https://acervo.estadao.com.br/pagina/#!/19590804-25846-nac-0022-999-22-not https://gameofthepeople.com/2021/03/03/the-greatest-goal-pele-ever-scored/
No, you tend to reason incorrectly because you see things in a very absolute way, without considering nuance. When you say 'Messi scored 91 goals ONLY because Barcelona and Argentina scored a lot of goals,' that’s, again, an absolute way of reasoning. No, Messi didn’t score 91 goals ONLY because his teams scored many goals, but yes, to a large extent, there’s a combination of external and internal factors that led Messi to reach such a high number. In a different context, the number would have been different. I think that’s obvious. Now, regarding whether Messi’s number is excellent or not, I also think it’s obviously excellent, because even taking his context into account, it’s still an exceptionally good number. And if we consider the contribution% method based solely on goals, it's his best year. So again, how do I know where the truth lies? If raw G+A tells me that Messi has twice as much as Maradona, but the G+A contribution% shows similar numbers between the two players, then I know — or at least I sense — that the raw G+A is further from the truth, because I know Messi is not twice the player Maradona was. Now, I also wouldn’t easily claim that if Maradona has a better G+A contribution% than Messi, that makes him a better player. You definitely can’t give a definitive answer.
Diego Maradona 1981 Games: 42 (3749 Min) Goals: 29 (9PK, 4FK, 2hdr) Assists: 16 (Opta) Assists: 2 (Non-Opta) Pre-Assists: 5 (Opta) Pre-Assists: 2 (Non-Opta) Team Contribution 54/75: 72% Clutch Contribution 32/42: 76.2% Best player in the American continent in 1981 Organized by El Gráfico, France Football mentions it as the equivalent of the European Ballon d'Or, with a similar voting system. Maradona: 485 pts Zico: 292 pts Fillol: 120 pts Pelé votes: 1-Falcao 2-Zico 3-Maradona 4-Sócrates 5-Fillol Zico votes: 1-Maradona 2-Sócrates 3-Reinaldo 4-Pasarella 5-Junior
It is presented as 1981 best South American player but I would say that actually it is referred to performances during year 1980. Indeed the magazine has a reminder to Mundialito, that took place in January 1981, described as "actualitè du football". In 1981 I guess the general consensus was for Zico after his display of masterclass at Intercontinental Cup 1981 against Liverpool.
Yeah, that's the 1980 results list: El Gráfico Américas player of the year (1980-1983) | BigSoccer Forum 1981 didn't go to Zico with them, quite, but did with the El Mundo South American Player of the Year voting: South American Player of the Year 1981 South American Coach and Player of the Year I had probably mis-read the El Grafico one as truly being from 1981 at some point at first glance myself, thinking also that votes for Falcao, including from Pele, could make sense if voters saw enough of him at Roma, but yeah he's listed as just an Internacional player and the voting is meant to be based on players playing in South America....
Instead of asking how many goals or assists a player produced — or even what percentage of their team’s output they accounted for — we should be asking: how hard were those contributions to achieve, how important were they to the team’s success, who they came against, what role the player was performing, and whether that impact scaled under pressure. Raw G/A flatters players in high-scoring teams. G/A contribution% flatters players in low-functioning ones. Neither metric, on its own, tells you whether the player was truly carrying, simply operating efficiently within a great system, or thriving against weak opposition. What matters isn’t just volume or share — it’s difficulty, indispensability, scalability, and crucially, the impact on team success. Now, let’s apply this framework to Messi’s 2012 season — often hailed as one of the most prolific in history. With 91 goals across all competitions, it’s impossible to ignore the sheer statistical brilliance. However, when we evaluate his contributions through the lenses of difficulty, indispensability, scalability, and impact on team success, a more nuanced picture begins to emerge. While Messi’s individual talent in 2012 was undeniable, the context of his performance must be considered. Barcelona, in that year, was a high scoring, well oiled machine. The team consistently dominated weaker opposition, which provided Messi with more opportunities for goals. But this volume of goals came against a weakened competitive landscape — in a league and European competition where many teams were not capable of competing on the same level as Barcelona. Messi’s goals, while spectacular, were often a product of systemic superiority rather than uncontested brilliance against top tier defenses. Messi’s 91 goals were undeniably vital to Barcelona’s success, but his indispensability is less clear when we consider the broader team context. While Messi was the main contributor, Barcelona’s over reliance on him left the team vulnerable when he faltered. The 2012 Copa del Rey title is the only major silverware Barcelona won that year — and it’s important to note that Messi’s performance was critical in that cup run, but it still didn’t translate to the broader success the team expected in Europe or La Liga. For example, when Barcelona needed Messi most, particularly in the Champions League semifinal against Chelsea, his lack of impact — missing a penalty and failing to score — was telling. This inability to deliver when it mattered most, particularly in decisive moments, raises questions about his true indispensability in high pressure, high stakes situations. Looking at scalability — could Messi’s performance have been replicated across different systems or in different contexts? With a team like Barcelona’s in 2012, Messi’s style of play was incredibly well suited. He thrived in an environment that maximized his skills, particularly his dribbling, vision, and link up play. But how would Messi’s contributions have scaled in a less supportive system or a more defensively oriented team? Would he have had the same impact if placed in a mid table side or one facing far stiffer competition week in and week out? His absolute numbers are impressive, but the team setup played a significant role in amplifying his output. This challenges the narrative that Messi’s 91 goals were purely a measure of his raw, untouchable greatness. This is the most telling aspect. Despite scoring 91 goals, Barcelona didn’t win the Champions League, and they didn’t win La Liga. The absence of Messi's crucial goals in critical moments, particularly against the strongest opponents, speaks to the limitations of raw G/A when assessing a player's overall impact. In La Liga, Messi's failure to score in key matches — such as against Real Madrid in the Clasicos or when Barcelona dropped points in matches where his contribution could’ve been decisive — undermines the narrative that his output was indispensable to the team’s overall success. In the Champions League, Messi’s inability to deliver in the Chelsea tie — the missed penalty, the lack of goals — illustrated that his record, while astonishing, didn’t translate to performance when it mattered most. While Messi’s 91 goals are undeniably a historic feat, a deeper look reveals that the sheer volume of goals does not automatically equate to the most decisive or impactful season when considering difficulty, indispensability, scalability, and impact on team success. His contributions were significant in a dominant Barcelona side, but they didn’t always come in the high leverage moments that matter most in football. His record becomes a product of opportunity and system, rather than a universal marker of indomitable greatness. For a player to be truly regarded as having the best season, we must evaluate not just how many goals he scored, but when and how those goals contributed to tangible success — and Messi's 2012 season, despite its brilliance, failed to deliver in the most important contexts.
Diego Maradona 1992-1994 Games: 46 (3946 Min) Goals: 8 (4PK, 1FK) Assists: 19 (Opta) Assists: 2 (Non-Opta) Pre-Assists: 6 (Opta) Pre-Assists: 3 (Non-Opta) Team Contribution 38/56: 67.86% Clutch Contribution 26/39: 66.67%
Diego Maradona All Club Games in Europe Games: 345 (29935 Min) Goals: 159 (51PK, 30FK, 11Hdr) Assists: 111 (Opta) Assists: 35 (Non-Opta) Pre-Assists: 47 (Opta) Pre-Assists: 19 (Non-Opta) Team Contribution 371/541: 68.6% Clutch Contribution 215/311: 69.2% Updated file: https://www.mediafire.com/file/t11gadmb1wbbtlj/Diego+Maradona+Pre-A.xlsx/file
Good angle for assists would be percantage relative to total numbe of assists by team rather than goals. For pre-assists as well but that is extremely difficult to execute. I reckon teams do not assist their goals at the same rates. Just an idea
A sidenote to this: I was watching some footages of Maradona at Barcelona a few days days ago. Most of the goals he scored for the blaugrana did look quintessential striker's goals. His position was more upfront than at Napoli. It seems at about 25 years old he matured into quite a different kind of player.
Total Involvement% in the Team's Shots (In matches with a similar number of shots, approximately 20 per game)
Excellent post mate. What's rhe point of bagging 5 vs Zaragoza but walking away without the trophies because you are not scoring in the crucial moments. If you were around at the time, you'd remember barca teammates were just forcefeeding Messi to force the stats / record and potential bdor run. It was quite transparent
It's true that the sample is larger, but I'm not necessarily choosing the best matches available, rather, games that are quite iconic or relevant. Still, it's true that it's not a very useful comparison, the intention was to show that Maradona was indeed capable of statistically producing GOAT-level performances, not to claim that this comparison proves he's superior to Pelé or Messi. Also, I realized that these charts have a lot of errors because they were made using YouTube compilations instead of watching full matches, which means a lot of actions are missed. For example, in the match against Poland in 1980, I counted 7 key passes, but this chart only shows 3. So, in the end, it's data that's not useful at all.