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

Maradona has a great fighting spirit and great timing of tackles and interceptions for sure.He is better than Leo in this department.My friend but your idol again Cryuff is the best defensive attacker for sure(in top5 attackers Messi is the worst defender in my opinion.)

 

The great Cubillas,in term of scoring goals he can compare with Maradona but I think Maradona is still a little bit better.

 

Where is the source of that. Its quite well known that Maradona and Pele had good workrate on the field, not to the extent of Cruyff , Di stefano but still decent

 

Sure , you can make the thread, there is liberty on this forum for that.
on the sidenote , how do you compare Messi with Pele in terms of overall aspects of their game (ignore achievements, stats and stuffs like that)

 

My favourite version of him.He is a lot faster,great passer but inferior when he was in Napoli and better dribbler too.Imagine this Maradona comes in today EPL team,I think he would be a type of 30-35goals and 14-17 assists player.

 

Franz you made a huge mistake lmao.I have believed until this day that if Briegel marked Maradona,there would be another story.If Briegel marked him didn't mean Germany would won WC1986 but it would be better chance or even won against Maradona Argentina.

 

Great physical duel between "the god" Maradona and "the punzer" Briegel.

 

Messi desaparecido? É ver as 5 defesas do Allison. Desaparecida continua a inteligência de quem não consegue ver mais além! pic.twitter.com/MipFJTIUsM

— Lateral Esquerdo 🧠 ⚽️🇵🇹 (@lateralesquerd) May 7, 2019

 

@leadleader This is what Cruijff said about Van Gaal who was a staunch critic of his style. He said: 'Van Gaal has a good vision of football but it is not mine. He wants to gel winning teams and has a militaristic way of working with his tactics. I want individuals to think for themselves.'
Do you think this is the problem with modern football managers as well? Do you think if Guardiola wasn’t a student of Cruijff, the latter would’ve been a staunch critic of Guardiola’s style if he lived? Cruijff as a player and manager also blended that individualistic aspect in his game. In my opinion, Guardiola is more similar to Dutch coaches like Van Gaal rather than Cruijff who was not just a proponent of collectivistic football, but also wanted his players to think for themselves and play intuitively.

 

I think Guardiola obviously was a student of Cruijff; Cruijff himself discovered Guardiola as a player; and Guardiola himself was produced by the Barcelona school; so it would appear to be a foregone conclusion that Guardiola was the product of Cruijff's managerial philosophy.

Guardiola appears to be a highly intelligent person as indicated by how easily and quickly he learns new languages, which is probably why he quickly realized that the Cruijff way is not the winning way of the future. At any rate, it is difficult to blame Guardiola honestly, but at the same time, I do honestly think that managers like Guardiola and Alex Ferguson have contributed to the destruction of this sport.

The sport needs a new green card (or some other color card) to regulate the cynical defensive strategy of the modern game; yellow card resistant rotation fouls; yellow card resistant rotation fouls have created the tactical imbalance that we see today; in simpler terms, the monoculture of intensity and pressing that we see today.

Johan Cruijff in his managerial career would not have been able to play around said tactical (constitutional) imbalance.

And that is, in essence, where Pep Guardiola found himself as he began his managerial career; I honestly think that Guardiola has never truly learned to play against the hyper-pressing of modern football. For reference, Heynckes comprehensively destroyed Barcelona in 2013; and this was still Guardiola's Barcelona, the tactics were the same, and the players were the same, etc.

In fact, Guardiola himself also was comprehensively destroyed by Real Madrid 2013/14; it was a 0-5 aggregate defeat for Guardiola's Bayern Munich, and this Bayern had the same exact players that had dominated the previous season, so Guardiola has no excuses to justify the humiliating 0-5 defeat.

It will be interesting to see how Guardiola does in the 1 or 2 remaining games of the Champions League 2020/21.

Van Gaal and Guardiola are arguably similar, you might have a good point there; but I think both of them probably are victims of the modern condition, more so than villains themselves; they have arguably tried to be as creative, innovative, and intuitive as it is possible in the modern context.

That being said, Van Gaal does appear to have a problem with Argentine players, for some reason. Riquelme at Barcelona. Di Maria at Manchester United. These are great players, but Van Gaal somehow repeatedly finds the way of making them look bad... It probably isn't a random coincidence; it most probably is just Van Gaal playing them in positions and systems that do not suit them.

At any rate, I think the main problem is that modern tactics have out-lived the original limits (original regulative functions) of the yellow cards, and as a result managers have inadvertently become the Maradonas of the modern game; the difference-makers of the modern game.

It is a monoculture of managerial hubris at this point, and the only possible way to restore order to the galaxy (Star Wars reference) is by altering the rules themselves; I mean, this is always going to happen to any rule book after enough years worth of creative innovation, ends up making the original rules themselves obsolete... Football is no exception to that rule... The intellectuals like Guardiola have out-smarted the rules, and the rules should be altered to put a stop to the current unregulated dominance of the managers.

The beautiful game should be relatively balanced between player and managers; the beautiful game was not supposed to have evolved into the managerial oligarchy, monoculture, and supremacist culture that it is in its current form.

 

Messi had an assist in 2nd leg and had his chances. In terms of tactics, it was Guardiola's job to change things up. He is a control freak of a manager. So this is just pure nonsense to put it on Messi to change his role on the field at the time.

All the great players in history have a tendency to go against the orders of Guardiola; this is what creative players tend to do. Messi does not have that creative initiative; Messi does not know what is happening inside of the pitch, which is why he never goes against the orders given to him.

This is a weakness. This is on Messi. Messi continues to do the same thing, after Guardiola, in fact a complete decade after Guardiola left; Messi still is the same player who can only follow orders, who cannot see and alter his playing style to better suit the dynamic changing situations of a volatile game of chess, as it evolves on the pitch.

The fact that you do not understand something so basic, tells me just how pretentious you are as a football fan. Messi is never at fault, in your eyes; not even when we get depleted Liverpool sides destroying us; not to mention the Roma side that also humiliated us.

I mean, I guess I shouldn't expect a more intelligent argument from a Messi fanboy; this is the best you can offer; excuse; after excuse; after excuse; times infinity.

Guardiola is to blame.

Valverde is to blame.

Argentina is to blame.

Barcelona is to blame.

Messi is the perfect player in your eyes, and your funny-business excuses will never become too absurd that you would eventually see the writing on the wall.



I mean ... Atletico were shut tight. You made the point yourself.

Chelsea 2006 was shut tight; Ronaldinho was very good, and Ronaldinho also scored a goal to add.

In fact, Messi was also very good vs. Chelsea 2006; because Messi is in general very good when Barcelona is not uniquely built around Messi... Deco and Ronaldinho can be creative against defensive teams like Chelsea 2006, which Messi cannot do, and that allows Messi to simply run at defenders as he did vs. Chelsea 2006.

Cristiano Ronaldo cannot do; but Ronaldo is overrated and I do not hold it against him, when he simply gets exposed as the overrated player that he always was; especially in his 2013/14 season, where he literally stat-padded his way to the Ballon d'Or.

Messi does not get the same pity treatment as Cristiano Ronaldo, because Messi actually has the skill to do better against teams like Atletico Madrid 2014; Messi simply fails to make adjustments to his game, and then Celito excuses Messi because apparently it is Guardiola's fault that Messi fails to react when on the pitch.



In 2012 it was a bit different. Don't recall the 1st leg, but 2nd leg he did play good. Had a good assist to Iniesta and a Cech made an amazing finger tip save on a shot from Messi from outside the box that kept Chelsea ahead. I would criticize him more for missing the PK and 2 great chances to score in the 1st half. But that means he was active and effective in getting those chances. Just poor finishing.

Messi vs. Chelsea 2012 is a complicated argument, to be fair.

My problem with Messi vs. Chelsea 2012, is that the first game should have been a 5-1 win for Barcelona; instead, it was a 0-1 defeat for Barcelona.

Messi was wasted on the function of running directly into Chelsea's very good defence; the chances ended up falling to Busquets and Alexis Sanchez, both of whom failed to score.

Messi was not at all directly involved in the creation of the vast majority of the clear cut chances. At any rate, I think Messi would've been of much better use, if he had been the player to receive the clear cut chances; but Messi made himself unavailable, because Messi was always running directly into the chaos of the Chelsea defence.

Alexis Sanchez should have done what Messi did; Messi never broke down the Chelsea defence, so having Alexis Sanchez try and fail would offer more or less the same exact benefits as Messi trying and failing, but with the massive benefit that Messi would have scored the several clear cut chances that Alexis Sanchez failed to score.

This was never going to happen, again, because Messi never changes his playing style; Messi was always going to be the one running into Chelsea's wall, and Alexis Sanchez was always going to be the one failing to score (or not) the clear cut chances.

A player like Messi, blessed with obvious goat-tier ability, should be more intelligent with how he uses his ability; but again, Messi never really alters his playing style, Messi can only strictly follow orders, and Barcelona repeatedly suffers because of that.

Barcelona vs. Chelsea 2012 should have been an easy 6-2 aggregate win. Instead, it was an incredibly unlucky 2-3 defeat, assisted by Messi failing to score the penalty kick that was required to advance to the final, but primarily assisted by the fact that Messi was lost to Chelsea's defensive playing scheme; Messi played into Chelsea's counter-attack trap, Messi also failed to score a penalty kick, and this should have been an easy aggregate win for Barcelona.

Messi is to blame here, I'm sorry but that is self-evidently obvious to any educated observer who isn't a Messi fanboy.

Messi should have done what Alexis Sanchez did; Alexis Sanchez should've done what Messi did; if this had happened, Barcelona would have won easily by 2 or 3 goals of difference. But Messi is stubborn and never changes his playing style; you pay the price when you do this at the highest level.



Messi was carrying an injury vs Bayern in 2013.

Why did he played then?

He should have stayed out, if he was injured enough that that was what he could offer to the team.



Excuses. Bayern were mostly missing attacking players BTW.

Boateng was carrying an injury vs. Barcelona in 2015.

I mean, I think it's funny how you will tell me that Messi was carrying an injury vs. Bayern Munich in 2013; but then you will ignore the fact that Boateng was carrying an injury vs. Barcelona in 2015.

And not only was Boateng a defensive player; Boateng was THE defensive player who was humiliated in one of Messi's goal; Barcelona would not have advanced to the final without this goal, so it comes off as remarkably dishonest of you; the fact that you failed to mention this.

Boateng was carrying an injury.

Boateng was actually THE defender that got himself dismantled by Messi.

Bayern Munich was depleted.

And then again, Guardiola's Bayern Munich had already been destroyed by Real Madrid in 2014; so this Bayern Munich team is still suspect at best, even if it weren't the significantly depleted version that Barcelona was lucky to get in the semi finals.



All I see here is if Barca wins, it's the team, and if they lose it's Messi's failure. This is absolute nonsense. In 2011 Messi decided the CL SF tie in probably the biggest Clasico in history with 2 first leg away goals while scoring one of the greatest CL goals of all time and you just brush it over. Then he ran ManU ragged in the final scoring the go ahead goal from outside the box. These were big games.

And now I can see why Puck calls you dishonest; it's because you clearly are dishonest; and honestly you are quite cynical, to say the least.

Messi ran Man Utd ragged in 2011?

That statement is as laughable as it is false. Yes, Messi was good vs. Man Utd, but to imply that Messi destroyed Man Utd 2011 is so hypocritical and dishonest of you.

Ronaldinho did not destroyed AC Milan 2006, according to you.

Ronaldinho did not destroyed Chelsea 2005, according to you.

Messi ran Man Utd ragged in 2011, according to you.

Your double-standard is clear to see; when Messi does it, you think Messi ran them ragged... But when Ronaldinho does it, you suddenly do not see the what is so great about Ronaldinho's performance level in games against defensively organized teams.

Dishonesty.

Hypocrisy.

You don't even hide it, which I can respect; because if you're going to be dishonest, abrasive, and disrespectful, you might as well do it in plain sight so that people like me can dismantle whatever it is you have to say from that point onwards.

When the team wins, it is the team.

And when the team doesn't win, it still is the team.

My problem is; Messi does more to harm Barcelona when Barcelona doesn't win. It is easy to point out how Messi failed, when Barcelona failed to win. On the other hand, when Barcelona does win; Messi is a complete non-factor vs. Chelsea 2009; Messi is not even Barcelona's best player vs. Man Utd 2009 and again vs. Juventus 2015; etc.

Barcelona 2010/11 was a virtually perfect team. It is no surprise to me that Messi was at his best specifically in 2010/11, with a high flying Barcelona side; but what happens to Messi when the cards are against him? He becomes the shy and limited player that we have seen him be, repeatedly, against the same type of tactically disciplined clubs.

My argument has always been extremely honest and linear when it comes to Messi. But again, I have to thank you for showing your true dishonest colors to me, as I used to respect you; now I will not be making that mistake again, and I thank you for that.



Inter and Chelsea won without Messi ? WTF does that even mean ? Just pure drivel.

Pure drivel is your hypocritical propaganda of Messi; it is frankly surprisingly cynical, the ends to which you will go to defend Messi.

Inter Milan 2010 and Chelsea 2012 were inferior teams to Messi-less Barcelona 2011; this was my obvious point. Barcelona 2011 without Messi was still a better team than Inter Milan 2010 or Chelsea 2012.

Barcelona 2011 could win without Messi.

Barcelona 2015 could also win without Messi.

Messi only ever 'dominates' with Barcelona sides that could well win without Messi.

But by all means, please keep telling yourself that that is not true.

 

This attempt to give Iniesta more credit than Messi for Barca's success is quite frankly absurd. Messi was very active in WC 2010 coming close to scoring many times. Was probably more of a factor of bad luck. Plus, he typically scores loads of goals ... so for him to not look bad, he has to score the same at NT level. Iniesta on the other hand had a lower bar in terms of looking good. He can just be solid in midfield and will be viewed the same. And scoring in the WC final accentuates his image.

Messi was 'active' against Nigeria, South Korea, and Greece; but then Messi immediately did nothing against Germany.

Yeah, a great World Cup by Messi.

Iniesta offered real value against the better teams he faced, unlike Messi.



Barcelona results in games without Iniesta:

La Liga 2011/12.

2 - 2 draw vs. Valencia (Round 5).

0 - 1 defeat vs. Getafe (Round 14).

0 - 0 draw vs. Villarreal (Round 21)

2 - 3 defeat vs. Osasuna (Round 23)

12 points to win if Barcelona wins all the games.

2 points won by Barcelona.

Barcelona won only 17% of the available points, in La Liga games without Iniesta.

This is a massive factor in terms of points lost; especially in La Liga 2011/12, which was competitive until Round 35.

If Barcelona had won at least 50% of the available points, in La Liga games without Iniesta; then Barcelona most probably would have won La Liga 2012.

Barcelona vs. Real Madrid, Round 35.

Real Madrid with 88 points.

Barcelona 84 points.

If Barcelona had won Round 35.

Real Madrid with 88 points.

Barcelona with 87 points.

Barcelona won 2 points out of 12 points, in La Liga games without Iniesta.



Champions League 2009/10.

2 - 2 draw vs. Arsenal (Quarter Finals).

1 - 3 defeat vs. Inter Milan (Semi Finals).

1 - 0 win vs. Inter Milan (Semi Finals).

9 points to win if Barcelona wins all the games.

4 points won by Barcelona.

Barcelona won only 44% of the available points, in Champions League games without Iniesta.



Iniesta Clutch Factor.

Iniesta was more or less as good as Xavi, at Euro 2008.

Iniesta scored the goal to eliminate Chelsea 2009.

Iniesta was the official man of the match of the Champions League Final 2009; this was certainly the case in the British television program that I watched at the time.

Iniesta did not played, as Barcelona was eliminated by Mourinho's Inter Milan; in what was a virtual repeat of what had happened vs. Chelsea 2009, but this time Iniesta didn't scored the hero goal to rescue the result and advance to the final.

Iniesta scored the goal for Spain to win World Cup 2010.

Iniesta was described as "clearly the best player of World Cup 2010, by a good distance." British television program ITV, if I remember correctly.

I happen to agree; Iniesta was the best player of World Cup 2010; not by a distance, and not clearly, but he was the best player of the tournament in my view.

Iniesta was the official player of the tournament at Euro 2012.

Barcelona was mediocre in La Liga 2012, when Iniesta did not play; Barcelona won only 2 out of 12 points

I am sure that all of the above is just completely random coincidence; Iniesta surely is not as important as the 'random' results above would appear to quite strongly indicate.



Barcelona results in games without Messi:

La Liga 2013/14.

1 - 0 win vs. Malaga (Round 2).

4 - 1 win vs. Real Valladolid (Round 8).

4 - 0 win vs. Granada (Round 14).

0 - 1 defeat vs. Athletic Bilbao (Round 15).

2 - 1 win vs. Villarreal (Round 16).

5 - 2 win vs. Getafe (Round 17).

4 - 0 win vs. Elche (Round 18).

21 points to win if Barcelona wins all the games.

18 points won by Barcelona.

Barcelona won an excellent 86% of the available points, in La Liga games without Messi.

Barcelona without Messi, achieved literally better results; this literally was the case in La Liga 2013/14.

Atletico Madrid won La Liga.

The overrated Cristiano Ronaldo finished in 3rd place, even as Barcelona arguably did worse with Messi, than without Messi.

Cristiano Ronaldo always was overrated; and Messi was always used as the argument to artificially inflate Cristiano Ronaldo.



Barcelona results in games with Messi:

La Liga 2013/14.

Divided into sets or segments of 7 games, in order to directly compare against the 7 games without Messi.

Round 1 - Round 9.

7 - 0 win vs. Levante (Round 1).

3 - 2 win vs. Valencia (Round 3).

3 - 2 win vs. Sevilla (Round 4).

4 - 0 win vs. Rayo Vallecano (Round 5).

4 - 1 win vs. Real Sociedad (Round 6).

2 - 0 win vs. Almeria (Round 7).

0 - 0 draw vs. Osasuna (Round 9)

21 points to win if Barcelona wins all the games.

19 points won by Barcelona.

Barcelona won an excellent 90% of the available points, in La Liga games with Messi.



Round 10 - Round 21.

2 - 1 win vs. Real Madrid (Round 10).

3 - 0 win vs. Celta Vigo (Round 11).

1 - 0 win vs. Espanyol (Round 12).

4 - 1 win vs. Real Betis (Round 13).

0 - 0 draw vs. Atletico Madrid (Round 19).

1 - 1 draw vs. Levante (Round 20).

^ Iniesta did not played this game; Barcelona failed to win.

3 - 0 win vs. Malaga (Round 21).

21 points to win if Barcelona wins all the games.

17 points won by Barcelona.

Barcelona won of the 81% of the available points, in La Liga games with Messi.

This is a worse result versus the 7 games without Messi; also, Iniesta did not played Round 20, which as one of the few games that Barcelona failed to win, for some random reason I'm sure.



Round 22 - Round 28.

3 - 2 defeat vs. Valencia (Round 22).

4 - 1 win vs. Sevilla (Round 23).

6 - 0 win vs. Rayo Vallecano (Round 24).

1 - 3 defeat vs. Real Sociedad (Round 25).

4 - 1 win vs. Almeria (Round 26).

0 - 1 defeat vs. Real Valladolid (Round 27).

^ Iniesta did not play this game; defeat for Barcelona.

7 - 0 win vs. Osasuna (Round 28).

21 points to win if Barcelona wins all the games.

12 points won by Barcelona.

Barcelona won 57% of the available points, in La Liga games with Messi.

This is more or less mediocre at best; relative to Barcelona's great talent.

Iniesta again did not played Round 27; Barcelona was defeated in this game; again, I am sure that Barcelona failing to get points in games without Iniesta, is just pure random coincidence at best.

This is why Atletico Madrid won La Liga.

This is also why Cristiano Ronaldo is clearly overrated, that he cannot even win against this fragile version of Barcelona.

Bayern Munich comprehensively destroyed this version of Barcelona; but Cristiano Ronaldo still comes out as 3rd best in the three horse race that was La Liga 2013/14. Overrated is overrated; Cristiano Ronaldo.



Round 29 - Round 35.

4 - 3 win vs. Real Madrid (Round 29).

3 - 0 win vs. Celta Vigo (Round 30).

1 - 0 win vs. Espanyol (Round 31).

3 - 1 win vs. Real Betis (Round 32).

0 - 1 defeat vs. Granada (Round 33).

2 - 1 win vs. Athletic Bilbao (Round 34).

3 - 2 win vs. Villarreal (Round 35).

21 points to win if Barcelona wins all the games.

18 points won by Barcelona.

Barcelona won an excellent 86% of the available points, in La Liga games with Messi.

This is the same exact result as in games without Messi.



Yes he was largely ineffective in 2009 tie overall. Had a nice pass to Hleb at end of 1st leg game that could have given them a goal. Chelsea had a very good and disciplined defense and even better when they sat back.

Chelsea was better at attacking than Barcelona was; period.

Messi failed to be a factor against a team that was attacking more frequently than side-to-side Barcelona; attacking should always create openings, but Messi failed to find said openings; the argument is simple, you just are a Messi fanboy at this point, that you cannot even accept reasonable arguments that go against Messi.



Not Messi's best game but lets just ignore he scored the 2nd goal that secured the game.

Not Messi's best game, and in fact, a lot of fans think that Iniesta was Barcelona's most important player.

Messi scored the 2nd goal to secure the game; but many players could have done that... I'm not sure what your problem is here; you are nit-picking for the sake of it, it seems.



I don't remember how well he played overall .. I do remember Julio Cesar making a finger tip save off his shot much like Cech in 2012 which he talks to this day as his greatest save.

So one good shot after 180 minutes of play, puts Messi in a position where he cannot be reasonably criticized for lacking influence and impact throughout said 180 minutes of play?

Yeah, agree to disagree on that.

 

Pele is dispossessed all the time; it would be difficult to specify when and where, because it literally happens all the time; it is quite easy to see, to be honest.

Furthermore, Pele was playing for a Brazil team that literally won World Cup 1962, without Pele.

I mean, should I also rate Garrincha as a better player than Platini?

After all, Garrincha won World Cup 1962 without Pele. On the other hand, Pele only ever won the World Cup with Brazil teams that could well win without Pele; 1958 and 1970.

Messi also would have won 2 or 3 World Cups, with the Brazil team that surrounded Pele; I don't think this is a controversial statement at all, to be honest.

Pele was uniquely inventive, but Pele was not particularly intelligent; very different things, inventiveness versus intelligence.

Michel Platini was both very intelligent and very creative, and that makes Platini a clearly better player than both Pele and Messi, in my opinion.

Platini dominated all the formats of his time; immediately carried his Saint Etienne form, into Juventus; there was no transition season, the per reputation defensive Serie A could not stop him, as Platini continued scoring goals at the same rate in France or Italy, and then he also dominated Euro 1984 to add, on top of also dominating the UEFA Champions League as well as the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup.

Maradona never dominated Europe quite as comprehensively as Platini did between 1984 and 1985. Platini was injured for World Cup 1982, but still found the way to contribute his part as a passer. Platini was then too old at World Cup 1986.

At any rate, Platini was an unlucky injury-ridden player who was so uniquely talented, that he still found the way of making history in 1984 and 1985; the brief period of time wherein Platini managed to stay injury-free for long enough that he dominated all the formats.

Of course, Platini does not have the eye-catching slalom dribbling runs of Messi, Pele, Maradona, Cruyff; which is literally why Platini is never really in the discussion of goat-tier players... This is a silly subjective reason to deny Platini his rightful place in the history of this sport, as I see it.

 

Platini not being considered a GOAT tier player is probably among casual modern football fanbase from social media who in my opinion are the laziest and worst bunch of fans(Good amount of them think Cruijff wasn’t even a top 10 player in history without even watching him play) . He nevertheless was still a great dribbler even though he didn’t possess GOAT tier dribbling. I think his other attributes are pretty much GOAT tier like passing, ball retention, finishing etc. Also, I feel his reputation as a corrupt administrator probably affected his legacy.

 

Michel might not have Messi or Diego dribbling slalom but in term of aggresion and hunger for goals he is second to none in the beautiful game.I also think that Michel has more aggresion in the penalty box than Diego(compare to Messi it's different scinerios).Michel was better tap-ins goalscorer than Maradona for sure and he was better in the penalty box too another thing I think Michel is underrated is defending,Michel might not be crazy runner like Gerrard,Bruno Fernandes and Maradona86 but he was very very good and smart defender.I'm sure that if Diego focused more on scoring in Napoli(in Napoli especially after 88 he was very-playmaking minded than scoring minded)he would be as good as or better than Michel(if he developed in term of finding space ) in term of scoring.Overall,D10S is easily better than Michel.

 

Johann I ask your opinion who is better between Zidane and Michel?

 

Platini. Zidane was only a better dribbler. In other attributes like goalscoring, ball retention, passing, intelligence, set pieces, defending etc he’s easily a much superior player. His club career and international performances(while playing for a weaker French NT) trump anything Zidane did. Zidane never ever elevated a team like a GOAT tier player is supposed to, yet he’s rated above actual GOAT tier player like Platini by some fans. I don’t really recall Juventus being anywhere impressive in the European Cup until Platini took them to that level. Let’s also not forget his phenomenal seasons in a difficult league like the early 80s Serie A.

 

Michel was better than Z10 in passing every range.
Despite Zidane rarely took penalties and free-kicks ,he wasn't on Michel level in term of open goals.
Michel was better playmaker for sure.
Michel controlled the game better.
Michel was better defensive player.
Zidane was better ball control and first touch.
Zidane was better dribler.
Zidane was better in term of beauty.

Zidane is overrated by today fans in term of passing too.

 

Hard disagree that Zidane was more elegant than Platini. Platini was as elegant, if not more even though he didn’t possess Zidane’s dribbling ability. I also do not think Zidane was better in terms of ball control either. He was just a better dribbler. Platini was the superior technical player overall except for dribbling. I mean he already was a great dribbler, so it’s irrelevant if he wasn’t as good as Messi, Maradona, Cruijff etc in terms of dribbling because his other attributes are GOAT tier which more than compensates it. I’ve found some similarities with Cruijff and Platini. Makes sense considering Platini’s football idol was Cruijff iirc and he was a fan of the football Ajax and the Netherlands NT played in the 70s. I’ve read an article somewhere that Trapattoni wanted a genius and artistic player like Cruijff in his Juventus team, which is what they were lacking, so they signed Platini and the rest is history.

 

If someone ask me how to be a great playmaker(am).I would answer the person who ask that you should study and watch the 3 kings of playmaker(am).

 

Cruyff would get crushed by modern intensity and pressing.

Cruyff made his name in weak Dutch league.

Plus, Cruyff is so boring as a player; no tricks and no flair.

Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo are the best players of all time; it is absolutely personal choice which one of the two goats you decide to put in first place.

Yes, modern football fans are f@cking crazy.

 

Lmfao the “Old players are inferior to new players” argument is actually still a thing. Apparently there are people who think Maradona’s technique would be inferior to Neymar because he played in the 80s.

 

Willem Van Hanegem in my opinion is even crazier in term of discredit by modern fans.No one talk about him today and I think he is in top 10 central-midfielders ever.He had it all passing,tackling and shooting.Cryuff is the most important player in "the great dutch74" but WVH is the backbone of the team.

Oh and I love him more than Neeskens 5555.

 

Messi 2014/2015 is in my top2 or even the greatest season club seasons ever by player.I rate him equally as peak Pele in early60s but....Maradona never came close nahh Messi peak season for the club is better than Maradona sure but Maradona 80 and Maradona 84/85 is arguably closer than peak Messi than you think(especially Maradona80).Maradona never played in a high scoring team like Barcelona especially Calcio80s( Napoli )which was defensive and brutal minded league.Put Messi on Calcio80s and I still think that he maybe the first or second after Platini that can scored over 20 goals or even the first that can 25+(in his peak) but he couldn't scored over 30 for sure(even in his peak).Oh my friend and who knew Messi maybe injured or something because if he played in that era the butcher like Vierchowod,Briegel,Gentile or Collavati were waiting to killed him.It's hard to talk because it was different situations and eras.