Was Maradona Overrated

With Maradona it's not so much about his achievements or stats. Think of Ronaldinho — there were players who have scored more than him and won more than him but he'll always be considered as one of the all-time greats by those who have witnessed his peak. And Maradona was basically Ronaldinho with a much superior never-say-die attitude — the seemingly endless amount of tricks that he could pull out at any time separates him from Messi (who is just as technical as Maradona but doesn't use a lot of feints) and he was simply more technically gifted (slim margins, but still) than Pelé, Di Stéfano and other GOAT contenders at the time.

His individual peak (which included that World Cup & Napoli's first scudetto) is still, until this day, arguably the highest individual peak that was ever reached in this sport. Even though he significantly lacks consistency compared to the ridiculously lengthy peaks of other GOAT contenders like Pelé or Messi.

It's also not right to limit his career to a few moths though. He was always among the best players in the world since his teenage years. For quite a while he was considered the next big thing that struggles to take the final step to establish himself as the best around (or ever!) — think of Neymar for example, it was quite similar in a lot of ways. He was very good for Barça but not quite good enough to be considered better than Platini, Zico or Rummenigge... but it's worth noting that his transfer to Napoli was the second time that he got sold for a world record transfer fee at the time.

 

Ronaldinho being Maradona minus the never say die attitude is interesting

You should add though that neither player scored in a real Major final
Be it the World Cup,Copa America,Champions league/EC,UEFA Cup or Copa libertadores

Pele scored in 2 WC finals and multiple Copa libertadores finals
Di stefano and Puskas racked up many in EC finals
even on losing teams in the case of Puskas

Garrincha,Eusebio,George best,Gianni Rivera,Johan Cruyff,Gerd muller likewise marked the biggest games with a goal or multiple goals
Rummenige who you mentioned did it on winning teams and losing teams

Going down to Van basten in 1988 and 1989
Could add to this Ruud Gullit aswell

Down to Ronaldo nazario in 2002 and Zidane 1998 in the WC final
zidane also marking a CL final with a great goal even though he was never his teams number 1 goal threat

then Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi came after scoring in 6 CL finals between them

Is there a Top 20 all time attacking player who didn’t mark their careers with a goal or multiple goals in major finals

Was this never say die attitude a representation of Maradona the player or Maradona in 1 tournament?

I feel it is more of the latter than the former

The claim regarding Maradona being the outright most technically gifted player in history is one I have expressed previously but it needs more looking into IMO

There are many players who possessed the full attacking package to varying degrees


I feel and maybe I’m alone in this that Maradona wasn’t really that clinical from open play

You see the guys he was competing with in the Argentine premiera division and struggling to overcome in the scoring stakes

For reference


Maradona scored 25 goals in 38 appearences in the 1980 Argentine top flight


Argentine midfielder Raul Chaparro with 1 cap for the Argentine NT scored 20 goals in 34 appearances in the 1981 Argentine premiera division


Chapparo is no Carlos bianchi or Mario Kempes



Can you imagine prime Messi being neck to neck with someone like Carlos vela(the ‘GOAT’of the MLS )for the pichichi
You can imagine it but it could never happen
It’s an impossibility


Maradona never scored 1 goal per game in any major tournament for club or country except WC 1986 and he needed the help of a handball
So you have to ask where is the evidence he could’ve done it multiple times in different eras or different teams




To answer the OPs question
I feel Maradona did JUST about enough to be a top 10 all timer without a WC
But it would be a very hard case to argue

Winning Serie A with Napoli makes you a cult hero not a ATG
A defining figure of a certain period in a Series As illustrious history

Winning the World Cup with Argentina and Serie A with Napoli in a 18 month period is something else entirely
We cannot pretend the Serie A title with Napoli in 1986/87 is a primary reason for his standing in today’s game

And how many Real great players were there really in Serie A 1986/87?

This was a transitional period and kind of a open era in Italy
With either a washed up version of Michel Platini who retired in 1986/87
A injury riddled version of Rummenige who effectively went into semi retirement after 1986/87
Zico had left 2 seasons prior and was already in the decline
Boniek was 1 year away from retirement
Falcao of Roma had left the league 2 years prior
Paulo Rossi retired in 1986/87
Gaetano Scirea Retired in 1987/88
Roberto Baggio was 20 years old
Maldini was 17 years old

Marco van basten,Gullit and Riijkard were still in the eredivisie

That leaves Elkjær with maybe his worst season in Italy

The other dudes like Vialli and Virdis have no real credentials outside the confines of Serie A


I must ask Who was the great player or players to challenge Maradonas Napoli in 1986/87?


By 1989/90 Napoli was no longer a small team with many hailing Careca the best striker in the world going into WC 1990

 

You have some fair points here. I guess You think he is overrated

The other thing is, this topic will turn into Pele vs Maradona or Messi vs Maradona

 

As for the latter point — I trust my eyes first and I haven't seen a player who had matched Maradona in both flair and technique. Maybe Ronaldinho but he never cared too much about winning as I've said earlier.

There were more complete footballers — like Pelé, who was probably the best all-round forward that I've seen. There were players who had matched Maradona's touch/dribbling, like Messi, but never had his unexpected creativity — I'm talking about overhead crosses from either flank or an odd rabona here and there... it doesn't make Maradona a better player since Messi more than matches him in efficiency but it does elevate him in the above-mentioned eye test.

I also think that probably no player ever had played under such horrendous defensive scrutiny — the 80's were notoriously infamous for their defensive nature, especially when we talk about Italy. Gentile's hack job on Maradona in 1982 is still a World Cup record for the attempted fouls on one player (no cards were shown though) and when he played in Serie A he was usually man-marked in the most brutal fashion, usually double or even triple marked. I don't like to dispute Pelé's achievements in Brazil as there were a lot of strong competitors there but he had played in a way more attacker-friendly era (despite being kicked out of not one but two World Cups) and Messi plays in an era where the attackers are protected like they never were before. During the 80's Maradona played week in week out against defenders like Baresi, Maldini, Bergomi, Vierchowod, Berthold, Ferri... with the best defender usually being glued to him for the entire 90 minutes.

And yet he performed like a God (hence the religious zealous in Napoli that exists until this day) and even managed to become a capocannoniere one time despite not playing as a forward — and in the second title-winning season he ran close to peak van Basten and the young sensation Baggio. Also, I love Careca but he was never the best striker in the world. Not even the best striker in the league, that would be van Basten. And during their title winning season (1989/90) he had scored 10 goals — joint 12th best in the league.

As far as the finals are concerned — it's a moot point as he was playing in a significantly weaker team than Pelé, Messi and other GOAT candidates played at their peak and he was also not a striker. Unlike most on your list, I wouldn't say that scoring goals was Maradona's first priority — it was creating them. And if he was performing badly at those finals, I would've understood you but he didn't — more so, he was crucial for their 1986 win and he was equally instrumental (and also scored) in the UEFA Cup final that Napoli won.

Pelé played for Santos that was the best team in Brazil (and probably in the world) for ages. Same goes for Messi (Barça), Di Stéfano (River & Madrid), Puskás (Honved & Madrid), Cristiano (Man Utd & Madrid) and other GOATs. Maradona's Napoli was never even the best team in the country but he led them to two titles.

 

I think there are some players who had outlandishly high peaks in important games/tournaments, where people forget that they were not consistently at that level and act like they were always at that level all the time. That is understandable. For one thing, with someone who played many years ago, there’s a lot of people around who did not watch the player contemporaneously and just see YouTube videos of their best performances. And even if they did see the players at the time, they probably didn’t watch every random game that wasn’t super important, or if they did they don’t recall those games as well.

Maradona is one of those types of players IMO. He had outrageous peaks—certainly on the short list for greatest peaks ever. But he was not consistently at that level year-to-year or game-to-game. Part of this is just the fact that form is not always consistent, but it’s also personal stuff with him. If one is doing a ranking of greatest players ever, this sort of thing has to be taken into account. While there are certainly players who are less consistent than Maradona (after all, Maradona was basically always at least one of the top players in the world), Maradona was not like Messi or Pele or Cristiano Ronaldo in terms of consistency. But his peak level was undeniably outrageous and coincided with extremely important moments (particularly the 1986 World Cup). So, whether you think he’s overrated depends on how important you think consistency is, compared to how important you think peak level in huge moments is.

On the issue of Maradona maybe being overrated for the 1986 World Cup when other players won big tournaments with their teams, I don’t think that’s really right. Maradona isn’t rated so highly merely because his team won the World Cup. It’s about how they won it—with him being an absolute alien in the tournament. He basically reached a level that is on the shortlist for greatest peak ever, and did it in the World Cup and won. That’s what is rated so highly.

 

You're back

 

I think Maradona is generally placed too high (he should be below Pele, Messi, Cruijff, Cristiano, Di Stefano, plausibly Puskas, possibly equal to Platini who was a better shooter and more effective passer) but don't think he really fits the overrated bracket.

Then I think more about the likes of Garrincha, Baggio or Muller (also Gullit, Moore, *maybe* Charlton). Principally Garrincha.

Underrated are people like Modric and De Bruyne.

It helps that in the period after 1990 there was no successor. Matthaus was not technical enough and Van Basten had already mobility/dribbling issues. Romario and Baggio were elevated to the level of 'faces of the sport', but as SofaScore (and others) neatly show, they just fell short (other 'non-faces' were just as good or better).

Evolving tactics play (possibly) a part, and Ronaldo Luis got hurt while he was evolving, but for about 10-15 years there was no 'apparent' performer at the level of a peak Platini, Cruijff, Eusebio or Maradona. Among many other factors, that helps the one who came last.

edit: I don't care much about awards, scoreboard journalistics or extreme longevity. It is a rather more like a mixture between ability, trophies (all won with a handball) and the personal (tangible, demonstrable) influence in this. Both the bottom-up and top-down view.

 

So, Maradona out of TOP 5 ?

I think that his „ best ever WC” , skills and „ winning without great team” influence fans or experts choice

what do You think about his leadership ?
Was really better than all players You have mentioned bar Cruyff ?
How do You compare Diego to Johan ?

 

Certainly agree that people like Modric and De Bruyne are underrated. And I think the point about there being no transcendent player right after Maradona is actually a really good point.

That said, I do think you’re shortchanging Maradona a bit by putting him below the players you put him below. All are amazing players, and this is a subjective conversation, so it’s not a ridiculous opinion to hold, but Maradona’s peak was just outrageously good. His 1986 World Cup really does have a very good argument for being the highest peak anyone has ever had. He was unplayable. Of course, though, if your measure involves “the personal,” then perhaps that’d put Maradona down on your list. Not sure I agree with including that stuff though (assuming I correctly understand what you’re referring to there).

 

Modric now is widely considered among the greatest midfielder ever, on par with Xavi,Iniesta, Zidane.... And who know how long he can still play. If he continues to win other trophies with Real Madrid, he will surpass them all.

De Bruyne despite of his quality, he still lacks of "legendary matches/moments" like other all time great midfielders above. No UCL for him so far and no memorable international tournament.

Football is about experience. And Maradona brought the greatest moments of all. Only Messi later does the same. That together with his achievements make him immortal and easily top 3 greatest. The best until his compatriot surpassed him.

One thing is that people really underrated his teammates though.

 

The question always gets asked of Messi and Ronaldo (and perhaps even more so of someone like Pep Guardiola) of whether they could achieve such greatness at a lesser club, beating the teams with all the money and resources.

Maradona did that.

If Kylian Mbappe transferred to Aston Villa and won two Premier League titles, an FA Cup and a Europa League in seven seasons, I think a lot of people would regard that as a club accomplishment above and beyond what recent Barca or Real or Bayern players have achieved.

 

I'd say it is more like winning UEFA Cups with Parma, winning the league with Manchester City, or winning the Champions League with Chelsea or Marseille. Or Mbappe winning the Premier League or Europa League with Newcastle United if you like (while having two handballs in the bank to use).

Similarly, that 1986 World Cup performance is a candidate for being the best, but not by default far beyond anything.

- The average level of opponents per Elo rating is quite low, and significantly below other legendary tournament performances. This has been known and obvious for a while now. It is very relevant.

- The other tournament favorites (Argentina itself was #2 in the odds) cancelled themselves. Yes, West Germany in the final - even though not the best version of the team - is a formidable hurdle, but there Maradona didn't play like the best performance ever. SofaScore has it down as a 6.3. That is obviously not precise in any way, but far removed from the 9+ territory.

- The SofaScore tool in general shows it is a very highly rated performance, but also behind some others in other tournaments. By a 0.30+ margin even. Additionally, the margin to the other players in the same tournament is not as high.

- It is mainly two (extraordinarily good) games. Against England and Belgium, who were both missing their midfield and key players. That this are the two best back-to-back games in history makes great sense, yet even there the non-calls for offside helped him a lot.

It is a true candidate for the best performance ever, but by no means a slum dunk or a surefire fact (which for a few reasons it has become). Furthermore, people like Eusebio or Platini didn't receive as many opportunities (while otherwise doing fine for their national team) to make their mark in a tournament.

 

A very interesting topic.

I want to make one thing clear, for me Diego Armando Maradona is the most talented player in the history of football. And the one who had the best technique of all the ones I've seen, without a doubt.

But is he the best player in history? I don't think so.

It is not only valid with technique or talent, Maradona (for whatever reasons) has not had the continuity in the game that other great players have had and if we assess all the possible indicators of "the greatness of a player" I think that Maradona is not number 1.

Regarding the issue of titles won, as it is a team sport, it greatly influences where you play and it is true that Maradona in Napoli has already done a lot, winning two scudettos and a UEFA Cup. I also think that what he did in the Italian league in the 80s has a lot of merit because it was a championship where the defenses stood out over the forwards and where scoring a goal was very difficult. From 1979 to 1991 only two players reached 20 goals, something that today seems incredible. Platini, with 16 goals, Maradona with 15 goals and Van Basten with 19 goals were top scorers in Serie A, very few goals, and we are talking about three of the best players of all time (we can be sure that Messi would not have scored in those years in Italy the 50 goals he scored one year in the Spanish league, not even 30). Another point in favor of Maradona is that displaying his magnificent technique on the playing fields was not easy, in those years kicks were not sanctioned as they are today.

Focusing on the subject of the thread, I think that being one of the 3-4-5 best players in history, he may be a bit overrated in the sense that the famous World Cup in Mexico-86 is often used to raise his category as a player above that of others, and a footballer's career is much more than a World Cup, no matter how outstanding his performance in that edition was.

There is no doubt that that World Cup in Mexico-86 makes Maradona enter the history of football definitively. But;

- What would have happened if I had not won that championship?
- Would he be remembered the same?
- Or as a great player but with no chance of being THE GOAT?

I have raised many times the following hypothetical situation:

- And if that World Cup is won by Zico or Platini? Would Maradona be considered a better player than these two? Or, on the contrary, would it be at a lower “level”?

For me, and I think for the majority, Maradona has been better than Platini and Zico, but would people see it the same if the Argentine was not a world champion and Zico or Platini were?

Keep in mind that if we take away that World Cup from Maradona, he does not have other great titles at the club or national team level, something that Puskas (3 champions), Di Stefano (5 champions and 1 Copa América), Pele (3 world cups and 2 Copa Libertadores), Cruyff (3 champions), Messi (4 champions and 1 Copa América and 1 World Cup?), Cristiano (5 champions and 1 Eurocup) or Beckenbauer (3 champions, 1 Eurocup and 1 World Cup).

That is, could a player without great collective achievements be considered the best in history? There would be a lot of debate in my opinion. And we cannot forget one thing, whether we like it or not, it was like that, in Mexico-86 Argentina eliminated England with The Hand of God and if that goal is annulled (as it should have been) maybe Maradona will not win the world Cup.

Look at how capricious fate is, Platini was very close to playing in the 1982 World Cup final, and a refereeing error by not expelling Schumacher for his attack on Battiston left him out of the final, a final that France deserved to play . And in 1978? That 6-0 from Argentina to Peru left Zico's Brazil out of the final, and that match is still "under suspicion." Of course, France could have lost to Italy in 1982 and Brazil to the Netherlands in 1978, but they were deprived of the opportunity to play in a World Cup final, something that Maradona was "facilitated" in 1986 (and I say " facilitated" because without that goal the Argentines were not eliminated, but they would have had to play an extra time that they finally avoided).

In the magnificent thread https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/ballon-dor-awards-revisited-by-bigsoccer-users.2119696/ until 1985 the Bigsoccer community has voted Maradona 2 times player of the year, Zico others 2 and Platini 3, from what I understand that until that year there could be a debate about which was the best of the three, but Argentina's victory in the 1986 World Cup raised Maradona to the level of Di Stéfano, Pele and Cruyff and left to Zico and Platini at a lower level. It is also true that in 1985 Maradona, according to Bigsoccer, had been player of the year the same times as Zico and one less than Platini despite being a player clearly younger than the other two, so he still had several years to improve his statistics, as it finally was.

And I repeat, for me Maradona is top-3-4-5 in football history due to his incredible talent and certainly a better player than two geniuses like Zico and Platini but if that 1986 World Cup had had a different outcome I am sure that right now the many people's perception would be different regarding the Argentine legend.

 

Obviously, the little things that change results make a big difference, as you alluded.

Is the 1986 WC the single most significant contributor to a legacy? Maybe. Is it more significant to Maradona's career than say, WC '66 was to Moore? Or WC '94 was to Romario? Or WC '98 to Zidane? I don't know, these are things that cannot be quantified.

There is also a difference between if Maradona was knocked out by England and another parallel universe where he played the finals even better than he did (not that high a bar considering he wasn't exactly amazing in it) but lost to Germany in the end. Like, what if he had put in an all-time performance but Germany won in the end? In terms of on-field product, he would actually have performed better, but he would not be a WC winner? How detrimental would that be?

How far can we stretch this hypothesis? What if he was putting in '74 Cruyff-level performance (let's assume it's the best performance by a non-winner in history for argument's sake) in '82, '86, and '90, but end up losing the final in all three tournaments? Would his legacy be improved in a romantic sort of way even more so than the current narrative of "the biggest carry job in WC history?"

 

I think the point about the elo ratings being low in 1986 is an interesting one. I do think we have to be cautious with that though. Elo ratings basically rate how dominant a team has been in their era, not about what the teams’ absolute level is compared to teams in other eras. If there’s no teams with super high elo ratings, that tells us that there’s no team that was consistently dominating the opposition, but it doesn’t actually tell us how good those top teams are. In other words, the fact that there’s relative parity doesn’t tell us whether the parity is at a high or low level. Maybe there’s no team dominating the opposition because there’s a bunch of teams that are super good such that no single one of them can dominate. And maybe a team with a super high elo rating in another era only has a super high elo rating because other traditional powers are having a downswing in quality.

I also want to note that elo ratings in football are not super accurate, because the sample size of matches is quite low (national teams really don’t play many matches each year) and a lot of the matches that do exist are friendlies where the results don’t matter much so teams don’t always try their hardest or put their strongest team forward (which are things elo rating simply cannot account for). The result is almost always that elo ratings don’t entirely pass the smell test if you look at them—sometimes teams end up super highly rated that really just obviously aren’t that strong.

All that said, it’s interesting info. If we take elo ratings seriously and assume that the parity in elo ratings in the mid-1980s was more about parity of mediocrity than parity of excellence, then it certainly was an easier-than-normal environment for someone to do a “carry job” in the World Cup.

 

The season you’re talking about with 15 league goals must be 1987/88?
His most was actually in 1989/90 with 16 league goals

But then there is also Zico with 19 Serie A goals in 1983/84
Platini with 20 in 1983/84 and 18 in 1984/85
Virdis with 17 league goals in 1986/7
Careca with 19 league goals in 1988/89


I’d propose that there were no elite goal scorers in Italy before 1987

Zico came at the end of his peak
He never regained his best level for any of the clubs he played for after 1983





The most overrated period in top 5 league history (Serie A 1980-1987)

Capocannoniere
Roberto Pruzzo 1980/81
Roberto Pruzzo 1981/82
Michel Platini 1982/83
Michel Platini 1983/84
Michel Platini 1984/85
Roberto Pruzzo 1985/86
Paulo Virdis 1986/87


There are 2 names that immediately stand out are
Roberto Pruzzo 3x Capocannoniere
Michel Platini 3x Capocannoniere
These are the 2 players to dominate the “gladiator” defenders of Serie A

Anyone can make a claim
Ie
Serie A was difficult to score in
This is evidenced by the low numbers the top strikers scored whilst playing there and the ultra defensive tactics employed by various team

I’m making the claim there were no Elite level strikers there between 1980-1987.
Zero
Certainly not of the level of Hugo Sanchez nor of Ian Rush
And I’m also claiming had there of been the 20 goal barrier would’ve not just been equalled but broken if not shattered several times




Who was Roberto Pruzzo outside of Serie A?

He was a player with 0 goals in 6 caps for the Italian NT

2 non penalty goals in 7 UEFA Cup matches
His 2 non pen goals coming against Ipswich in 1982/83

In the EC it appears to be much better
5 goals in 7 matches

With 2 goals against the East German champions
Some more against goteborg but Ok

The sample size for each individual competition is small but if we combine his stats for the NT,EC and UEFA Cup It is

7 non penalty goals in 20 appearances
0.35 non penalty goals per match

That is Pruzzo the 3x Capocannoniere outside the gladiator arena of Serie A



How about Paulo Virdis the Capocannoniere the season Maradona won his first title?
Virdis had 0 caps for the NT
The guy was never capped even once for his NT in his entire life







Platini came to Italy and started dominating the scoring titles
It was Really out of the blue as nothing he did prior to this pointed to him being capable of this


In ligue 1 He was no one in goalscoring

Carlos bianchi made him look like a average goalscorer (and not only him either but I will use him as a reference point)

Ligue 1 1973/74
Carlos bianchi 30 goals
Michel Platini 2 goals

Ligue 1 1974/75
N/A as Platini was in the second division

Ligue 1 1975/76
Carlos bianchi 34 goals
Michel Platini 22 goals

Ligue 1 1976/77
Carlos bianchi 28 goals
Michel Platini 25 goals

Ligue 1 1977/78
Carlos bianchi 37 goals
Michel Platini 18 goals

Ligue 1 1978/79
Carlos bianchi 27 goals
Michel Platini 12 goals

Ligue 1 1979/80
Michel Platini 16 goals
Carlos bianchi 8 goals


Bianchi leaves France in 1980


A few years after this Platini arrives in Serie A and there is a uncapped Virdis and Pruzzo with 0 goals for the NT

It’s really a surprise he outscores them?


Serie A 1980-1987 is overrated

Between 1977 and 1987 Italian teams produced 0 UEFA Cup winners and 1 European cup winner(Juventus in 1984/85)

After something like 20 attempts the gladiators of Serie A with the highest standard of football produced 1 major European trophy

After the tragedy of heysel in 84 English teams were ineligible to compete
Even with this added advantage Serie A teams still won nothing in 1985/86 and 1986/87

They broke the duct in 1988 with Maradona (and some cheating)
And then again in 1989 with van basten (and some fog)


Bringing it back even though I like my tangents

Platini was a overrated goalscorer and he was even better then Maradona which tells you all you need to know

Whoever said Messi wouldn’t score 50 in 1980s Serie A
For Lazio or Udinese probably not but a super team
Why not

What’s the reasoning behind thinking he wouldn’t

Carlos bianchi would get 30 there in his best years no doubt about this

Bianchi scored 42 league goals in a single season playing in the Argentine premiera division

The most Maradona got was 25


Bianchi scored 37 goals in a single ligue 1 season

The most Platini got was 25

I’ll concede that bianchi is underrated but I’m not the only one to uncover his statistics.
He is known and legendary for the clubs he represented both as a coach and manager

Despite that no one considers him a top 20 ATG striker

Tell me how Platini and Maradona can be world class goalscorers if their best goalscoring seasons are mediocre next to a player who isn’t even a top 20 ATG striker?
And I am generous

Dearman doesn’t consider bianchi to be a top 50 ATG striker

Dearman doesn’t even consider him a top 100 ATG striker
http://xtraimmortal.blogspot.com/2014/02/The9x100.html?m=1

Someone can perhaps help me with this.
How can a world class goalscorer look ordinary next to a striker who isn’t even 100 all time in his position

Maradona and players like him should be given credit for what they were good at not for what they were distinctly average at


Don’t let anyone tell you Messi was merely a better goalscorer then Maradona
Messi is vastly superior to the point of it being an insult to ones own intelligence to even entertain this

After this we can talk about their other attributes being fairly equal/comparable

 

@carlito86 That was a good post with a lot of interesting info. I think the best reason to think Messi wouldn’t score 50 goals in that era’s Serie A isn’t really that Serie A was super strong in that era. It’s more that it was a very defensively-minded league. If Messi played on a team that did not play very attacking football, I think it’s pretty logical to conclude he would not have been able to score as many goals. And if he was in the 1980s Serie A he very likely would’ve been on a team that had a defensive mindset. It’s also worth noting that the league season in Serie A back then was only 30 games, rather than the 34-38 in today’s top leagues. So today’s La Liga has 27% more games than that era’s Serie A. Obviously, having more games adds to goal totals.

All that said, I also think it’s clearly true that a great goalscorer like Messi would have scored significantly more than anyone in Serie A did back then, since you are right that there really weren’t any great goal scorers in the league at the time. I just don’t think he’d have scored 50.

 

In my opinion he would’ve averaged 40 goal involvements per league campaign(30 goals+10 assists)
Compared to the 60 he averaged during his peak in la liga

In some year during the 1980s 40 Serie A goals isn’t out of the question for a Messi,Pele or Cristiano

Bianchi played in the Argentine Primera División of Maradona and the ligue 1 of Platini
Both In his prime and out of his prime

In his prime(1971/72)he scored 42 goals in 46 Argentine league matches

Out of his prime when He was 34 years old in 1982/83 he scored 29 league in the Argentine first Division

Maradonas highest scoring league campaign ever(in any league)”was in 1980.
25 goals in the Argentine first division



In his prime Bianchi scored 37 league goals during ligue 1 1977/78

The most Platini ever scored was 25 in ligue1 1976/77

It gets even worse then this
Carlos Bianchi was partially blind for his entire career/Life
https://thesefootballtimes.co/2020/...in-france-who-became-one-of-psgs-first-icons/
He couldn’t even see the freaking ball


Maradona/Platini couldn’t compete in goalscoring with a partially blind man who dearman doesn’t even consider to be top 100 all time in his position.


I’ve read parts of your thread here and there over the last few years
The premise of your thread being Gerd Müller is the greatest goal scorer of all time and by extension a top 10 all timer

Worthy of this position by virtue of his goalscoring alone(even if you do say he contributed some defensive actions and had enough ball intelligence to play a final ball in and around the box)
It’s his goal scoring that makes him top 10 in your opinion

You’d concur he wasn’t a world class ball carrier,dribbler,wasn’t known for playing defence splitting passes nor crosses from the flank,nor was he world class ball distributor

If Messi isn’t his equal in goal scoring (in your opinion) it is surely fine margins?

I can assume Messi is in your opinion at least comparable to Gerd Müller as a finisher


Maradona isn’t comparable to bianchi let Hugo Sanchez let alone Van basten


When factoring Messis other qualities that are at minimum comparable to Maradona
Namely dribbling/ball carrying and passing

Where is the comparison
How can they be compared


It’s been said somewhere(not by me but I read it)
Maradona developed considerably more strength after his serious injuries in Spain
He was stronger on the ball then Messi but how much stronger is the question
Enough to mention it as an advantage for Maradona?

Didn’t we just see a 35
Year old Messi hold of a towering defender(widely considered the best of this tournament)and have enough composure/intelligence to lay of a game killing goal contribution in the 2nd most important match of a footballers life.

 

@carlito86

On what basis do I say that Messi would not score 50 goals in a season in Italy?

For example, years ago I got some goals per game statistics for the Spanish and Italian leagues where we can see the following evolution (the 2018 season was incomplete when I did the analysis):

- Italy:
Years 80-89: 2.06 goals/game
Years 10-18: 2.66 goals/game
If we take the 10s as a base, we can ensure that in the 1980s 22% fewer goals were scored.

- Spain:
Years 80-89: 2.49 goals/ game
Years 10-18: 2.77 goals/game
If we take the 10s as a base, we can ensure that in the 1980s 10% fewer goals were scored.

Spain compared to Italy in the 1980s: -17% of goals in Italy

1- Messi in Spain in the 80s: 50 goals (11-12 season) less 10% 40 goals.

If, in addition, we subtract 17% from those 40 goals, which is the difference between Spanish and Italian football, we have that the 40 goals remain at 33 goals, 33 goals goals in 37 games that Messi played the year he scored 50 goals, which gives us 0.89 goals per game which in turn becomes:

Season of 30 games: 0.89 x 30 = 27 goals
Season of 34 games: 0.89 x 34 = 30 goals

2- Messi in Spain in the 80s: 46 goals (season 12-13) minus 10% 37 goals.

If in addition to those 37 goals we subtract 17%, which is the difference between Spanish and Italian football, we have that the 37 goals remain at 31 goals, 31 goals goals in 32 games that Messi played the year he scored the 46 goals, which gives us 0.97 goals per game which in turn becomes:

Season of 30 games: 0.97 x 30 = 29 goals
Season of 34 games: 0.97 x 34 = 33 goals

Now we are going to see what the best foreign scorers who came to Seria A in the 80s did (in order not to waste too much time I will take data from the English Wikipedia). League championship data:

PLATINI (3 Ballon d'Ors):
France: 156 goals in 285 games, 0.65 goals per game
Italy: 68 goals in 147 games, 0.46 goals per game, their scoring performance drops by 30%
With his NT he scored 41 goals in 72 games: 0.57 goals per game, higher than his average in Italy.

BERTONI (world champion):
Argentina: 91 goals in 206 games, 0.44 goals per game
Spain: 24 goals in 57 games, 0.42 goals per game
Italy: 41 goals in 170 games, 0.24 goals per game, their scoring performance drops by 45%
With his NT he scored 12 goals in 31 games: 0.39 goals per game, higher than his average in Italy.

MARADONA (world champion):
Argentina (pre-European era): 144 goals in 206 games, 0.70 goals per game
Spain: 22 goals in 36 games, 0.61 goals per game
Italy: 81 goals in 188 games, 0.43 goals per game, his goalscoring performance drops 39% compared to his years in Argentina.
With his NT he scored 34 goals in 91 games: 0.37 goals per game, lower than his average in Italy.

RUMMENIGGE (two Ballon d'Ors):
Germany (pre-European era): 162 goals in 310 games, 0.52 goals per game
Switzerland: 34 goals in 50 games, 0.68 goals per game
Italy: 24 goals in 64 games, 0.38 goals per game, his scoring performance drops 27% compared to his years in Germany.
With his NT he scored 45 goals in 95 games: 0.47 goals per game, higher than his average in Italy.

ELJAER LARSEN (silver ball):
Belgium: 98 goals in 190 games, 0.52 goals per game
Italy: 32 goals in 91 games, 0.35 goals per game, his goalscoring performance drops 33% compared to his years in Belgium.
With his NT he scored 38 goals in 69 games: 0.47 goals per game, higher than his average in Italy.

RAMON DIAZ:
Argentina 1: 57 goals in 123 games, 0.46 goals per game
Italy: 25 goals in 103 games, 0.24 goals per game, his goalscoring performance drops 48% compared to his years in Argentina 1.
France: 24 goals in 60 games, 0.40 goals per game
Argentina 2: 27 goals in 52 games, 0.52 goals per game
With his NT he scored 10 goals in 22 games: 0.45 goals per game, higher than his average in Italy.

POLSTER (golden boot):
Austria 1: 119 goals in 146 games, 0.82 goals per game
Italy (only one season): 9 goals in 27 games, 0.33 goals per game, his goalscoring performance drops 34% compared to his years in Spain and Germany.
Spain: 83 goals in 171 games, 0.49 goals per game
Germany: 94 goals in 188 games, 0.50 goals per game
With his NT he scored 44 goals in 95 games: 0.45 goals per game, higher than his average in Italy.

VAN BASTEN (3 Ballon d'Ors and Golden Boot):
Netherlands: 128 goals in 133 games, 0.96 goals per game
Italy: 91 goals in 148 games, 0.61 goals per game, a 36% drop in scoring performance
With his NT he scored 24 goals in 58 games: 0.41 goals per game, lower than his average in Italy

CARECA:
Brazil: 100 goals in 144 games, 0.69 goals per game
Italy: 73 goals in 164 games, 0.45 goals per game, his scoring performance drops by 35%
With his NT he scored 30 goals in 64 games: 0.47 goals per game, similar to his average in Italy

ZICO (3 times South American Ballon d'Or):
Brazil: 135 goals in 249 games, 0.54 goals per game
Italy: 22 goals in 39 games, 0.56 goals per game, improves scoring performance by 4%
With his NT he scored 48 goals in 71 games: 0.68 goals per game, higher than his average in Italy
Zico is the only player who maintains his goalscoring average in Italy compared to the national championship of his country (the Brazilian in this case) although his record in Italy is far from his average in the state tournament of 0.79.

As can be seen, most of the players drop their goalscoring performance alarmingly as soon as they arrive in Italy and when they leave, their goalscoring averages increase again. Let's say that they drop on average by approximately 35% between the Italian league and the other leagues. Let's go to the case of Leo Messi (a much higher scorer than those analyzed in this post):

- 2011/12: 50 goals in 37 games, 1.35 goals per game, minus 35% gives us 0.88 goals per game. In a 30-game season it would be 26 goals and in a 34-game season 30 goals.

- 2012/13: 46 goals in 32 games, 1.44 goals per game, minus 35% gives us 0.94 goals per game. In a 30-game season it would be 28 goals and in a 34-game season 32 goals.

Data very similar to the first estimate.

If the best Messi had been a striker in Serie A in the 1980s, out of the 10 seasons, in 9 or 10 he would have been the top scorer, I have no doubts, but he would have reached 30 goals twice at most and I hardly think he would have reached it at 35. I think that normally he would have moved between 24-28 goals per season, which was a lot in that football since, as we have seen, hardly anyone reached 20 goals in the 1980s.

Playing in the Italian Serie A in the 80s was a black hole for forwards/ strikers.

Regarding Dearman, he does not consider Bianchi a Top-100 in history, it is his own issue, but since you are talking about Dearman, how many Italian Serie A defenders from the 80s are among the best in history according to Dearman? Maybe there is the key to why so few goals were scored in Italian football at that time.

And one last note, that overrated Italy from the 77-87 period won the 1982 World Cup and was fourth in 1978, and all its players played in Serie A, so if you tell me it was overrated football because between 1977 and 1987 they only won one UEFA, one Cup Winners' Cup and one European Cup (all Juventus titles) it can also be interpreted that English football was overrated because what did their national team do in that decade?... nothing.

It is not my intention to create controversy, simply to present my arguments, which you may not share, but it is what I believe and as such I say so.

 

Condensing the 'world out there' back to one number always leaves something out but the Elo ratings have proven to be a very good (the best) indicator of relative strength and a high predictive value. There are a number of scientific papers about this and basically we don't have anything better.

Also this World Cup it 'predicted' many things right, before a ball was kicked. It 'predicted' the vulnerability of Germany, it showed Belgium had already lost well over 100-150 points compared to their peak (but should have beaten Croatia), it 'predicted' England might be fine against any team outside the top 30 but can go out against the first good team they play. More fancied and higher ranked teams than those three - including Brazil, Argentina, France - have fared better in the actual tournament (where penalty shoot-out is counted as a draw).

The main thing it didn't get right was Spain their result in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th games (all those three successively rather than one individual game). That is inevitable to happen in any one tournament. In an alternative series of events this doesn't happen to Spain but then, instead, France bows out to England.

It didn't 'predict' the non-qualification of Italy too, yet they also had them down as only the 7th best team of the year 2021, and the 6th best when the tournament started (then after the final they were 'only' 3rd). This always happens too.

These Elo ratings broadly align with the assessments of the quality of the squads as well (have I already mentioned Maradona his GoalImpact rating, in whatever version, is more like the one of Zidane or Ronaldinho rather than Messi, Platini, Van Basten, Puskas, Cruijff, both Ronaldos and a number of other usual suspects? and no, that is of course not the 'ultimate conclusion').

Maradona (or another player) being good is always a relative thing; hence my mention of his SofaScore rating in relation to other players in the same tournament.

It is of little use to prove the standards were way higher as in the 1950s, or how the intensity and distance covered doubled during the 1960s, or more shots were taken in 1966. Scoring five goals is down to his own quality (if you ask me he was relatively wasteful over a higher sample of games), but inevitably also a product of his own team and the opposition.

What always gets brought up, not necessarily wrong, is that Argentina was pretty mediocre (indirectly a relative assessment!). That might be true, but the opposition wasn't all that either (and you can argue Elo 'overrates' them because of their injuries; 'overrates' Italy because of their ageing core). That's a relative thing indeed, but not irrelevant.

Finally, he played for an established nation in the World Cup ('the highest level'); it's not Lewandowski for Poland - for which scoring a goal against Uruguay is a higher challenge. He played for an established team, as so many other great World Cup players in history. Let's try to assess how (relatively) good the other opponents were at that highest level.

N.B. In the same way, Messi his assist against 'Holland' has to be seen in relation to the opponent and how good or bad the left-back had been (which Argentina was targeting all the time, it was planned).

It is literally based on thousands of matches over a few years. In the year 2019 there were 291 games between the UEFA teams alone, in 2018 the UEFA senior teams played 371 games between each other. That is good enough. It is good enough for a relational web.

Friendlies do not have the same weight as a competitive match. One friendly against Brazil counts for 1/3rd as a qualifier against Bolivia. The system is tweaked well enough. Conversely, some friendlies still have prestige around them. In particular neighboring countries.

In the meantime, players like Platini become judged by his games against Cremonese and Pisa rather than his excellent record at international and continental level (against strong teams, generally producing the goods) with multiple deep runs, finals or trophies. That's terrible, for me.

 

You cannot really extrapolate in this way because Messi has always played with two or three other attackers (four when including the wing-back) while the Serie A stars had often only one other creative player around them.

Furthermore, Barcelona and PSG were just more dominant teams with more ball usages per match to score. The pure game time or time meant to create attacks/patterns has been higher.

I do not doubt though that Maradona was not enormously efficient. In 1986-87 he tried something like 190 open play shots for scoring 10 goals (incl. 3 penalties). I also do not doubt Messi his impact on scoring has been among the best.