And even though I completely reject the premise that the Copa America is comparable to the Euros it can also be added that Maradona failed in the CA and Michel Platini did not Platini won the tournament on his first attempt scoring 9 goals+1 assist in 5 games = 2 goals+assists per game Maradona had 3 attempts and failed in all scoring 4 goals + 1 assist in 12 games. = 0.41 goals + assists per game France did not win another Euros until 13 years after Platini had retired Argentina won consecutive Copa América titles in 1991 and 1993 when Maradona was still an active player but suspended for being a crackhead. Now this will probably surprise you but Maradona the biggest false image in football history,the fake hero of the Argentine people accused his own national team of taking drugs in 1993 Maradona says ’93 Argentina squad took drugs in their coffee - Yahoo Sports Maradona claims drug use among Argentina's '93 team | CBC Sports Maradona: Argentina took drugs before '93 match | Fox Sports He blamed UFOs before and now he shifts the blame to his own NT A crackhead is a crackhead Unreliable,mischievous,devious,cheater and without moral compass
I have nothing to do with other people's personal lives, and of course Maradona was also a person who had many ups and downs in his life, and I myself say that Maradona is not a suitable role model for today's athletes in terms of personality, but here I am discussing football. Tell anyone that Platini was better than Maradona, they will doubt your sanity. You will not see anyone in any reputable newspaper or media that puts Platini above Maradona. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/all-time-overrated-player´s.2126873/page-21#post-41612368 Maradona and Platini played for so long that we didn't know?
Maradona can be of course bigger than Platini and even than Pele' (personally I think equal to Platini and likely sizably smaller than Pele), but the circumstance that no "reputed newspaper" put Platini above Maradona means not much in my opinion. The best known football journalists -in my knowledge at least- are much more often good journalists than very competent experts. In the 80s I was always there in front of the TV when football was concerned and believe me saying Maradona was the best (or even the GOAT), and exaggerating his ability in comparison to other players, had eventually become a cliche'. As I already claimed, I think it was like for the Beatles: them being the "greatest band ever" was much more a "talk of the town" than music experts or musicians well thought opinion (personally I think the Beatles were and are still somewhat overrated). When ex-players that faced or played by the side of Platini and Maradona are asked a comparative judgement (google "Massimo Mauro on Platini and Maradona" for instance if you don't trust me and are interested at knowing better), they tend to say Maradona was slightly above, but no one is remotely close to consider the possibility Platini was better as insanity.
Now, I may have exaggerated a bit, but my point is that Platini was not really good enough to be ranked higher than a player like Maradona, and Platini himself knows this. There is a lot to be said about comparing Pele and Maradona, but the point here is not to lower Maradona to the level of someone like Xavi. Platini is also a great player and for me he is among the top 10 players in history. But in terms of technical quality and impact on the team's results, Maradona was clearly the better player, at least for me. Maradona, along with Messi, are the most talented footballers history has ever seen.
Also, in the case of Maradona vs Platini, much is down to agreeing of what "greatness" has to be. I mean, Maradona reached higher with his obvious WC86 (maybe the all-time pinnacle of football performance), but Platini was on average significantly more effective. There is a little doubt in my opinion -and honestly I can't see how one that has collected a good bunch of samples of his performances over the years and all over the would could deny- Maradona was quite an inconsistent player. Some says he would genuinely shine once every three games. Sometimes he got to be very dull on the pitch. Almost never the case for Platini (unless you consider the very last year of his career).
This inconsistent player has been among the top 3 players of the year 9 times, while Michel Platini has only been among the top 3 players of the year 3 times. This means that Maradona has been among the top 3 players of the year 3 times more than Platini. This difference is not small. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/b...igsoccer-users.2119696/page-107#post-42816506
Even conceding that in 79 and 80 Maradona was not overly magnified by playing in the second-tier Argentinian championship only (at the international tournaments he was involved in, namely Copa America 79 and Mundialito 80-81, he did not shine at all and was not singled out for his performances), as I told you, Maradona had higher peaks, but his inconsistency remains, in his seven season in serie A he displayed quite an oscillating level of performances, and even worse in european cups, where he was never really "clutch" and indeed no one remembers him as a european cups all-timer (the year Napoli won UEFA cup consensus was for Careca being the most effective player of the team). Platini has always been unanimously included among the very best players in both the scenarios (serie A and Europe) bar for his last season. Check ratings awarded by the specialized press to get an idea.
Firstly people who don't study much about maradona's career,simply because they are not a fan of him or sometimes even have some grudge or hate for him,often tend to criticise him and compare with other players without contexts.has been a strage notion for me that 79-81 maradona played in a second tier competition,whereas Argentina won the world cup right inside that time(even without forgetting the Peru match) and Argentine clubs were regularly reaching the libertadores finals just as much or perhaps more than brazilian clubs.whereas Brazil national league of the same time frame is considered here by some as 64 times stronger than metropolitana and nacional. Reality is hard.such a powerful Brazil could not reach a world cup final,neither won the Copa America with Zico,, another generational great is shown in such bad light.
Some of best argentinians players of the 79-81 period used to play abroad, the remaining good ones were all playing for two teams only and average level was quite low. Argentinian teams would often reach Libertadores final while brasilians would only seldom cause matches were more MMA than football. At NT level, Brasil won nothing those years but did always significantly better than Argentina (CA79, Mundialito 81, WC 82). Even in 78 they did better and got robbed. And Brasil could have easily deployed two NTs of the highest level, superbe players back then were ubiquitous between Rio Sao Paulo Belo Horizonte and Porto Alegre. Zico unfortunately could contribute not much: in his entire career, due to injuries, he could play only 3 CA games (2 wins, 1 draw), could not attend Mundialito and could not play all WC78 games.
Ronaldo on the other hand were among the top 3 in 15 years winning in 5 of them (deserved 6). The difference is not small. Yet you consider Maradona greater than him
If Argentine football in the late 70s was truly the best place to play out a career, why did the following happen right after the 1978 World Cup? Mario Kempes was already at Valencia in 1978. Tottenham signed Ossie Ardiles in 1978. Sevilla signed Daniel Bertoni in 1978. Birmingham City signed Alberto Tarantini in 1978. And why did Norberto Alonso fail in Europe in 1976 and rush back to Argentina in 1977? Argentina won the World Cup in 1978 yet their top players(the ones who won the World Cup)immediately moved to Europe or in the case of Kempes were already there If the domestic league was so superior why leave? Moreover why did Carlos Bianchi and Delio onnis spend the vast majority of the 1970s playing in Europe? Boca Juniors were successful in the Copa Libertadores during the late 70s, but not with Diego Maradona. He joined them only in 1981 after their 1977 and 1978 titles. He came back again in 1995, but they didn’t win the Libertadores until 2000 after he had retired. Argentinos Juniors, meanwhile, won nearly all their major trophies only after Maradona left South America. So the timelines don’t add up. And before you say it Maradona scoring four goals against Boca in a single match doesn’t automatically make him “legendary” unless we’re also going to say Valentin Castellanos was a legendary player for putting four past Real Madrid with Girona in 2023/24. Your issue is with chronology and historical accuracy. You thought Gullit was playing in 2002, you misjudged his Serie A impact in the late 80s, and now you’re treating 1979–81 Maradona as if he was competing against the 1978 World Cup winning Argentina squad still in the domestic league.
It is a well-known fact, at least here, that Brazilian clubs cared more about the state and national championships than the Libertadores, which was a bloodbath.
In the pre-satTV and pre-Internet era, it could have even been rather difficult to reliably asses who actually was the best player of the world. I bet very few european pundits had a clear idea of what Maradona was actually achieving in Argentina. They used to know a little about brazilian championship, arguably much less of the Argentinian. Maradona staus of best player of the world was likely forced nearly only by unanimity of argentinian experts and journos. We are much more equipped now to decide on 1979 players.
Probably true for the first statement (but one can put a lot of things behind the term 'technical quality'), extremely doubtful for the second statement (impact on the team's results).
Europeans tend to value South Americans only when they play in Europe and sometimes put one player ahead of another just because he played there when the other was clearly better.
We have to establish what means "technique". Technique is different from ability. Technique = process Ability = objective Example: Finishing ability. Techniques that involve this ability: header, rabona, back heels, outside foot, chip, knuckle, etc... Dribbling ability. Techniques that involve this ability: sombrero, nutmeg, elastico, etc... When we say "Maradona is better technically" we have to ask "in which techniques"?
I do think Maradona his time of 78-81 is a bit overrated to be honest taking into account Argentinian league was a bit depleted by that time (very probably more so than the Brazilian one around 77-83 and with less talent pool arguably), but I think his maximum level of around 1985-1987 is not. I don't think many players outside of prime versions of Pelé, Messi and Cruyff were at his level of good in his prime... and yes I do think he was better than Platini and Zico.... much more individuality in his play, ball retention, dribbling, burst of pace, even exotic techniques, exquisite touches/ball control, perhaps not as good as pure passer as Platini or even split defensive passing or turning with the ball as Zico, but still had very good passing, excellent crossing and great vision as well, and surely a more difficult player to defend in a man-marking, Platini was quite difficult too, as he tends to drop very deep to orchestrate the play, while Zico was more easy to track.
Zico didn't have this,didn't have that,had injuries all the time and maradona had all favours bla bla...yes kempes,ardiles and bertoni were playing abroad but those 3 make the whole league? Also all other good players of 1978 were playing at home be it the brilliant fillol, defenders olguin,galvan, America gallego, luque, Tarantini,houseman, Valencia all of them.and ofcourse passarella.do you imply all of them couldn't make a league good? That would be over the top simply. Now libertadores was MMA barring the instance Zico won it and it helped him reach the Intercontinental.Brazil might have been robbed in 78, but how many goals and assists were his contribution? In the next version he played well ofcourse although not good enough to beat italy.and this was his prime.
Zico had maintaned throughout his entire career -Brasil, Italy, international, with NT- the sciring rate Maradona had in Argentina.
I have no problem with Ronaldo being higher than Maradona, but someone like Platini cannot be higher than Maradona.
The reasons are simple.Zico statpadded beautifully in the Carioca that was much weaker to Brazil serie a.in carioca he scored 232 goals in 270 matches.in Brazil serie a he had about 120 in 210 matches.for brazil his strike rate was much better than diego and so was brazil's compared to diego's Argentina.Attackwise brazil were far better generally.Zico had 12 penalties too for his country and a bit of statpadding like scoring 4 times in one 8-0 rout of Bolivia. In italy his total is 30 goals in 53 matches.
In his first serie A season, at 30-31 years old, Zico scored 19 goal in 24 games. In his last serie A season, at 30, Maradona scored 0(zero) non penalty goals. In his second serie A season Zico, ar 31-32 was badly injuried, and his performance was badly affected. Regarding Argentina, you have to take a decision eventually: either its football and players were very good, as you stated yesterday, meaning that its NT could not be but very good, and thus Maradona's NT scoring was far from being exceptional, or they were sub-par, as you are stating now, and thus Maradona's strong scoring rate in years 79-81 was a consequence of a weak competition (surely it was much easier than Campeonato Carioca). Roughly projecting numbers by means of simple proportionality, in 80 Argentina Zico woud have scored about 1-1.2 goals per game.
With NT, very likely, even though Platini's EURO 84 is not much below Maradona's WC86. In serie A and european cups, I would say the opposite is quite plausible.
The statistics of both players (goal involvement, performances in big games and against big teams) with their respective national teams are extremely close. It is doubtful that one can be said to dominate the other in this context.