What do you feel is more important for a player? Which do you think better defines a player? Which of these two makes a player greater? My vote is for NT. See that's why I like NT play so much. Because it exposes players like for what they really are. Because playing for club, they are comfortable, being considered stars, they play in their stadium around a friendly crowd, in their atmosphere, being paid, being supported unconditionally, practicing and playing with teammates they know very well personally and professionally, and they belong to a team that is due to weekly practice a well-oiled machine. In other words they have EVERYTHING going for them. But what makes a true player is what he does in the face of adversary. When everything is going against them. When they go into a third world country and face hostile crowds, when they have to adapt to playing in a team and with players they don't normally play in/with. When they have to adapt to the pressure of carrying the hopes and dreams of a nation. When they aren't being paid, when they aren't treated like they are superstars, just another piece of a team. In, other words they they are not comfortable but struggling with everything not in its ideal place. This is when a player shows his true worth. This is when a player shows his anger, his strength, his drive, his...TRUE GREATNESS. EPL players, particularly the England NT players, are glossed and appear to be the best in the world, with the best stadiums, best crowds, best facilities, media, in other words the best "football", under so many luxuries. Their league is considered the best in the world so those who succeed are considered the best of the best, the world's superstars. But what happens when you put them in a not so-ideal situation. That is when the World Cup, the greatest competition of any sport in any category comes in. The players here are exposed. They are exposed from their glossed up state and let on their own. There image of being superb footballers dissipates , and they have to defend themselves with pure raw talent and skill. No system here to help the players, no friendly crowd to motivate, no atmosphere where they get their drive from. All of these things must come from within. It is there job, to overcome these obstacles and prove their worth as professional football players, as greats. If a player succeeds that it is where his true greatness is shown. If not, they are exposed for being babies, needing the cuddling of their club in order to perform. Not just because a league offers "better" football, means it is the most difficult to succeed in. As far as England goes, these players are the best in their clubs. Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney, Terry, Ferdinand are the stars of their teams, considered among the best in the League and therefore the world. But what happens when faced with adversary, put in a setting where they aren't cuddled, but instead challenged. In the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, they completely failed. They got 2ND place in group to the USA. USA, the end of all jokes when finding someone to make fun of for their ineptitude in football, beating the inventors of football, with the "stars" of the best League in the World , with the most money invested in football, with the best facilities and best coaches. This is why, along with many others, I believe NT to be greater than Club; not because of the best football but because of the challenge to that football.
Neither one nor the other. Take Messi for example, which I am sure is what you are pointing at with this inquiry, he has done amazing for Barcelona but not as well for Argentina. In your theory he is just not that good. But if you watch him play, it's pretty obvious he is really good. I don't care how good your team is, you just don't put up those kind of numbers if you are not an amazing player. Not to mention some of the types of goals he has scored. Don't be so inflexible in your judgement by setting up arbitrary rules in a sport that is so team oriented and based on a competition like the WC that is so short and infrequent in nature where so many different variables come into play.
Playing great at club level at the highest level requires consistency. While playing great at NT level at the highest level requires timing and opportunism. At both levels, quality and ability is a given requirement though. There have been many high level players who have done extremely well at club level, but very little at NT level and vice versa. Messi and C.Ronaldo are current examples of players doing better at club level than at NT level. But then look at players like Podolski, who has done better for Germany than any of the club teams he has played for. Another player like him from the not so distant past is Toto Schillaci - the top scorer of WC1990. We also need to define what does greatness means. Performances, trophy achievements or always combination of both? Why is Di Stefano in the same conversation with the likes of Pele and Maradona? Why is Cruyff considered greater player than Beckenbauer? Clearly there are reasons for that. But what are they? Knowing Charlie, I'm sure he has started this thread with Messi in mind. How cheeky, eh?
Guess you don't know me because I didn't have Messi in mind. If I would have wanted to rant against Messi, I would have included him in the original post. I had the English National Team in mind, you know that's why I criticized them.
Don't confuse how good a player is, to how great a player is. I think Messi is the best now and best since Ronaldo, but his greatness (in my eyes) has been waiting, for him to fulfill it. And no I didn't have Messi in mind. I don't hate Messi, not at all. In fact I like him. If I didn't like him, I wouldn't talk about him. See I almost never talk about C. Ronaldo because I don't like him. I could care less if he is good, bad, mediocre etc. etc. I don't care. But on Messi, I do care. That's is why I am one of the first people who critisize him on not being as great as he can be (and in my eyes should be). I want him to do great things. I just don't like when others bend the ideals of football to benefit him, that's all. To give you an example, I really dislike the Argentine National Team. I enjoyed the thrashing they got against Germany. So, the last thing I would want would be for them to win a World Cup. That's why i'm split because of course Messi is in that team. I want Messi to win, but in the same time I want Argentina NT to lose.
In general you just can NOT separate the two NT and Clubs. first, A player needs to perform great at club level beforehand then, he will be "picked" to play for his NT. So playing good at club is a MUST and BASIC. This 1st condition to seal the "best player" status or club/league legends. Now, regarding the NT, here I am talking of the TOP20 NTs, a player also required to perform great in his NT jersey to prove his "true Class" outside club team and also to seal his "legend ALL TIME" in WC/Euro ... So Club performance is a "NECCESITY" (required) and NT performance (again top teams in big events) is a "COMPLETENESS" (sufficient) for a player status.
I don't think a player has to win at NT level to be great. Like I said, too many variables affect NT performances and accomplishments for a small game sample.
I agree with this. You said it very well. But then how do you explain Di Stefano's status as one of the greatest players, up there with the likes of Pele, Maradona and Cruyff? Or maybe you personally don't rate him that high? Surely Di Stefano's status is based mostly (or solely) on his club performances, where similar to Messi, his was surrounded with many top quality teammates like Puskas, Gento & Co.
You know, when saying "Yeah, right" you don't have to point out that its in a sarcastic tone, because its already understood.
Ok, I understand. However, when we think of legends such as Pele, Maradona, Zidane and Ronaldo. We usually first thing of their World Cup, exploits. Pele acquired his legendary status winning 3 World Cups. People know of his great time at Santos but to the masses, everyone remembers the '58 and '70 World Cup as Pele, Pele, Pele. Maradona single-handedly winning the 86 World Cup, put him into the discussion of best of all time up there with you know who. Garrincha is mostly considered great (and for some better than Pele) for winning single-handedly '62 and having a great part in '58. Zidane became a superstar after winning the 98 WC. Ronaldo after all of his great club performances, was expected to perform at the 98 WC, like if that's where it really mattered and that's was the real test. And in 2002 his legendary status was sealed. And how is it explained that many players who do so well in club, but completely fail in the WC. French players, English players, several African players etc. etc.
The French failed because of a) their awful monkey of a coach b) post-Zidane, like post-Platini, it was in the natural cycle to fail. The English are in general overrated by their media, and lack the technical players to improvise during a difficult moment - which is always going to happen in a WC.
I get what you are saying. But in the modern game, there is a lot of money invested and at stake on a club level. Top players probably play an extra dozen of games compared to past decades. Take for example a competition like the CL. Everything is so "commercialized" these days, mostly on club level. Soccer clubs, especially in England, have become the new toys for billionaires/millionaires and they expect some success on their investment. Look at the transfer fees from back in the day and now - big, huge difference. It's a mad, mad world out there now. Another thing is that the game is more televised and it's at its popularity peak. Every player's performances is and can be easily followed. Back in the day, the only way some people could see players like Pele and others was during a WC games. Regardless if we like it or not, the game has evolved and changed compared to what it was before. And I believe it will continue to change, for better or worst. I personally loved watching every game, on club and NT level, back in early to mid 90s. It was very competitive and always intriguing. Now, I don't enjoy it so much anymore, with the exception of Barcelona of course. BTW, don't mean to start another big argument, but I think Valdano and Burruchaga were very good complimentary side-kicks to Maradona in 86. Don't get me wrong, Diego is for me the best of all-time, but his legacy is equally spread between what he did with/for Argentina and Napoli.
I vote for NT. IMO if you ask any player in the world what the one trophy is that he would most like to win, he will say that it is the World Cup and it will be so even if the diffiulty level of the world cup were to be lesser than that of the CL at that point in time. This is something that I don't see changing in the future. In case of the greatness of players, it has historically been IMO more based on their achievements with country than with club and while there might be exceptions to this, I think it would still remain the case in the future. Also considering that it is more of a challenge to adapt to playing with teammates with whom you don't play week-in week-out and since for succeeding with NTs one gets fewer chances, the NT achievements are set to remain at the top of the pile when measuring greatness. Finally, the performances for ones NT affect a much larger audience i.e. a whole country more closely than the performances for ones club, which while they might have a global fanbase will find it difficult to have the same impact through winning a CL. For e.g. say there is a fan of Everton in Australia and say that Everton wins the CL that season. While this win will matter a lot to the said fan, the appeal of it would be lost in the feeling that the Australian NT winning the WC would evoke. Add to this the fact that the best players are getting paid rather indecent amounts to feature for the biggest clubs and one could say that they are obliged to play well for these clubs, while in case of playing well for their countries, the motivation is less base.
First bold, yes WC is and will be always the "ultimate standard" for great players to seal their names in "Football History". However, wining is one thing and performance is another! The major claim for legendary status would rely on their "PERFORMANCE" in such tournament. Two completely complementary examples for this: 1- Clodoaldo also won WC70, but people often remembered Pele/Jairzinho/Gerson /Rivelino ...and of course captain Carlos Alberto 2- Cruijff, Zico, Eusebio, Puskas, Baggio ... did not really win a WC, but people still remembered their names/performance in respective WC they played in! Second bold, WC is a "difficult and complex" tournament in all aspects from new pitches, fans, coach, player's form & his team mates plus, a 4years span would only allows more possibilities ... in the mix! Players usually gets EASE and PLAYED WELL in club for they play and practice everyday, every week, .. months and years - not at WC level. Again I would give 2 opposite examples for this concern; 1- Some players/teams failed for a "known or explicable" reasons: - Brazil82 was a completely attacking beautiful team but lack of a "worldclass striker" to kill off games when needed - Zico did great from behind but was not enough! (they failed to score the 3rd goal to keep their dream alive against the ultra defensive Italy) - France10: the whole team got attitude towards their coach, so not much to expect from them to win games - only miracle! 2- Some players/teams failed for they were "expected" by fans/media: - England NT in general" were often looked good on papers (from club plays) but also often fallen to ground in big international games - some said "overated" - well I would have to agree as no other reasons as they got great coaches and all support behind - Brazil06 was the worst Brazil NT in term of play/tactics/formation - Parreira took his 4 superstars for granted and did NOTHING to adjust their game. This team (with their stars) could have crashed most weak teams and inexperienced teams- but they would easily get collapsed by another "organized and experienced" squad (like France)
Well, that's very thoughtful of you Yonko. But I assure you I know how to understand proper English and its idioms. But thanks anyways.
Well this is true to a degree. But when people say Maradona, they usually think of his '86 performance. But he did great things in Napoli, nonetheless.
There still evidence that NT has much more impact than Club. Ronaldo for example, had had great performances in Holland, Spain and Italy. Italy was the best league at the time, and was the league that players went to prove they were the best. He had had arguably the best club performance up to that time with Barca and had proven to the world how good he was. HOWEVER, people still expected him to prove himself in the 98 WC. Even though he had shown his skill in club people though he most importantly needed to show it in the NT with Brazil in France. Which he did up untill the final. IF indeed club had been greater than NT than wouldn't his performances in club have been enough. Why would people still expect him to prove himself in the WC if indeed that was the case? In '06 Ronaldinho was expected to perform in his NT in the WC despite his great performances with Barca and when he didn't his greatness was much reduced. In the same year Zidane sealed his all-time greatness with the WC performance more so than the CL he won before. The greatness of a player like Henry was reduced with his failure in the last WC regardless of his club career. The English players, the Italian players with all their "achievements" were outclassed by Slovania, US, New Zealand, Slovakia and especially Paraguay whose players aren't the stars of the rich clubs. That's why I have a big problem with using just club stats to compare players. Because its under cuddling from clubs and not when they have to face adversity on their own.
In general I vote for NT. For players who come from nations that have filled books of history within the game, it is very hard to separate the player from his nationality. In some cases players don`t change their clubs, but in most of the cases they do, so it`s dificult to associate the player with a particular club. For the example someone said about Messi, although most of his professional career has been in Barcelona, if he ever changes of club, he would no longer be associated to the club. on the contrary, he may have never wear his NT jersey, which of course in his case we know perfectly well that he has, many times, but people will tend to associate the player to his country of origin and of course to his NT. Even for those players who have played under a diferent NT than their original country, most of the times, they will be remembered for those few occasions they did wear their NT uniform. For the case of players, who come from nations that don`t have such a big history within the game, it becomes more dificult to associate them with their NT jersey, but with their clubs instead, unless he wears lots of diferent ones through his career, in which case they`ll always be remembered as the player from ......(country).......of ......(the club).... .
very welll spot on. Like I said , Club level is a MUST (have) and then NT level will be the FINAL STAMP (fulfilled completion) of legends
I have the following interesting question to everyone: Which is harder, maintaining great form on club level or NT level over a course of one player's career?
I thought I had answered in other post. 1- Player form: If we talked of WC as NT level (not friendlies of course), then it's much harder (4times as statistically speaking: from WC qual to WC final round) for player to keep his form. Example: Messi is in his greatest form now, and who knows what he will be like at WC14? Or, like France missed Zidane just before WC02 started, and Brazil98 missed Ronaldo right on final game ... 2- Now for a team, another 4 times more difficult (than club) as MANY POSSIBILITIES can happen over 4years span: - Brazil97 was like invincible with the Ro-Ro pair in front. Then right 1,2 months before WC, the team has litlle time to adjust for Romario abscent. - Holland 86: Basten and Gullit were ready to show off their "best player status" but as a team, they missed out in qualification - Argentina10 had fairly great squad, but timing wise, they were stucked with a "naive tactician" in Maradona ... 3- New team/style/tactics of opponents: your NT would face any teams, that you your coach, your teamates never face, nor seen (them play) before... while, at Club, every week/moths/years you face almost 90% the same team (even in UCL, most often there are like 20 same teams playing yearly in last round). example: - WC2002: Portugal had difficulty against the USA and France (WC and Euro defender lost to a newkidsintown Senegal (new styles, new players) - WC2010: Spain with 11 worldclass, nearly got burnt by the Chileans ... 4- new pitch/fan base (than club) Wc2002: I am quite sure, Itlay and Spain got lost in the Asian crowds and could not win (convincingly) over the local S.Korea. They both got burnt, and they all BLAMED on the ref = well it's true the ref was or might be also got LOST in that same crowd as well!