Mardona's drug use did not enhance his performance, it only took away. It destroyed his abilities. But the hot take here is "Mardona is overrated" Only by youtube watching fanboys who started watching soccer 5 years ago. Anyone who was around back then, and saw all the fouls that Diego had to overcome and how well played for 90 mins wouldn't dream of even mumbling those words. In fact, a FIFA online vote in 1999 that the entire world was able to vote on, had Diego as the greatest with 55% of the vote - people that saw him play, and not cherrypicked numbers from the wikipedia page all agree that that he was very special.
Yes 1999, 2 years after Maradona retired. He was fresh in people's minds not to mention he had far more media exposure than Pele. Serie A in the 1980s was shown throughout the world in colour, Pele never had that luxury. If you take that poll now Messi and Ronaldo would be the top two. You even get idiots like Rummenigge saying things like Maradona was better because he played in Europe. That is the bias that Pele faced, it's a very Eurocentric point of view. Brazil was the best team in the world from 1958 - 1970 and all of their players played in Brazil. So the Brazilian league was actually superior than any in Europe at the time. It was only after the 1982 World Cup when the top stars from South America went to Europe in large numbers. Even a past his best Zico shone in Italy so imagine a peak Pele in the 1960s, he'd wreak havoc. So don't worry too much about polls when even great players like Rummenigge make idiotic statements. Maradona was a great and extremely gifted player but he was not as consistent as Pele, Messi, Ronaldo and Cruyff.
The post here is not stating that Maradona was not consistent, its declaring by some fool that Maradona was overrated. Only a fanboy with an axe to grind would make that claim. I can almost with certainty predict this person background - but I digress. Back in the 50-60, and even the 70's, most South American players played in their home countries. There were a few Argentineans that played in Europe, but when they wen to Europe they would be nationalized and played for the country they were living in (DiStefano, Omar Sivori, etc) - so, its nothing especial that the players stayed home. But even with all that, the European leagues were ahead of South American leagues. The talent game was not as wide as it is now, but they were just better. I love Romario's quote about Pele that he (Pele) counted goals in even in practices. No one talks enough about the fact that statistics were not kept back then the way they are now, and a lot of Pele's goals stats are questionable and have been debunked. The official goal tally for Pele is far lower than what was once claimed - Pele counted goals from exhibition games against lower opponents which were unnoficial matches. For example, some of the exhibition games that goals were once counted were games against Saudi Arabia's U-23 team, combined squads of lower/regional teams on tour and even counted some military events when Pele served in the army (games against Uruguay's armed forces). Pele and the Brazilian media once claimed over 1,200 goals, but the RSSSF (the most accurate source for soccer stats) only has Pele with 769 goals from official games. So . . . was Maradona as consistent as Pele? depends who's figures you're going to trust
So you honestly think the English first division and Eredivisie of the mid to late 60s would have better quality and competition than the Brazilian league of the same period? I don't think so. In those days teams featured very few foreign players. The talent pool in Brazil was simply bigger than any country in Europe. The European Cup was no way near as competitive as the modern day Champions League. Officially Pele has 77 goals in 92 caps for Brazil and 569 goals in 583 games for Santos. Amazing numbers for a second striker/number 10. I don't care about the 1000+ goals but these official numbers are very impressive. Only now in Messi has a player playing in a similar position with similar attributes posted such numbers.
Come on, La Liga and Serie A were the premier (no pun) leagues in Europe in the 60's. The Madrid teams had DiStefano (ARG), Puskas (Hungary), Marquitos (Brazil), Kopa (France) Paco Gento & Luis del Sol (Spain) - Madrid even had South American managers (Carniglia). And the Italian Serie A had Sivori (ARG), Riva (Italy), Facchetti, etc. Bottom line, if you are looking for the Class of Europe in the 50-60, it was Serie A and La Liga where a lot of the talent was playing. In the 1970s is when we see clubs outside of Serie A and La Liga begin to win Champions Leagues. And as far as the overall "dominance of the Brazilian league", its worth pointing out that between 1960 (first year of Copa Libertadores) and 1980, Brazilian clubs won 3 Copa Libertadores, while Uruguayan clubs won 4 and Argentinean clubs won 12 Copa Libertadores. And as far as national team champion in South America (via the Copa America), Brazil won in 1949 and did not win it again until 1989. In fact, Brazil only managed one-runner up finish Copa America (in 1959, when Argentina won it). So I would say that between 1958-1970, Brazil won the most World Cup (3 in all, amazing feat), but I don't see this "domination" that you speak of. Not at the club level in South America, nor in national team competitions outside of the WC .
Hi all: neat board you've got here. About time I stepped out into the light. Many interesting posters over the years have inspired this: Gregoriak, comme, jamesbh11, PuckVanHeel, Peru FC, RoyOfTheRovers, to name a few. Anyway, I was thinking about Maradona and his relative status in the pantheon of the absolute best to ever play. Among pantheon players: When I think of Cruijff and Messi, they stand out among all players in history for their absolute mastery of space and time. They are simply able to detect and influence the emergent structures of a football match to a higher degree than we have seen from any others. Their football algorithms are the most refined. Platini and Xavi come very close here. [For the record, I rate Messi and Cruijff as the best in history because they, in a sense, will survive as algorithm sets long after Maradona and Pelé have finished feeding the fishes. We can learn from them. We can't exactly learn from Maradona and Pelé. We can only behold in awe.] The most differential physiques have been the Ronaldos. The gordo's body, naturally speaking, simply had everything you could want on a football pitch out of an athlete—too much so, as we discovered in 99-01. The one who makes bad statues of himself, at his own peak from ~07-10, had 95% of Luis's physical ability on the ground and a much superior level in the air. Maradona, perhaps with some others like Sindelar, Garrincha, Ronaldinho, Bochini, Baggio, Zidane, van Basten, Bergkamp, carve out the utmost brilliance in their direct ball manipulation. Surpassing greatness in ball conduction and technique is the most vulnerable attribute cluster to max out on. You can be: physically dislodged from the ball, positionally isolated from your teammates/an advantageous path forward by the defenders, relationally defused by your teammates' lack of awareness and response. A great algorithm can potentially run ahead of these problems and route around them; a great physique can simply go through them. Great technique seems to accept and invite failure moreso than the other paths. We tend to forget forget that, alongside short precise passing and rhythmic feints, o joga bonito/Creole football traditionally incorporates much long percentage low shooting. A good amount of Maradona's direct production is tied up in dead balls, where he could breathe for a moment from the defenders' assault of his person, and allow his technique to express its dominion over the ball without contestation. When you separate the controversy [cheating, drugs, politics] from the actual footballing discussion, I think the inherent frailty of technique is part of why Maradona is the most contentious pantheon level player in strictly footballing terms, and why there remains fierce debate about whether Zidane belongs on the pantheon at all. It can be difficult to see how these players can be consistently decisive at a high enough level of efficiency over large numbers of games. Notably, this subtype can be maximally decisive over smaller sample sizes. Maradona has probably the greatest single tournament performance in WC86. Zidane in Euro 00 has one of the absolute highest class. Cruijff himself divided football into physique, technique, and tactics. Pelé perhaps has come closest to maxing out on all three of these attribute clusters looked at in isolation. If you tried to fit all these types together from the start rather than examining and then maxing them out individually, you might end up with Di Stéfano or R. Charlton.
Cruyff does not deserve to be in the same sentence as Maradona. Not even the same sentence. This is an absurd take.
Can you back this statement: You can be: physically dislodged from the ball, positionally isolated from your teammates/an advantageous path forward by the defenders, relationally defused by your teammates' lack of awareness and response. With respect to the players mentioned. I disagree to the utmost degree, and see no evidence or anything concrete for this statement. Maradona was a very strong player, and extremely hard to isolate, and had the work rate to be implicated as well as a varied bag of tricks and being the best dribbler of all time. If anything, Messi is the player that stands out as having suffered the most from external conditions not being perfect (CL, Argentina, PSG, etc.). Definitely not guys who succeeded everywhere...
That's exactly correct about Maradona's physique. I'll say in addition than a) he is somewhat unique among players of this type [Zidane also counts], b) his genius on the ball deepened after his physique degraded [both due to age and specifically due to Goikoetxea who should have been tried in Spanish court as a serial offender]. To my eye at least, losing his condition and explosiveness over time didn't make him a worse or even a very different player. In fact I think his level remained very similar though a range of physical conditions thoughout his career. The passage you quoted was meant to draw a distinction between players who use technique as a means to the end of influencing their team such as Messi and Cruijff, and players for whom getting into a position to use technique to destabilize the opposition is the end. I'd fully expect the former sort to be more reliant on conditions around the on their own team being more optimal. The latter sort is more likely to be thrown off by the opposition instead. Where Cruijff excels above Messi is his assertiveness in shaping his team. I think this helps raise the floor level of a team with him on it vs Messi slightly, all other things being equal. Messi shapes his team so well implicitly just by his movements and awareness that sometimes when they need to be more explicitly directed he can falter. I hope this is clearer.
Just wanna say that we do have to be careful with these votes. If one was conducted today and Messi/Ronaldo are top 2, you wouldn't necessary agree with it.
Why not? He was only slightly less skilful than Maradona (but faster) and put Dutch football on the map, leading Ajax to 3 consecutive Champions league wins. He was unlucky to face the home nation Germany in the 1984 final. Pele, Messi, Cruyff, Maradona were 4 great explosive players who could dribble, be great playmakers and score many goals. Out of these 4 Maradona wasted his career somewhat with his drug abuse and being overweight.
I only disagree with the part you said Maradona could score as many goals as the other 3 players you mentioned. Pelé, Messi and Cruijff are on another stratosphere in therms of goalscoring ability
Earlier on in his career he did score quite a lot but as he abused his body more and got fatter and prematurely slower he became less of a goal threat, unable to get away from defenders. He had a good goalscoring record in Argentina and Barcelona.
Maradona even on his Argentina and Barcelona version didn't came close to the goalscoring level of Pelé, Cruijff and Messi man. Only if you look at clearly "past it" versions of them. Maradona were an average goalscorer even to his peers
I don't know enough about his time in Argentina, but it is interesting, the drop. It is possibly a combination of physical decline, change in playing style, and Europe being more defensive league than Argentina.
There is no point by which one can say that Cruyff is a better goal scorer than Maradona, at most, they are on the same level. In similar contexts, they would score similar numbers, and at certain points in his career, Maradona has been 'more of a goal scorer' than Cruyff, for example, at Argentinos Juniors. In the total of their careers: Maradona Non-penalty goals: 0.390 Team's goals: 1.616 Cruyff Non-penalty goals: 0.570 Team's goals: 2.597 The percentage of team goals that the player scored, subtracting the player's assists from the total team goals (since a player cannot score the goals that he himself assists). Pelé: 40.85% Messi: 39.73% Zico: 37.17% Cristiano: 36.07% Puskás: 34.75% Maradona: 33.26% Platini: 32.01% Di Stéfano: 31.66% Neymar: 29.42% Cruyff: 26.82% One Club: Maradona at Argentinos Juniors: 45.57% Maradona at Barcelona: 36.08% Cruyff at Ajax: 33.11% Maradona at Napoli: 26.35% Cruyff at Barcelona: 20.20% If we consider that playing in Spain/Italy/England is playing at the top level in Europe, Cruyff only played 181 matches in leagues that were at the highest level possible for that era. Maradona and Cruyff in similar contexts: If Maradona had played in the 1960s, he would have averaged 1 goal per game, and people would have a completely different opinion of a player just because he has different statistics, but he would still be the same player. 🇦🇷Diego Maradona playing for high scoring teamsWhen his team scored 3 or more goals153 Games167 Goals (35 penalties, 30 free kicks, 14 headers)99 Assists (Opta)Per 90 minutes: Goals: 1.166 ⚽️Non-Penalty Goals: 0.922 ⚽️Assists: 0.691 🎯G+A: 1.857 🔥G+A-PK: 1.613 🔥 pic.twitter.com/NHdv8w7ws8— ... (@Trachta10) May 30, 2023 The main reason why one player scores more goals than another is the number of shots they take. If you give Maradona, Messi, or Puskás the same number of shots, they would score similar numbers of goals. The fact that Maradona's goal conversion rate is within the normal range also supports my point. In conclusion, I love talking about statistics, but I believe they harm football, especially when making comparisons across different eras, as they can completely distort the perspective we have on players just because the 'numbers' aren't high. No one in their right mind who has seen Maradona play would say that he is a poor goalscorer or lacks ability in this regard.
Maradona 1987 Copa America imo was a good Campaign. He was Great vs Ecuador (Group) Very good vs Peru (Group)even Decent vs Colombia(3rd Place Match) where he actually had good General Play and created 2 Big Chances.but only slightly above average vs Uruguay ( Semi) pic.twitter.com/IzVOrxdDqh— The Eye Test Merchant (@usetheeyetest) October 15, 2023
These sort of discussions always go to very strange places so people tend to get bogged down by such things. I don't think anyone is doubting Maradona's non-goal contributions. That much is clear. What people are questioning is, for the people who (over) rate Maradona to be superior or equal to someone like Pele, does Maradona's non-goal contributions add enough to make up for the difference in hundreds of goals. For sure, we shouldn't get too focused on Maradona's goalscoring. We should be analysing the value of his non-goal contributions to see if they are enough to put him in that category.
Have a look at Maradona his shots on target percentage at the World Cups. That gives a hint for you. It is much lower, even in his best tournament (1986). It's also lower than Platini for instance. Also: in 1986-87 he produced over 190 shots according to Guerin Sportivo and made 7 non-penalty goals in the league. Also dishonest: take a look at the actual Uefa coefficients ranking for the 1970s...
One thing I can say, is that earlier towards the end of Maradona's career people were more aware of what he did and defended him more. Now that we're further away from his career, just like Pele's fading presence, less people are putting Maradona into the mix. It's a sad state because that's just life, one day Messi and Ronaldo will suffer the same fate.
Messi and Ronaldo will suffer less because there's more footage of them available and their stats/titles are simply more impressive than Maradona's. Messi will also likely be held more closely to Pele, while Ronaldo in 50 years time will likely be closer to Cruyff today.