I've been reading a lot of articles and watching a lot of people say that in order for Messi to be considered the greatest of all time he needs to win a World Cup. Why? I've noticed this belief comes from a lot of the older generation players and pundits. Personally I feel that the Champions League is a much stronger tournament then the World Cup is. I understand that Pele and Maradona both won World Cups but at that time in history, I would say the national teams were stronger the domestic teams with a few exceptions. Think about the strong teams in the Champions League and how many national teams would actually be able to beat them. I don't think there is any national team in the world right now that could beat Barcelona. Here is why I think Messi will be the greatest of all time no matter if he wins or not. First of all he is so young and he has so much more he can still accomplish even though he's won almost everything you can. Secondly the majority of the Barcelona cast is young also leaving plenty of years to collect more trophies. He's dominated the Champions League scoring like no other player has in recent memory and I'm sure hell do the same for the next few years. His highlight reel of goals just continues to grow. He makes every other player in the world look so average even when they are playing amazing. Case in point Ronaldo. Finally, I think Argentina will end up winning a World Cup before Messi calls it quits. He's probably got three more chances. What do you guys think?
personally I do feel winning the WC is somewhat overrated, in a sense that we are talking about 7 games in a period of 4 years no doubt its an amazing achievement, but its not the only thing that should be used to judge someone's greatness for example I do feel Zidane has been overrated because of his two goals against Brazil in 98
No, to be considered the Greatest he needs to be a better football player than Maradona and Pele which he's not.
how long did it take for Maradona to be considered Pele's equal? was it after 86? I was a kid in the 80's so cant recall, but for as long as I can recall its always been Pele and Maradona then everyone else but for a while it was just Pele
It probably will have a large affect on popular opinion. If you think Messi is the best player ever, and he doesnt win the world cup, you will have to put up with alot of people saying he isn't on the same level as Pele and Maradona who did. Personally i dont think it should be used to decide who is the best, if you are a good judge of a players ability, you dont need them to win something to see how good they are. Pele won the world cup 3 times, is he 3 times as good as Maradona? anyone who actually saw Maradona play would say no. Does it make him better than George Best, who never even played in a world cup through no fault of his own? Theres certainly an argument that Best was the better player, but Pele being brazilian had the platform to win footballs greatest prize and is now remembered forever while Best is not even discussed alongside him. I actually think Maradona was better than Messi regardless of him winning the world cup, but if messi does win the world cup, as its such an emotional and beautiful achievment, the pinnacle of professional football, he will probably be seen by most as the best player theres been so far, or at least on a par with previous greats...
Think if pele was irish and best was brazilian. Im not saying he was as good as or better than pele at all, but their legacy would be alot different if they swapped nationalities. Im just showing how much difference the world cup can make to how players are remembered.
First of all you talk about maradona's superiority over Pele as a fact! Second you use the if, but, woulda game to excuse Best. But if we play your game george best's club career comes up way too short in comparison to pele, just look up how many titles whether domestic or international he won with Santos being the KEY player. Whereas Best gave at best 2 great seasons with Man utd then his antics got the best of him making him practically ending his career already. It is not Pele's fault that best was unproffesional and ended his career early. Comapring Best to Pele is like comparing Ronaldinho to Maradona
Im not saying Maradona is better than Pele as fact. But using the world cup as a measurement pele wins 3-1, and i think the reality is it is alot closer between them than that. As for Best's club career, its true he didnt have the consistency of Pele, yet he is still generally remembered by most man utd fans that i know as their best player ever. If he had the opportunity that pele had to win the world cup, he would probably be remembered as a great, and if pele never got to play in the world cup he probably wouldnt be called the best ever by so many people. Look at Di Stefano, he had an unbelievable club career, like Pele, but circumstances stopped him playing in the world cup and now hes not really recognised by most people as one of the best ever. This is why the world cup is so important to how players are remembered, but it shouldnt be because it is not always a reliable way to tell how good a player was.
George Best could have played in the World Cup. Northern Ireland qualified for the World Cup in 1958 and again in 1982. Both times without George Best. It's not like it is a law of nature that Northern Irish players cannot play in a World Cup. George Best just didn't manage to qualify with his teams. Alfredo Di Stéfano is still regarded as one of the best players ever, despite never playing in a World Cup.
He doesn't need to necessarily win, but playing well would certainly help, which he has yet to do in a World Cup or for Argentina generally. Until he does, he'll always be susceptible to criticism that he's a product of Barcelona's system, especially since Spain won the Euros and the World Cup with a similar side but without Messi.
Let's not talk about WC as it's not fair for Best. However, if we swap Pele to play for ManU while Best be with Santos, I bet Pele would blow Europe and won many UCL more so than Best with ManU In the other hand Best was not a true leader to lead Santos to have won that many 10trophies and he would NOT win 11topscorers like Pele did Best was the first "Eruopean/UK" player with ball skills (unseen before) so he was just a bit HYPED, imo ... (n top of the fact and downfall of his off pitch behaviour) ==================================================== Back to topic: - Even Messi will win the next WC14, there is NO WARRANT that he will be same level of Pele/Maradona and the chance he will be the greatest ever (!) will be like winning the California Lottery (1/billions chances) - Why so? it's so obvious, Messi (or any other legends) does not have the same SKILLSET as Maradona's period- While Messi could have blown up everyone minds' with his goals stats this 2 seasons (so did CR7), Maradona DID the talking with his ball skills and movements on the pitch, that neither Messi nor CR7 could have come close. Pele, the KING, was just TOO PERFECT with his playing style, effectiveness in games, and achievements for clubs to country- and that made him a #1 with almost no rivalry (only Maradona's at close 2nd)
Man you are all over the place throwing stupid statements that shows you have no credibility, so before posting anymore nonsense please reply to these post by a former member (tpmazebme) talking about the brazilian leagues in Pele's era. Why the regional leagues in brazil were arguably the best in Pele's time 1 Paulista and Carioca leagues Why Pele's doubters are revisonist Paulista and carioca leagues 2 Euro leagues werent that good
That's fine. Everyone has their own opinion. It's when you say things like "he would've been a failure in Europe and he knew it, thats why he never went" that makes you sound like an idiot.
That's an understatement. Apart from Spain, I don't think there is any NT that would rank among the 10 best teams in the world. Even a team like Bayern would comfortably outplay Netherlands or Germany IMO.
Wow, Burco posted five pages of pro-Pele arguments and your entire point against it is 'Pele isn't the greatest'? Worst post I've seen on this board and that's hard to accomplish.
My top 10 teams: (list excludes south american based club teams as i cant judge atm how good those teams are) 1. Barcelona 2. Spain 3. Real Madrid 4. Brazil 5. Argentina (even though they had a disappointing world cup, they have the makings of a great team imo) 6. Germany (although, they beat argentina 4-0, i dont see them as a better team, they mainly just counter-attacked at the world cup) 7. Man utd (not a great team at all, dont play particularly good football, but still ruthlessly efficient) 8. Arsenal (fantastic footballing team, but continued flaws keep undermining them) 9. Holland (lucky to even be on this list after the way they destroyed a world cup final with not just negative tactics, but violent play as well) 10. Manchester city (starting to become a very good team) So thats club sides- 5 national teams- 5. Pretty even in my opinion
Arsenal 8th? That's pretty funny! As for Spain vs. Barcelona - I think it's basically an even matchup. But, then again, I don't think Messi is the greatest ever.
I think the reason you have 5 NT's in your top 10 is because you only see these teams destroying even worse NT's. But really, on paper, what positions are Brazil stronger in than Man City? Brazil would kill for players like Kompany, Toure, Silva and Tevez. Man City could use a Dani Alves, but that's about it.
First, I had not seen a WC winner got beaten quickly and badly like SPain (4-0 vs Argentina, and Portugal) So why not include Argentina and Portugal there? Secondly, base on what ? Even a speculation needs a factual reason. My reason is OTHERWISE, as Podolski, Klose, Muller and Schweitegger and all others Lahm Ozil Kheideira ... all performed BETTER in Germany shirt than in their club shirt.
Excuse me... let me remind you again: Muller were among the TOPSCORER in last WC. Ozil was among the best player in last WC. Both Podolski and Klose have HIGHER GPG in NT than their club's form (that's FACT)
That does your argument no favors. The reason why club teams are so strong is because, over the last years, the top clubs have started herding the best players in the world to an extent never seen before and as a result the most talent is concentrated in something like 6-7 clubs. Boca is correct when saying that among the best 10 teams in the world most of them are club teams, but what about the rest? Outside of a select few, the other clubs are left only with the crumbs. Besides, if you think that "CL is a much stronger tournament than the WC", why don't you explain to us why Messi did nothing special during the latter? If CL is so much tougher, then Messi should have no problems dominating a piss poor tournament like the WC, right? Your argument is quite amusing though. You claim that WC is not that great while making out of this an excuse in regard to Messi's inability to perform in it. Go figure.
Erm.......I don't think Brazil's all that desperate for Kompany, Silvay or Tevez. Man City would certainly take players like Neymar, like Alves, like Maicon, like Thiago Silva, etc. Man City's midfield is packed with a lot of mediocrity at the moment - unless you think players like Milner and Barry are particularly impressive........ Klose is notorious for scoring tons of goals against very weak opposition. So what? Roy Makaay was mediocre at best for Holland but was prolific in Spain. What does that mean? Paul Scholes was routinely underwhelming for England but great for ManUtd - what does that mean? Some players play better in certain circumstances than others.