I think you’ll find that Mbappe missed matches against much better opposition. He missed a match against Barcelona, two against Man City, a match against Atletico Madrid, etc. Kane’s missed matches were much easier on average. Not to mention that you’re including in Kane’s missed matches the third-place WC match, which was basically just a non-serious scoring exhibition. I assume there’s no way you actually think England would’ve scored 6 goals against France without Kane (or even with Kane) if they’d met in a normal WC match.
In recent memory, I’d take R9, Griezmann, Mbappe (take your pick which B2B) above Messi. Good arguments to be made for some of the Germans (Schweini, T. Müller, Lahm), although I don’t rate them as highly due to how much of a cohesive unit Germany tends to be. Not confident enough in my memory to put Diego (probably not, it’d have to be 82-86), Beckenbauer, and some of the Brazil 58-62 group in here. The level of opposition cannot be understated, I think.
Correction: Switzerland was ranked 19th at the time of the World Cup. You're a manipulator. Switzerland is a classic Round of 16 level team: Decent opposition, but nothing hard hitting. Don't bother engaging me in a back and forth. This was possibly Messi's worst game. I did not read your paragraph about Cape Verde - the 64th ranked team in the world. I don't suppose anybody would be willing to waste so much time. Messi was author of a class goal against a really bad team, but was poor in the general proceedings of the game - which was his whole KO tournament with the exception of England - which was again good. There's going to be ample footage coming out summarizing Messi's every touch in the KOs - so the old methods of exaggerating, boasting, hyperbolizing Messi's every move so that the goalpost is so far removed from reality, we have to waste pages of text and sources to deconstruct fantasy isn't going to happen. The popular opinion on planet earth regarding Messi and Argentina is exceedingly obvious if you bother stepping out your door - in which case, I don't have much to contribute since the purpose of this thread was to tackle popular myths - but said myths don't seem to be pertinent in public discourse anymore outside some fringe internet loyalists with no integrity, morals, or honesty
FIFA’s rankings are very flawed and very obviously not the best or most accurate rankings. For one thing, they don’t even decrease points for losing in any KO stage match, so it’s basically an attempt at an Elo-like rating that defies extremely basic tenets of how those ratings need to operate to make any sense. I’m talking instead about actual Elo ratings from the World Elo website—which as I’m sure you know is what I’ve consistently used here for many years across many different discussions, because it is the best source for NT ratings. Switzerland is ranked #11 right now. The other losing QF teams are ranked #9, #10, and #14. And there’s definitely plenty of quarterfinalists in other World Cups that were ranked even lower than that at the time. Switzerland was a normal quarterfinalist. Not a particularly difficult one but not a particularly easy one either. And England obviously wasn’t easy at all as a semifinalist, given that they’re clearly a top 4 team. Indeed, upsets are common enough that getting a top 4 opponent in the semifinals is actually unlucky if anything. Egypt was arguably abnormally easy for their round, but even they weren’t the lowest-elo team in that round this tournament. And honestly, it’s quite common for finalists to have faced a very overmatched team in the Round of 16. Some such opponents for finalists in recent years have included teams like Slovakia, Poland, Algeria, Australia, Paraguay, and Denmark. It’s not like Egypt really sticks out amongst that group as being particularly weak. Getting a relative minnow in the Round of 16 is pretty common. That leaves Cape Verde. Since the Round of 32 is new, we can’t say what’s normal in that round, but there were several Round of 32 opponents in this WC with lower elo ratings than Cape Verde, and it’s hard to really knock the ease of an opponent that drew against the tournament winner. Which is all to say that I think an unbiased assessment of these opponents would lead to the conclusion that it was a fairly normal-difficulty slate of opponents before the final. Not particularly difficult but not anomalously easy either. I can certainly point to KO stage runs to the finals that were clearly easier. See for instance, Germany 2002, Italy 2006, etc. But then there’s also been ones that were harder (indeed Spain had a tougher run in this very tournament). Any other argument on this is just trying to make a mountain out of a molehill in service of an agenda.
So much yap. You can try to deconstruct and undermine sources and technicalities until your face turns blue, then uphold variable facts and sources as you see fit. We don't particularly care. The reality is everybody knows Argentina got an easy road - so much so Martinez commented on it and said we did not choose our opponents. Egypt has no history in KOs, Switzerland is a Ro16 level team, Cape verde/Jordan/Algeria wouldn't have qualified under the old format. Ultimately, Messi was extremely impressive. The mere fact at 39 being there is impressive. The fact he could participate and score is impressive. I think silver ball is deserved - which is ludicrous given his age. But easy route, poor performances outside of the goals, besides England. And as usual, zero goals vs half-way decent opposition and a catastrophic final appearance that was even worse than 2014. Do I hold it against him? Absolutely not. When you defy the expectations and boundaries of what is possible - you deserve praise. Will anybody take your bullshit of calling anything and everything he does the greatest? No. You have a massive uphill battle in the court of public opinion where everybody and there mom (undeservedly) sees Messi as a cheat.
Given your last sentence, I think you’ve marinated way too much in Ronaldo-fan Internet spaces. Anyways, there’s no real additional substance to this post of yours. But I’ll just note that the notion that Algeria wouldn’t have made the tournament in the old format is very curious. They very easily qualified, and are ranked in the top 32 teams in the world both before and after the tournament in both elo rating and even in FIFA’s ranking. They’re a team we would expect to have in the tournament under the old format.
Not at all. I couldn't care less what's happening online and there's no way to calculate the online footprint or how it translates to the real world. All I can say is literally everybody I have met in last couple weeks in real world - mostly casual people who follow the sport every 4 years - think Messi/Arg/FIFA are cheats and were praying for their downfall. Anecdotal surely - but that's fine. It is my impression of the temperature outside, and I think most would probably agree. Algeria was horrible - I watched all their matches at the African cup - theyve had multiple matches/halves with no shots on target. They have had historically okay teams - the 2014 team was actually decent, though limited. No, this one was crap. And going back and forth trying to dismantle your paper thin arguments as to why low-ranked teams are actually good seems worthless since the default evident position is that they are clearly low-ranked teams. I have nothing to prove in that regard.
This is why discussing opponent strength is critical to the debate. His die-hard extremist loyalists will do everything to wriggle away from these discussions, because the truth is so obvious you do not have to spell it out: This is what they don't what you to see.
Algeria's an extremely poor team, which failed to register a shot on target every time they've faced decent opposition (Nigeria in the AFCON QF, Uruguay in a friendly, Netherlands until the 89th minute in friendly). They were fortunate to qualify for the World Cup, with a losing record vs. Guinea (the other decent team in the group, who dropped points against CAF minnows). Algeria would have been pitted against a top 5 CAF team in a hypothetical play-off in a 32-team World Cup, and very likely would have lost.
Team like Algeria, Cabo Verde and Jordan wouldn't have qualified in the 32 teams format same with Uzbekistan.
Again, Algeria was a top 32 team by all accounts, so your assertion that they’d not have made the tournaments under the prior format is very curious and without any real basis. As for this assessment of the African Cup of Nations run, those matches went into their Elo ratings that had them in the top 32 in the world, so that’s already factored into ratings that had them squarely in the top 32 teams. And in any event, they lost in the QFs, which isn’t great but also isn’t particularly inconsistent with being a top 32 team. Especially given that they defeated Congo in that tournament—and Congo is a team that made the Round of 32 in this World Cup, after drawing against Portugal, and proceeded to actually give England a tough match. Of course, Algeria isn’t some great team. But your assertion that they only made the tournament due to the format change is without any real basis, and is obviously colored by your need to downplay Argentina’s opponents, even when they’re ones no one claims were particularly strong. Algeria is not a great opponent. But they were good enough and high enough ranked that we’d expect them to have likely made the tournament in the old format. There’s no need to claim otherwise.
Under the prior format, five CAF teams made it. So you don’t really have to be better than another top 5 CAF team to make it. You would likely just need to be better than the next tier down (as in, the rank 6-10 CAF teams that face the top 5 in the final round of qualifiers). That means beating a team like Cameroon (who Algeria faced in 2022 qualifiers) or Congo. Congo is an interesting one since they’re the 7th ranked CAF team by elo, and Algeria beat them in the African Cup of Nations KO stage. So they did actually recently win a KO stage against the type of opponent they’d likely have had to beat to qualify under the old format. And Congo performed pretty well in the World Cup itself so they’re not a particularly weak CAF opponent to think about here. Would Algeria have definitely qualified under the old format? No. Nothing is certain, and a rank 28 team might not make a 32-team tournament. But such a team is one we should assume is likely to have qualified given that they’re ranked within the number of teams that would make it.
Youve been answer by Prime Madjer. Based on his namesake, I would presume he knows a thing or two about algeria
Huh? As I said, Algeria was ranked in the top 32 in elo rating (and yes, FIFA rankings too) before the tournament and they still are. Elo ratings are better than FIFA rankings but for purposes of this discussion that doesn’t matter since they say essentially the exact same thing about Algeria.
What a ridiculous point. So Haaland is a much better player than Zidane because Haaland is more efficient with his touches, while Zidane needs a lot of touches to make a positive impact. Haaland had 30 touches and scored 2 goals vs Brazil in 2026 WC. Zidane had 91 touches and made one assist vs Brazil in 2006 WC. Yes, let's undermine and penalize Messi for having many layers of impact to game. It is literaly the cliche: "People will see you walk on water and say it's because you can't swim."
Then your idea of efficiency is utterly pointless and redundant. Who had a better performance against Brazil? Zidane 2006 or Haaland 2026?
Was Zidane inefficient against Portugal in Euro 2000 because he had 128 touches on the ball in 120 minutes? No open play goals. @carlito86
Arguing with supporters of a narcissistic rapist is just a waste of time. They're manchildren just like their idol.
Ronaldo 'admitted his rape accuser said no multiple times and he apologised after they had sex', leaked legal documents allege as she files a new civil action against Juventus star https://t.co/f954wfo6rA pic.twitter.com/UurmRV8h2M— Daily Mail Sport (@MailSport) December 1, 2018
Sick, sick world we're living in. A rapist like this has millions of fans..millions of idiots. Always liking anti Messi posts, obsessed with Messi, and his teammates hate him because he's a narcissist who only thinks about himself. I'm just disappointed.
Come-on mate Mbappé isn't accumulating xA with non threat touches. He has 99 key passes to Kane's 69 (2,46 x 1,53 p90). He generates 60% more shots to his teammates per game than Kane. Kane has more isolated BCCs but he generates a lower volume of chances created overall. Mbappé has a 0.216 xA p90 to Kane's 0.15. So Mbappé are 44% more effective generating xA per minute on the pitch. The "Kane drops deep and build up more" myth also falls apart when Mbappé completes 29,3 passes p90 to Kane's 21,6 (he completed 1181 passes to Kane's 974 despite playing 5 less full 90s). Now on top of helping more on ball retention on midfield and higher quality chance creation, Mbappé also dribbles the double as Harry Kane. That's a huge advantage when we're comparing two strikers. That means Mbappé is progressing the ball individually into dangerous areas of the pitch winning 30-40 meters and creating numerical superiority. We all know that Mbappé contributes far less than Kane defensively but that's the least tiebreaker when we're comparing two strikers. It's like saying Rogerio Ceni is a better goalkeeper than Buffon cause he scored more goals when in fact the primary task of a goalkeeper is to prevent them. You'll say the primary task of a striker is to score goals and Kane scored more but given the context I already said before, Kane scored more cause his team is better and he played on a weaker league while at the highest level (WC+CL) Mbappé outscored him. On a small note, I hope you don't really think games against 3rd division teams at domestic cups are harder than teams that finished on top 4 of their leagues to play UCL on league phase
As far as I'm concerned, both Pelé and Messi are the top winners of the Ballon d'Or. Retroactively, Pelé would have won the award in 1959, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1970 Lionel Messi won it in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2019, 2021 and 2023 That would make it 7 for Pelé and 8 for Messi. However, we all know how questionable at least one of Messi's award was. I guess everybody will agree that the best player in the world in 2021 was Robert Lewandowski, not Messi. So, in all fairness, Pelé and Messi have reached the top of the football world SEVEN times, each. More than any other player in history, by a considerable distance.