and Spain. On the other hand, Messi repeatedly looks like a shell of himself when he plays for Argentina.


4. Messi was at his iconic best, but honestly, Barcelona 2011 was so devastating and dominant at the time, that it isn't difficult to imagine Barcelona 2011 winning without Messi; after all, Inter Milan 2010 and Chelsea 2012 both won without Messi, and Barcelona 2011 had the extraordinary benefit of Spain's proven and tested golden generation.


5. Messi was, again, not impressive at all vs. Chelsea 2012. Barcelona failed to advance, and Messi even failed to score the penalty kick to win the game.

Messi needlessly crashed himself against Chelsea's defensive wall in 2012, when Messi could have varied his playing style; ball retention in midfield areas and try to pick a killer pass (which Messi never tried to do); dribbling in the wide areas and try to pick a killer cross (which Messi never tried to do); instead, the end product was Messi trying and failing to single-handedly destroy the whole of the Chelsea defence.

Chelsea 2012 was only too happy to see that Messi self-destroyed; death by tactical suicide, as a direct result of Messi running directly in the trap that was Chelsea's arguably impenetrable defensive wall.

What Messi did vs. Chelsea 2012 is the equivalent of an allegedly highly technical boxer who, for some inexplicable reason, tried and failed to "slug it out" against the most powerful power puncher in the world; Messi would then complain that he was knocked out by a defensive opponent, but the reality is that Messi failed to out-box a more powerful puncher, and then Messi also did not scored the penalty kick to win the game, making it a well-rounded failure for Messi.

Messi as the alleged technical boxer, should have found creative ways of not becoming a victim of Chelsea's counter attacking, defensive strategy; instead, it was Messi himself who was willingly and repeatedly running directly into the trap, again, and again, and again, and then even failing to score the penalty kick that could have served to camouflage or soften just how much of a well-rounded failure Messi truly was.

Andres Iniesta was much better than Messi, and that very much appears to be the routine at this point in Messi's career. And on a similar note, Iniesta was the player of the tournament at Euro 2012, which is impressive because Iniesta was also the best player at World Cup 2010, and again Iniesta was arguably as good as Xavi was at Euro 2008.

So far, Iniesta is just more consistent than Messi, in terms of his realistic value against top tier opponents.


6. Messi was, again, not impressive at all vs. Bayern Munich 2013. Iniesta is past his prime at this point, and never fully recovers his form after 2012. Pep Guardiola's system is destroyed by Heynckes's intensity; this blue print is what has defined modern football ever since Barcelona was destroyed in 2013, and Messi coincidentally or not has declined significantly ever since this tactical shift in 2013.


7. Messi was, again, not impressive at all vs. Atletico Madrid 2014. Iniesta and Neymar were both much better, so much better, than Lionel Messi who looked miserable and one-dimensional throughout both legs.

Cristiano Ronaldo, Mr. Champions himself as it were; Ronaldo vs. Atletico Madrid (Champions League Final) was more or less just as mediocre as Messi was.


8. Messi was at his iconic best, but honestly, Barcelona 2015 was so devastating and dominant at the time, that it isn't difficult to imagine Barcelona 2015 winning without Messi.

Of course, it also helps that Barcelona arguably failed to play against a great opponent; Bayern Munich was significantly depleted, Juventus was the weak-league-bully and as such was an overrated top tier club, and Manchester City simply lacked experience at this level, as Barcelona failed to play against a truly great opponent.

Barcelona 2009 played against great opponents like Chelsea 2009 and Manchester United 2009.

Barcelona 2011 also played against great opponents like Real Madrid 2011 and Manchester United 2011.

Who did Barcelona 2015 played against, that could be reasonably defined as a great opponent?


9. Messi was, again, not impressive at all vs. Atletico Madrid 2016.

Cristiano Ronaldo, Mr. Champions himself as it were; Ronaldo vs. Atletico Madrid (Champions League Final) was more or less just as mediocre as Messi was.

In this same season, Barcelona without Messi managed to stay in first place in La Liga; Neymar and Suarez were in great form, even when Messi was absent, which further demonstrates what was already quite clear in the previous season as Barcelona won the treble.


10. Messi was not only not impressive; Messi delivered two of his worst ever performances vs. Paris Saint Germain 2017; this opponent was the opposite of a "parked the bus" defensive team, which demonstrates that Messi fails also vs. opponents that are end-to-end attacking football.

Neymar was a lot better than Messi; in fact, Neymar single-handedly rescued Barcelona.

Suarez was also a lot better than Messi.


11. Messi was good (after two very bad games vs. Paris Saint Germain, it should be noted), but not better than Dybala, who was better than Messi as Barcelona was eliminated by Juventus; an inferior club from an inferior league.

Barcelona and Messi are beginning to consistently show, that they cannot deliver against top tier opponents; Atletico Madrid 2014; Atletico Madrid 2016; Paris Saint Germain 2017; Juventus 2017; Roma 2018; Liverpool 2019; and so on.


12. Messi delivered, in my opinion, probably his best performance for Barcelona in the Champions League vs. Chelsea 2018.

Chelsea was arguably the better team, and Messi single-handedly eliminated Chelsea... Then again, was Chelsea 2018 a truly great opponent, or was the not at all impressive 5th place finish by Chelsea in the Premier League, indicative of a different reality?


13. Messi was, again, not impressive at all vs. Roma 2018. This could be the worst ever performance by Messi, who was actually very bad in the first leg that Barcelona won; and who was more or less as bad, in the second leg that Roma won.

4 - 1 win vs. Roma in the first leg.

0 - 3 defeat vs. Roma in the second leg.

How is Barcelona good enough to win 4-1 when Messi is as bad as he was in the first leg??

This is truly perplexing, because Messi in the first leg was shockingly bad; one of the worst performances I have ever seen by a world class player, let alone a 'goat' candidate.

How did Roma "parked the bus" against Messi, when Roma literally scored 4 goals after two legs??

Impossible to park the bus and score 4 goals, at the same time. Defensive discipline can be achieved without having to park the bus, as was the case with Roma 2018.

Messi delivered a masterpiece and a devastating performance vs. Chelsea 2018 (5th place finish in the Premier League), but then Messi immediately delivered arguably his worst performance ever vs. Roma 2018 (3rd place finish in the Serie A); the two versions of Messi...

Messi bad vs. Paris Saint Germain 2017.

Messi good vs. Juventus 2017.

Messi good vs. Liverpool 2019; first leg.

Messi bad vs. Liverpool 2019; second leg.

At any rate, Barcelona will never again be able to compete in the Champions League, if the best Messi can do is be good in one game and then immediately be bad in the next game.

And again...

How is Barcelona good enough to win 4-1 vs. Roma, when Messi is as bad as he was in the first leg??

How is Barcelona bad enough to lose 0-4 vs. Liverpool, when Messi should have had an 'easy' job trying to dismantle a desperate Liverpool side that had to attack??

It is impossible to correctly answer the two questions above, without first conceding the fact that Messi simply isn't as decisive as his statistics would indicate; not in the cup format that the Champions League is, at the very least, in the best of cases for Messi.

The best player ever, cannot find at least one perfect assist against a very desperate Liverpool side; and not only that, but Liverpool, in fact a depleted Liverpool, actually wins 4-0 in the second leg, as Messi failed both as a player and as a leader.

The best player ever, at his very worst; and Barcelona still wins 4-1 against Roma, in the first leg.

How do you explain the above outcomes, and still come out of it with the opinion that Messi is the goat, or at least with the opinion that Messi has as good an argument for the goat as Maradona, Pele, or any other player to have played the game?

Again: I do not care about the actual results, my main concern is the fact that Messi had little to no impact in the actual games, regardless of the results. This is simply not what should happen to a 'goat' player when the cards are stacked against him.

Neymar single-handedly won the second leg, vs. Paris Saint Germain 2017.

Messi single-handedly carried Barcelona throughout both legs, vs. Chelsea 2018.

Suarez single-handedly won the first leg, vs. Roma 2018.

These are all bad signs and symptoms of an increasingly broken team; a decadent team that appears to be more broken, as Messi gets more and more control over the creative license.


14. Conclusion.

In my opinion, the fundamental problem with Messi is that his ball retention is literally just slalom dribbling ability; Messi collects fouls on the basis of running at defenders, and that is (incorrectly) statistically registered or defined as ball retention, when in reality that is just slalom dribbling ability; Messi runs at defenders, and gets fouled in the process.

The reason why the above semantic confusion is significant, is because slalom dribbling inevitably comes with a lot of dispossessions; and yes, Lionel Messi is arguably the greatest dribbler of all time... and he still gets dispossessed a lot of the time.

At any rate, the fundamental problem is that even when you are arguably the greatest dribbler of all time, you will still get dispossessed in a lot of failed dribbling runs; the art of dribbling inevitable functions like that, it comes with a lot of dispossessions, even when it's Lionel Messi... Of course, the very unique problem with Messi, is that he is incapable and/or unwilling to do traditional ball retention, at the same time that he also is incapable and/or unwilling to do much of anything when not on the ball.

In terms of league football, the above massive flaw to Messi's game can be corrected; significantly corrected, by simply buying the type of players who can do what Messi cannot... In Barcelona's unique case; Barcelona luckily inherited the two players, Xavi and Iniesta, who were goat-tier at precisely the skills that Messi lacks.

That is why Messi arguably is the 'goat' player in the league format; but again, at the same time, we see a fundamentally different (far more fragile) version of Messi in cup formats like the World Cup, the Copa America, and the Champions League...

Again, because cup formats are per design decided in 3 or 4 high difficulty games, and in those games Messi's deficiencies become too big that Xavi and Iniesta cannot do enough to sufficiently balance the team; for reference, if Chelsea had advanced in 2009, Barcelona would have won the Champions League in 2009 and 2011, which is still very good, but not at all unique in club football.

And on a different note; Messi is not only failing against "parked the bus" defensive teams... Roma 2018 does not score 4 goals because they parked the bus... Paris Saint Germain 2017 does not score 5 goals because they parked the bus... Juventus 2017 does not score 3 goals because they parked the bus... Bayern Munich 2013 does not score 7 goals because they parked the bus...

And honestly, did Chelsea 2009 actually parked the bus?

Chelsea 2009, if anything, actually attacked more than Barcelona; Barcelona arguably was the more defensive team, opting to have side-to-side defensive hold of the possession, but with no real penetration, versus Chelsea as the less defensive, more direct attacking side.

Messi had little to no impact against Chelsea 2009; another team that arguably did not exactly parked the bus. In other words, in terms of teams that parked the bus, we may in fact be talking about only:

Inter Milan 2010.

Chelsea 2012.

Atletico Madrid 2014.

Atletico Madrid 2016.

Those 4 games are not at all, the only games where Messi has had little to no impact; in other words, the whole premise that Messi only repeatedly failed against parked the bus type teams, that whole narrative, does not appear to have much basis in reality, as it wouldn't explain the reason why Messi was of little to no value in so many other games.

Chelsea 2009. (Arguably.)

Germany 2010.

Uruguay 2011.

Bayern Munich 2013.

Netherlands 2014.

Germany 2014.

Chile 2015.

Chile 2016.

Paris Saint Germain 2017.

Roma 2018.

France 2018.

Liverpool 2019.

Why does Messi repeatedly fail to make the difference whenever Barcelona is anything below perfection?

Why is Messi not doing better with Argentina, not in terms of results, but in terms of simply showing up even when Argentina doesn't get the win?

At any rate, that is a lot of disappointing or unimpressive performances against teams that did not parked the bus.

Manchester United 2009. (Messi was not Barcelona's best player.)

Real Madrid 2011. (With a crucial red card against Real Madrid.)

Manchester United 2011. (Barcelona was simply the superior team; this was not a case of Messi making the difference.)

Bayern Munich 2015. (Depleted.)

Juventus 2015. (Messi was not Barcelona's best player.)

Juventus 2017. (Dybala was better. And Messi was only good in the first leg.)

Chelsea 2018. (Messi's best UCL performance, in my opinion.)

Liverpool 2019. (Only in the first leg.)

That is not a distinctly unique nor impressive record to have in terms of Champions League form, and that remains an unimpressive record even after adjusting for the fact that Messi benefited from what was arguably Spain's greatest ever generation of players.

Messi is still a lot better than Cristiano Ronaldo, because Messi arguably is the 'goat' in terms of league formats, which is a big deal. On the other hand, Cristiano Ronaldo remains a flawed and an overrated player across all formats: cups and/or leagues. But again, is Messi actually as great as Maradona? I happen to think that Maradona, at his best, delivered the same form at league level and at cup level, which is something that Messi never really did in my view.

 

You really do highlight on some aspects where you might actually have some good points or observations, as like some of your previous posts on this thread.

But i wasn't sure at first , whether were you being serious or just sarcastic. Because of things like this :

1. Agree Messi did little or nothing against Chelsea in 2009 tie. And Barca were outplayed in the second leg , only to advance by Iniesta's late goal and one of worst refereeing you'll ever see.
However saying same was the case in 2012 is not true at all . He didn't have a bad performance at stamford bridge from what i remember . And at camp nou he was constantly running at chelsea defense ,and linking up with others.
And unlike 2009 , Chelsea didn't actually lock Barca down. They were shredded to pieces for most part of that tie , Chelsea just were too lucky and survived somehow . And Chelsea 2012 was the most luckiest CL campaign i've ever seen.

2. Messi wasn't very good in the final against Manutd i'd say. But where was Iniesta the MOTM ?? It was Xavi who was the best player on the field and deservingly won the best player of the final award.

3. Here come some of the stuffs i don't know if you even checked when u were writing , no offense. Iniesta did win the WC 2010 final MOTM thanks to his goal.
Messi was chained in a cage by Mourinho's Inter in that game and i agree Barca were locked down by defensive masterclass by Inter
Messi was a shadow of his Barca self at Argentina i agree as well.

There's noway Iniesta was quite obviously the best player of Spain at world cup 2010 , let alone the whole world cup. In his own team , over the course of the whole tournament he was in general , outplayed by at least two teammates - Xavi and Villa . And although you can debate with Forlan winning the golden ball (and i agree to the part WC golden ball can be a farce at times) , there were other candidates probably like Sneijder,Xavi etc who could've won the award, not Iniesta. Xavi was the heart and engine of both that Spanish and Barca side.

And it was Xavi whose prime actually ended in around 2012 -13. He was considered the most pivotal player and main man in the midfield for most of that tenure. And infact as far as i remember Iniesta was probably passing his best individual period as standout in around 2012 and 2013 period actually. And i would say Iniesta probably was very nearly as good as in his prime till 2015.


5. This is an interesting take . Most fans out there would tell you he had some excellent performance and did everything he could. Was charged up and ran constantly at chelsea defense. But here's probably where the boundary between some good football observer and casual fans comes in.I get your perspective and maybe your right about him not very inventive , trying out something else. But Iniesta being much better than messi there is where you might've taken it bit too far probably i'd say.
Add to the fact , you assertion about Iniesta in various tournaments which actually makes me skeptic about how much of those tournaments did you actually watch. There's no way Iniesta was best player at the 2010 WC something which i've touched before. And in Euro 2008 , he wasn't as good as Xavi arguably. Infact from my memory , i could say Marcos Senna had a better tournament than iniesta in that euro and some could argue David Silva as well.
Then Iniesta being best player of the 2012 Euro is also a matter of debate. Imo. Xavi was the best player of the final and i felt during the tournament that Pirlo was the best player of that tournament, both awards which were given to Iniesta

About rest of the parts, i agree with some of the parts. I would say its not true that messi fails against bus parked teams , because a lot of bottom and midtable LaLiga teams from last 3/4 years have been defending deep with low blocks , but they've been destroyed by Messi and Barcelona. And Messi despite those Knockouts to Atletico , has actually had good performances against Atletico in general in league

 

For many people Messi is a Goat because of his league concistency.
But in league, especially in era of superclubs, you play 80-90 % of games, against far weaker teams.

I think you are making the reasonable but massive mistake, of not quite understanding how league football has worked across the eras; for example, Messi vs. Chelsea 2018 is essentially the type of game that Maradona had, in his time, most of the time in the Serie A. And Messi destroyed Chelsea 2018, which should give you a good idea of how Messi would perform for Napoli in the second half of the 1980s.

Messi has never had persistent problems against teams like Chelsea 2018 (5th place), AC Milan 2012 (2nd place), Arsenal 2011 (4th place), Arsenal 2010 (3rd place), etc.

I mean, the difference between Barcelona 2018 versus Chelsea 2018, is similar to the difference between Napoli 1988 and Inter Milan 1988; in other words, it is Messi vs. Chelsea 2018 on a weekly basis, if Messi had played for Napoli in the second half of the 1980s.

At any rate, I think you would be watching Messi at his best in any league format, as he just does not appear to have a weakness in the league format; this would remain true in any era, and any league, in my opinion. Messi is just too amazing in terms of scoring goals and/or assisting goals, which means he will always end up playing for AC Milan in the late 1980s, Barcelona in the early 1990s, etc.

These wealthy and powerful clubs have access to the type of players who can do what Messi cannot do.

Messi's unique problem is when he needs to deliver his better form against equal-tier opponents; not slightly inferior opponents; but equal-tier opponents like Chelsea 2009, Inter Milan 2010, Bayern Munich 2013, Atletico Madrid 2014, etc.

In the league format Messi is just too great against most sides outside of just the no. 2 team in the league. On the other hand, in the cup format, Messi needs to show up against equal-tier opponents in 4 or 5 games that are played quickly, one after the other; and Messi quite simply does not have the inventiveness to dominate in the cup format.

Not even the Copa America, which many people (incorrectly, in my opinion) consider to be a second-rate cup format. Let alone the World Cup, which still is the most prestigious tournament of all.

Make no mistake about it: Cristiano Ronaldo does not offer anywhere near the value that Messi offers in the league format. Cristiano Ronaldo only appeared to be the rival of Messi, because of Real Madrid's unique service distribution, in other words, Real Madrid's demonstrable habit of aiming most of their service at Ronaldo, all the while Benzema or Di Maria or any other attacker not named Ronaldo has to make due with subpar service.

Messi reciprocates whatever service he receives, by creating assists and pre-assists.

That is what Ronaldo never did in his time in La Liga; Ronaldo took more than he gave, which is why Atletico Madrid won in 2014, and not Real Madrid; and which is also the reason why Juventus did not become a better Serie A team with Ronaldo.

Statistics are not intended to show this most important side of the game; statistics show the end product, but not how the end product is achieved in terms of the service distribution i.e. how much service one player (Ronaldo) received, versus how much service the rest of the team (Benzema and Di Maria) combined received.

Ronaldo had that advantage over Messi, and Ronaldo still produced demonstrably inferior statistics; far less assists; far less dribbling runs; far less pre-assists; etc.

Messi is arguably the 'goat' of the league format, and that is a big deal, in any era.

 

Because Pele and Cruyff are not particularly interesting to me; I mean, what do you expect me to say? Obviously great players, but there is only a handful of video to judge them. Should I say that they are better than Messi, exclusively because of the World Cup?

I mean, honestly, the modern obsession for "top this" and "top that" baffles me; these are all great players in their own rights, and in most cases we are just splitting hairs when we arbitrarily decide that Maradona is better than Cruyff, but then Cruyff is better than Messi, but then Messi is better than Ronaldo Nazario, etc.

I think the best metric for top 5 or top 10 players of all time, probably is constancy across all formats, as opposed to machine-like consistency in one specific format; and even then, it still is such a pretentious and self-absorbed practice of splitting of hairs, how some people pretend to just know who is best.

Pele is similar to Messi; not complete enough as a player and gets dispossessed a lot as a result of his excessive directness, very similar to Messi in that regard, and by the looks of things, he never sufficiently showed that he would be inventive enough to dominate the modern game, anymore than Messi dominated the modern game.

Maradona and Platini are the only players, probably, that I feel comfortable saying that they were probably better than Messi; more malleable than Messi, ergo, more complete than Messi.

Johan Cruyff as great as he was, looking only at his World Cup 1974; he is not particularly impressive in terms of goal scoring ability, there are several clear-cut chances at World Cup 1974 where Cruyff is weak and wasteful with his shot, lacking the killer instinct of Platini for example.

In terms of performances against highly rated opponents, Cruyff was also not particularly impressive vs. Brazil; but of course, the fact that Cruyff delivered 1 assist and 1 goal vs. Brazil, helps mask the fact that Cruyff lacked the influence that he had in all the other games.

Messi could easily do what Cruyff did vs. Brazil, in my view.

But Messi would rarely if ever do what Cruyff did vs. Sweden, for example.

And Cruyff vs. West Germany had that great run in the first minutes of the game, where he won a penalty kick; 1-0 goal for Netherlands... But then after the penalty kick, Cruyff again fails to replicate the same impact and influence that he had in all other games.

At any rate, I guess Johan Cruyff is another player that could be better than Messi; for example, Cruyff vs. West Germany 1974 is a significant improvement compared to Messi vs. Germany 2014.

In the best of cases it is splitting hairs at this level, but I do believe that a player like Messi, with such a flawed impact in cup formats like the World Cup and the Copa America; I mean, I think the greatest player of all time should be more constant than Messi.

 

The notion that Messi is not consistent against the best teams or can't play cup games whereas he dominates league games is far-fetched. A match is a match. Like obviously he had subpar games. Every player in history did. If you watch Messi on a match by match basis it really appears to me like he has fewer bad games than anyone else I've ever watched. Even the way he's defended tells you everything about what a threat he is with a foot of space. He is almost always shadowed by not 1 not 2 but 3 or more defenders on the other team. I see it every time I watch him play on the pitch. Teams try to stop him and when he dominates he does it in spite of that. Other great players like CR, Lewa etc. get one defender to follow them everywhere and that's it.

One fallacy I also see is the notion that a single superstar decides games. In football this rarely happens. Almost all greats have a handful of games that they decided singlehandedly. Barca would won likely won some CL's without Messi. Sure... And many other teams would have won CL's without their stars too. For all his greatness Messi is one player. Football isn't tennis or hell even basketball. with 5 players on the court There are 11 players on a huge pitch. If Messi doesn't get the ball in the right areas, if guys don't connect on his passes, if guys don't run to draw defenders to give him space etc. then his impact will be greatly reduced. Likewise if Barca is conceding 3 goals, 4 goals... 8 goals in a match that has nothing to do with Messi. He is not a defender. For all of Messi's "suckiness" Barca scored 2 goals against Bayern last year in the CL. PSG lost the final to Bayern 0-1. Catch my drift?

Last but not least and again I want to emphasize it... Messi's longevity is getting lost in the shuffle here. Not in the sense that Messi is better because of longevity because if Maradona at his best was a better footballer then he was better but... When you play for so many years at the highest level on teams of highly variable quality there are going to plenty of ups and downs. It's hard for Maradona to be as "inconsistent" when his prime was much less than half as long as Messi's. I mean realistically speaking which years can be consider prime Maradona... maybe 85-86 to 89-90 which is 5 seasons all with Napoli. With Messi we are talking 08-09 to present which is 13 seasons.

 

Few good points and then typical Messi fanboy like posts . Seriously do you even watch games, it makes me doubt. First paragraph is just typical fanboy like excuse.He is almost shadowed by 3/4 defenders of the other team lol. Based on what those out of context pictures of him that appears on social medias on fanboy accounts and media outlets where it seems there are 3/4 players around him when is dribbling with the ball. Defenders try and close down most of the great dribblers like that when they actually make those solo runs . I never saw a game where he has been even tightly shadow marked by that many defenders throughout the game. Compared to him, lot of the best players from the past were usually more tightly manmarked with violent challenges allowed back then in game. Unlike now, where defenders are chained in a way, they gets carded if they even sneeze on one of the best players. And there is no point in marking CR7 because it'd be in a way be waste. Because he isn't that much involved in general play and make blindside inside the box with his off the ball movement.
I agree with the part where one single player can't win titles alone. A player might decide the fate of a game but you can't keep winning continuously like that. The example of PSG and Barca scoring 0 and 2 goals against Bayern is also another argument that makes no sense. Bayern played with a very highline against Barca, they went to the game with the plan to all out attack Barca because of how fragile was Barca in the press and their structural issues.. PSG didn't have that. Playing that a line that high against PSG might've been a disaster for them. Its not simple arithmetic like this team scored against them and other scored nothing , as your making it look like lol as an excuse. And as i said before, Barca's problem was structural issues and messi, suarez etc not having workrate and not pressing enough was a big issue involved with this . Although it was setien's fault who messed it up and didn't deal with the issue enough to cover this up

And the last paragraph is similiar to those casual fanboys making digs at other players without enough knowledge. So Maradona prime was 86-90 for most part of which he started gaining weight and he stopped dribbling Lol? He wasn't world class before and didn't have enough longevity .. Seems like a nobody before 1986 . So based on what was he dubbed as premier player of the world heading into the World cup 1982.
Barca and then Napoli both broke the transfer record for him for nothing , just being a hot prospect.. Who's the other player who is generally viewed as contender for best player in the world in early 80s ? Zico. So how come someone like Maradona who was nobody before 86 , won the South American player of the year back to back in 1979 and 1980 with a peak Zico. A 19 year old Maradona for example playing at Wembley :

There are several other matches available from that time . It is such a myth spread out there by casual football fans (similiar to Pele playing in Brazil , with no offside rule and similiar other disgusting myths ) for sake of agenda . Whereas, it appears from the video and games available that, he was actually better in the first half of the 80s especially from early 80s to 86 which actually appears to be his prime where he got progressively better till 85-86 and started declining after that. But since he played for lesser teams in that period and didn't win many trophies , stupid casual fans who just look at plain stats and trophy hauls won't even get the context. He was still worldclass after 86 to 90, but his dribbling and some other aspect of his games declined . And he could've actually continued being one of the best players in the 90s .He was brilliant still in lot of games after 90s at sevilla and for national team . But his off the field problems just grew too much at that time which is his fault i agree. Probably he could've kept continued at a decent level till 94.
And based on what is Messi's prime from 2008-09 to now? For me prime is your peak level or something close to that level. Like Pele 59-66 , Maradona early 80s to 86. Messi is not in his prime for me now inspite of him dominating lot of the stats simply by watching the game. Messi's prime ended around that 18/19 season for me. And if you stress on it, then so Messi was in his peak/prime when he was chasing his touch around in Copa America 19! Then his peak is nowhere near Maradona's in that case i must say. Messi is still world class and will have more longevity than Maradona because of how Maradona self-destructed in latter stages of his career , but only fools would think he stayed on top for only 4 years whereas video footages and resources exist to backup the claim that he was world class for around 10/11 years and had a decent amount of longevity unlike guys like Ronaldinho, Best etc whom people associates him with due to lack of knowledge

 

At the end of the day, it is the eye test that is the most important for me. You can list and write all the stats and arguments you want; Diego Maradona or Lionel Messi are the two best players to ever touch a football - no argument about it. People act like Messi has failed ALONE in all these "failures". Mental. Then you have to give him all the credit for every single win of his team, which is also mental of course. Every other GOAT candidate has loads of failures, not just Messi.

 

This is very fun thread to debate,I love it and I have started the bigsoccer for 2 days and now the debate is going on.

My friend I have watched football for over30+years and have studied a lot of this arts.I don't want to talk about Messi but I want to talk about Diego and Zico.Diego and Zico were semi-contemporary both of them were started to famous during the dark age of European football(1977-1980).In this time I think both of them done very well,They were 2of the best footballers in the world but if I have to choose,I would choose Zico peak over young D10S or even Maradona peak.Why I said that? because I think Zico was better in through ball passing,play more with intelligent(not too much invidualistic),better both feet,can scored more in variety ways and the most important things he was better attacking prowess than Maradona.Maradona could be the best ever if he was better in attacking prowess like find an empty space and score,more dangerous in the box and the most important shooting.I don't interest the debate with Messi but when it comes to scoring and attacking he was inferior a lot to Zico,Pele,Messi or even Platini and that cause him a lot in all-time rankings and a lot of matches that he had played for(20years).You are Maradona lover and I appreciate and respect but you and me that have watched Maradona for a long time should have accepted two things 1.he lacked tactical intelligence sometimes(again Messi,Pele and Cryuff is better than him),you should watched WC82 again and you will know that he dribbled to make unneccessary foul concerns and that caused a lot to Argentine team.I was a kid in 82 but when I grew up and studied "the game of beauty"properly I think the first half tactics of Mentotti was put Maradona in ST and he couldn't do anything against weak center-back Brazil,put Zico on Menotti team and played as ST sure "the variety ways of goalscoring" that Zico had would destroyed a shit defense Brazilian team easily.2. Maradona was never as consistency leagues performers as like my darling and idol Zico,Pele and Messi did because of his lifestyle and discipline was not good (even in Argentinos when he was cleaned and not drugs addictions,I don't see it).D10S maybe the best in football skills but again he was never be a great tactical player in my opinion and again too he was inferior to Cryuff,Pele,Messi,Di Stefano or even Platini.

The latest I respect Maradona for his heart ,his leadership , his determination and his WC1986 was unbelieveable arguably the greatest WC performance ever.

Thx to share opinion with me,I respect and admire you a lot.

I am a new user of Bigsoccer and my idol is still Zico,in my opinion I don't like Messi(but not hate) but I think he is the greatest with Pele(1=1) and he is surpassed Maradona.

 

Oh and I think M10 controlled the pitch better and had better long-ball and medium ball passing.

 

Eyetest is better than using just raw stats but a problem with this eyetest again is because you have to know what to look for. Casual football watchers just watch compilations of players , practically doing similiar things over and over again , and provides their verdict on that. Rather than just considering the overall aspects of their game, ignoring their shortcomings and deficiencies. And more aesthetically pleasing doesn't make you a better player . Aesthetic pleasure is also dependent on footage quality and a player from older times with heavier boots, heavier and less aerodynamic balls which are harder to control and uneven pitches would struggle more and appear slower, more sluggish on footage than someone with even pitch, easier to control balls, great footage quality. I remember once someone told me that left footed players looks more appealing because they appear bit differen. Also many fans simply are biased and hypes up players who are better dribblers. If better dribbling made you a better footballer, then likes of Ben Arfa was better than someone like Platini?Come on . Conditions and circumstances of playing condition , how their teams approached the games (which limits players in many cases ) etc all type of context needs to be account for while judging. And all of their attributes ,both on the ball and off the ball, physical,athletic alongside technical characteristics , awarness , reading of the game , varieties , inventiveness etc should be accounted for . Only then eyetest becomes one of best way to judge , but falling for just aesthetic pleasures is just another stupid way of judging players like stats