Lionel Messi is OFFICIALLY the Greatest Player of all Time (CONFIRMED OFFICIAL)

jm99 said:
Argentina were second favourites for the tournament behind France when it started painting them as underdogs seems a bit strange. I've not downplayed what he achieved at all, I'm genuinely surprised that so many people don't think that club football is the highest level, I thought it was pretty widely agreed, the world cup is fantastic for messi's legacy, a big achievement and probably will solidify him as the GOAT for many people, but the idea it's a harder level of football compared to the CL is bizarre
Click to expand...
You’re very insistent and confident that the CL is a much harder competition than the WC - the same competition where the landscape is so skewed by 6-8 “super clubs”….and basically the rest being fillers for the most part. How are you so sure that the CL is “harder” to win that the WC when, for the most part id guess 70-80% of the CL quarter and semi finalists are the same teams, year on year?

Also, has it maybe occurred to you that argentina became so highly rated in much part because of his influence over them? Check his copa stats and then his World Cup stats. So it goes both ways.

Anyhow, we left this discussion a couple days ago and just agreed to disagree. Your stance is pretty clear.
 
jm99 said:
I'm not suggesting pre tournament I'd have picked them, like you say Brazil, England and Portugal underperformed, but they did have a fairly easy run to the final, where they then had a great performance against France, at least for the first 80 min. There wasn't any individual game on the way to the final I'd have expected them to lose though
Click to expand...
Netherlands and Croatia are good teams which I think could beat Argentina and it wouldn't be a surprise.

I agree it was not a difficult run to the final but I wouldn't say easy as well.

France had an easier run as I believe the only good team they had to beat was England.

Morocco in the semi finals is the best you can ask for.

I think the story of the world cup was the big teams all underperformed except France but they didn't show much against England, Morocco or Argentina to be fair so they didn't really have a good run by their standards.
 
Ish said:
You’re very insistent and confident that the CL is a much harder competition than the WC - the same competition where the landscape is so skewed by 6-8 “super clubs”….and basically the rest being fillers for the most part. How are you so sure that the CL is “harder” to win that the WC when, for the most part id guess 70-80% of the CL quarter and semi finalists are the same teams, year on year?

Also, has it maybe occurred to you that argentina became so highly rated in much part because of his influence over them? Check his copa stats and then his World Cup stats. So it goes both ways.
Click to expand...

It's not just the super clubs though that make it harder, I mean let's take Portugal and Argentina as examples, there's no way Maradona would have been left in charge of barcelona in 2010, there's no way santos would have 8 years in charge of any club team Ronaldo played at, even Southgate would have been given his books by now by a club team. The best managers are at club level, the champions league takes place over 8 months not 4 weeks, so a random injury to your best player doesn't feck the whole thing. It's two legged knockouts which generally mean the better side goes through, and teams actually train together year round rather than for a week or something pre tournament.

If you only watched world cups you'd think James Rodriguez was one of the best players ever, and he played for a Colombia team for weaker than any Argentina side. The best players in the champions league tend to be the best players, the best players at world cups are often flash in the pans. The fact the whole tournament takes place over a month, and the quality can be so uneven allows for that
 
Vialli_92 said:
Netherlands and Croatia are good teams which I think could beat Argentina and it wouldn't be a surprise.

I agree it was not a difficult run to the final but I wouldn't say easy as well.

France had an easier run as I believe the only good team they had to beat was England.

Morocco in the semi finals is the best you can ask for.

I think the story of the world cup was the big teams all underperformed except France but they didn't show much against England, Morocco or Argentina to be fair so they didn't really have a good run by their standards.
Click to expand...

That was my big disappointment with this world cup, the best ever final, or at least in my lifetime, but so few big games, I know its always fun to see the underdogs progress but it does reduce the quality of the later stages, we only really had France-England, France-Argentina and Spain-Germany for the entire tournament
 
Ish said:
You’re very insistent and confident that the CL is a much harder competition than the WC - the same competition where the landscape is so skewed by 6-8 “super clubs”….and basically the rest being fillers for the most part. How are you so sure that the CL is “harder” to win that the WC when, for the most part id guess 70-80% of the CL quarter and semi finalists are the same teams, year on year?

Also, has it maybe occurred to you that argentina became so highly rated in much part because of his influence over them? Check his copa stats and then his World Cup stats. So it goes both ways.

Anyhow, we left this discussion a couple days ago and just agreed to disagree. Your stance is pretty clear.
Click to expand...
CL is a much higher level of football due to the super clubs and every team picking the best players to suit their style/system and mix into the fact they train together for 9 months per year and performances will be higher for club as well as the monopoly in football creating a clear advantage for the big clubs as the smaller teams simply can't compete and have their best players taken away every year increasing the advantage of the big clubs.

It's harder to perform for country due to limited time spent together to train and develop understandings and synergy together as well as having much less players to choose from and tactics being more simple where games are won by very fine margins.

The level is lower for country and the football and tactics are more simple which makes it harder for players to perform well when their club teams are so much more synergised and have much higher quality of player that they are playing with who know all the movements they are going to make.

Different levels of football and you really can't compare them but definitely the CL is a higher level but for the reasons I stated before I think it's harder to perform for your country.
 
Vialli_92 said:
Netherlands and Croatia are good teams which I think could beat Argentina and it wouldn't be a surprise.

I agree it was not a difficult run to the final but I wouldn't say easy as well.

France had an easier run as I believe the only good team they had to beat was England.

Morocco in the semi finals is the best you can ask for.

I think the story of the world cup was the big teams all underperformed except France but they didn't show much against England, Morocco or Argentina to be fair so they didn't really have a good run by their standards.
Click to expand...

If Argentina didnt keep conceding after going ahead i would have rated them higher, but there were only a few games where they comfortably won. In the highest stake games they were jammy as hell.
 
Gehrman said:
If Argentina didnt keep conceding after going ahead i would have rated them higher, but there were only a few games where they comfortably won. In the highest stake games they were jammy as hell.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it was mentality or lack of fitness, because even the second half against France they looked so comfortable ahead, but collapsed in the last ten minutes to the point where France looked unlucky not to win, and obviously similar happened against Netherlands and almost Australia
 
Gehrman said:
If Argentina didnt keep conceding after going ahead i would have rated them higher, but there were only a few games where they comfortably won. In the highest stake games they were jammy as hell.
Click to expand...
Yeah which is why in my opinion if the world cup started again next month I don't think they would come close to winning it.

They did what they had to do but i think they were quite lucky to win it when you consider how much they conceded and how the best teams all got knocked out early.

It was more of a miracle that Argentina won it in the end.
 
jm99 said:
The only side you wouldn't have expected Argentina to beat was France its not as if they went past England, Brazil and Spain on the way to the final
Click to expand...

portugal’s run in the euro was far easier and Argentina dominated every single team they played. Dominated a better France side than Portugal did and Spain in 2018 was the worst Spain side of the last 15 years
 
GinobiliTheGOAT said:
portugal’s run in the euro was far easier and Argentina dominated every single team they played. Dominated a better France side than Portugal did and Spain in 2018 was the worst Spain side of the last 15 years
Click to expand...

What has Portugal's run got to do with anything, just already said they should have done better this year, and I never mentioned their euros performance?
 
Gehrman said:
If Argentina didnt keep conceding after going ahead i would have rated them higher, but there were only a few games where they comfortably won. In the highest stake games they were jammy as hell.
Click to expand...

I’d argue the opposite. Not a single match in that WC did Argentina not deserve. They had bad nervy moments near the end of France and Netherlands but they outplayed every single opponent they met for this tourney. France were a lot more jammy than Argentina both in the final and against England.
 
Vialli_92 said:
CL is a much higher level of football due to the super clubs and every team picking the best players to suit their style/system and mix into the fact they train together for 9 months per year and performances will be higher for club as well as the monopoly in football creating a clear advantage for the big clubs as the smaller teams simply can't compete and have their best players taken away every year increasing the advantage of the big clubs.

It's harder to perform for country due to limited time spent together to train and develop understandings and synergy together as well as having much less players to choose from and tactics being more simple where games are won by very fine margins.

The level is lower for country and the football and tactics are more simple which makes it harder for players to perform well when their club teams are so much more synergised and have much higher quality of player that they are playing with who know all the movements they are going to make.

Different levels of football and you really can't compare them but definitely the CL is a higher level but for the reasons I stated before I think it's harder to perform for your country.
Click to expand...
Apologies should have phrased my opinion better - I agree with you in terms of “quality” but the prestige of winning a World Cup (even moreso playing a starring role in it) is unmatched - especially for the reasons you mention (limited time together, can’t “buy” a team etc). So yeah, UCL is definitely a “higher level at the top end” but it’s still also a club “dominated” by a handful of rich clubs, with the odd upset now and then.

I just don’t agree with trying to downplay the importance of winning a World Cup, especially in a “GOaT” conversation - moreso when you dominated the tournament.
 
jm99 said:
Yeah during the games it was it shaky, but prior to every game you would have expected them to win them, there wasn't any game where they weren't favourites till the final.

I would have expected that as well, though I think people went a bit crazy after they thrashed switzerland, definitely still should have beat Morocco though
Click to expand...
There wasn’t any game where they weren’t better than the opponents and there wasn’t any game where they didn’t deserve the win and there wasn’t any game that Messi wasn’t the best player on the pitch, that should say something.
 
Pocho said:
There wasn’t any game where they weren’t better than the opponents and there wasn’t any game where they didn’t deserve the win and there wasn’t any game that Messi wasn’t the best player on the pitch, that should say something.
Click to expand...

I'd say mbappe was probably better in the final.

Was there any game where they didn't get a penalty either? :lol: Messi was great but I cam guarantee if Ronaldo had scored four penalties in a world cup then the Penaldo comments would have been here in force from the same people saying how amazing Messi was. He did play really well, but being the best player on the pitch against Saudi Arabia (was he? Missed penalty, they lost, not there second half) Poland, Mexico, Australia, Netherlands and Croatia, I mean would you expect him to not be the best player on pitch? In 4 of the games you'd be disappointed if he wasn't, and you'd still expect it in the other 2
 
jm99 said:
I'd say mbappe was probably better in the final.

Was there any game where they didn't get a penalty either? :lol: Messi was great but I cam guarantee if Ronaldo had scored four penalties in a world cup then the Penaldo comments would have been here in force from the same people saying how amazing Messi was. He did play really well, but being the best player on the pitch against Saudi Arabia (was he? Missed penalty, they lost, not there second half) Poland, Mexico, Australia, Netherlands and Croatia, I mean would you expect him to not be the best player on pitch? In 4 of the games you'd be disappointed if he wasn't, and you'd still expect it in the other 2
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
jm99 said:
It's not just the super clubs though that make it harder, I mean let's take Portugal and Argentina as examples, there's no way Maradona would have been left in charge of barcelona in 2010, there's no way santos would have 8 years in charge of any club team Ronaldo played at, even Southgate would have been given his books by now by a club team. The best managers are at club level, the champions league takes place over 8 months not 4 weeks, so a random injury to your best player doesn't feck the whole thing. It's two legged knockouts which generally mean the better side goes through, and teams actually train together year round rather than for a week or something pre tournament.

If you only watched world cups you'd think James Rodriguez was one of the best players ever, and he played for a Colombia team for weaker than any Argentina side. The best players in the champions league tend to be the best players, the best players at world cups are often flash in the pans. The fact the whole tournament takes place over a month, and the quality can be so uneven allows for that
Click to expand...
But we’re not talking about a “flash in the pan”….we’re talking about the greatest player of all time having a (second) man of the tournament award and winning it. That’s the point.
 
Ish said:
:lol:
Click to expand...

Are you laughing at mbappe being better in the final? Yes Messi was better for the first part, but he single handedly turned it around and in the end France could have won it in 90 mins
 
People really put team effort and team titles in regards to who is the goat. But the focus should be much more on invidial awards like Ballon d'ors, Man of the match etc.

Anyways, Psg is not among the top 3 to win the CL, they are clearly underdogs Vs. Bayern. Btw Messi has 4 goals and 2 assists in 6 CL against Bayern if I remember correctly.

In my eyes, both Messi and Ronaldo has not played in a top 3 CL club in several years.
 
Ish said:
But we’re not talking about a “flash in the pan”….we’re talking about the greatest player of all time having a (second) man of the tournament award and winning it. That’s the point.
Click to expand...

But if the world cup was the hardest level then players like Rodriguez and Diego forlan would have been ballon d'or level. It's not so much that the best players don't perform at the world cup, it's that minor issues can affect a whole tournament because it takes place over such a short period of time, Ronaldo's knee injury in 2014 is a good example of that, he's had probably his two best seasons at Madrid, but he's carrying a knock and the time between the champions league final and the world cup isn't enough to recover and he has a poor tournament because he's not fit. That doesn't mean anything with regards to his quality.

Mbappe would be already consider one of the greatest players ever if the world cup was really the absolute pinnacle of football
 
jm99 said:
But if the world cup was the hardest level then players like Rodriguez and Diego forlan would have been ballon d'or level. It's not so much that the best players don't perform at the world cup, it's that minor issues can affect a whole tournament because it takes place over such a short period of time, Ronaldo's knee injury in 2014 is a good example of that, he's had probably his two best seasons at Madrid, but he's carrying a knock and the time between the champions league final and the world cup isn't enough to recover and he has a poor tournament because he's not fit. That doesn't mean anything with regards to his quality.

Mbappe would be already consider one of the greatest players ever if the world cup was really the absolute pinnacle of football
Click to expand...
You’re missing my point though. Messi has done both: balon d’or level and starred at a World Cup (arguably 2).
 
Ish said:
You’re missing my point though. Messi has done both: balon d’or level and starred at a World Cup (arguably 2).
Click to expand...

No I get that, my point is the world cup clearly isn't harder to perform at when you get players who get nominated for the golden ball but never come close to that level over their club career, the vastly poorer quality of managers, the limited time training together, the short time the competition takes place over, it's disruptive to how players normally play, but its not a better judge of quality
 
jm99 said:
No I get that, my point is the world cup clearly isn't harder to perform at when you get players who get nominated for the golden ball but never come close to that level over their club career, the vastly poorer quality of managers, the limited time training together, the short time the competition takes place over, it's disruptive to how players normally play, but its not a better judge of quality
Click to expand...
Those reasons could all be turned on it’s head as proof of how difficult it is to perform at that level and propel your nation to a WC win as well.
 
Ish said:
Those reasons could all be turned on it’s head as proof of how difficult it is to perform at that level and propel your nation to a WC win as well.
Click to expand...

I mean I guess you could, we could also have a new tournament where every player has to play with ankle weights on, and I'm sure it would be more difficult to perform, it doesn't make it a better judge of quality.
 
jm99 said:
I mean I guess you could, we could also have a new tournament where every player has to play with ankle weights on, and I'm sure it would be more difficult to perform, it doesn't make it a better judge of quality.
Click to expand...
Your attempts to downplay how big a feat it is to win a WC - still seen as the epitome of football by many/most is quite impressive, I must say :lol:
 
Ish said:
Your attempts to downplay how big a feat it is to win a WC - still seen as the epitome of football by many/most is quite impressive, I must say :lol:
Click to expand...

It's a great feat and a huge achievement but it's only seen as the peak because its held over from the past when it genuinely was the highest level of football. It clearly isn't now, and so it's not the best judge of quality, messi's body of work for his club is a far bigger indicator of his quality and the idea that he's only the GOAT because of 7 games when he was 35 is bizarre. He has more than enough from his overall career to make that claim. But in your opinion if the Netherlands win a penalty shootout (something he would have no control over) and Argentina go out in the quarter final, somehow that means he's not as good?
 
jm99 said:
It's a great feat and a huge achievement but it's only seen as the peak because its held over from the past when it genuinely was the highest level of football. It clearly isn't now, and so it's not the best judge of quality, messi's body of work for his club is a far bigger indicator of his quality and the idea that he's only the GOAT because of 7 games when he was 35 is bizarre. He has more than enough from his overall career to make that claim. But in your opinion if the Netherlands win a penalty shootout (something he would have no control over) and Argentina go out in the quarter final, somehow that means he's not as good?
Click to expand...
But that’s not what we’re discussing. We started off a couple days ago and I said I agree with you around those “margins/inches” between winning and losing in a team sport. Like higuain scoring in the 2014 wC final etc. 7 games, or just the World Cup wasn’t going to diminish anything messi has or hasn’t achieved before but again, you’re missing the point, winning the World Cup has propelled him and added to his “body of work” over his career. His quality wasn’t under question. Winning the WC - that’s a massive tick box to any international footballer, let alone the ones (usually the Pele/Maradona debate) who vie for “the goat” discussions. Winning the World Cup has always separated Messi and Ronaldo from pele & Maradona. Now that’s not so for Messi….
 
jm99 said:
It's a great feat and a huge achievement but it's only seen as the peak because its held over from the past when it genuinely was the highest level of football. It clearly isn't now, and so it's not the best judge of quality, messi's body of work for his club is a far bigger indicator of his quality and the idea that he's only the GOAT because of 7 games when he was 35 is bizarre. He has more than enough from his overall career to make that claim. But in your opinion if the Netherlands win a penalty shootout (something he would have no control over) and Argentina go out in the quarter final, somehow that means he's not as good?
Click to expand...

The WC prestige mainly comes from that even non football fans watch it and winning it makes you a national hero forever. Its rarely been the actual pinnacle of football quality and standards.
 
jm99 said:
I'd say mbappe was probably better in the final.

Was there any game where they didn't get a penalty either? :lol: Messi was great but I cam guarantee if Ronaldo had scored four penalties in a world cup then the Penaldo comments would have been here in force from the same people saying how amazing Messi was. He did play really well, but being the best player on the pitch against Saudi Arabia (was he? Missed penalty, they lost, not there second half) Poland, Mexico, Australia, Netherlands and Croatia, I mean would you expect him to not be the best player on pitch? In 4 of the games you'd be disappointed if he wasn't, and you'd still expect it in the other 2
Click to expand...
he didn’t miss a penalty against Arabia, he missed against Poland and still had a great performance. Here was clearly better than Mbappè in the final who decided to start playing in the 80th minute of the match
 
jm99 said:
I'd say mbappe was probably better in the final.

Was there any game where they didn't get a penalty either? :lol: Messi was great but I cam guarantee if Ronaldo had scored four penalties in a world cup then the Penaldo comments would have been here in force from the same people saying how amazing Messi was. He did play really well, but being the best player on the pitch against Saudi Arabia (was he? Missed penalty, they lost, not there second half) Poland, Mexico, Australia, Netherlands and Croatia, I mean would you expect him to not be the best player on pitch? In 4 of the games you'd be disappointed if he wasn't, and you'd still expect it in the other 2
Click to expand...

Mbappe was terrible in the final barring a mental 60 seconds.
 
jm99 said:
I'd say mbappe was probably better in the final.

Was there any game where they didn't get a penalty either? :lol: Messi was great but I cam guarantee if Ronaldo had scored four penalties in a world cup then the Penaldo comments would have been here in force from the same people saying how amazing Messi was. He did play really well, but being the best player on the pitch against Saudi Arabia (was he? Missed penalty, they lost, not there second half) Poland, Mexico, Australia, Netherlands and Croatia, I mean would you expect him to not be the best player on pitch? In 4 of the games you'd be disappointed if he wasn't, and you'd still expect it in the other 2
Click to expand...

Mbappe was invisible for 80 minutes and scored two penalties. Great game still, no doubt.

The point regarding the penalties is correct but Messi's performances would have been exceptional even without those.
 
jm99 said:
But if the world cup was the hardest level then players like Rodriguez and Diego forlan would have been ballon d'or level. It's not so much that the best players don't perform at the world cup, it's that minor issues can affect a whole tournament because it takes place over such a short period of time, Ronaldo's knee injury in 2014 is a good example of that, he's had probably his two best seasons at Madrid, but he's carrying a knock and the time between the champions league final and the world cup isn't enough to recover and he has a poor tournament because he's not fit. That doesn't mean anything with regards to his quality.

Mbappe would be already consider one of the greatest players ever if the world cup was really the absolute pinnacle of football
Click to expand...

Mpabbe is one those players who might really retire as one of the greatest ever. He's already got over 250 goals under his belt and has had iconic performances at every level. Best ever? Probably not. Top 10 best ever? Good chance.
 
Pink Moon said:
Mbappe was terrible in the final barring a mental 60 seconds.
Click to expand...

It wasnt just the 60 seconds though from 80 mins on Argentina looked shell shocked and France looked like they were going to win, then again in extra time I thought mbappe had won it for them at the end but he just didn't get the shot away, but I thought he was the best player even if he just shone in moments
 
Gehrman said:
Mpabbe is one those players who might really retire as one of the greatest ever. He's already got over 250 goals under his belt and has had iconic performances at every level. Best ever? Probably not. Top 10 best ever? Good chance.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree he might when he's finished but I saw someone on here argue that Pele at 17 was greater than ronaldo's whole career because of one world cup, so by that metric you'd have mbappe as a top 3 or 4 player all time and probably ahead of Messi if you're including 2018 and 2022, but that's obviously not how football works. He'll definitely go down as an all time great when he's done, though if he stays at psg his whole career I think he'll need 2 or 3 CLs
 
jm99 said:
Now who's shifting goalposts? You can argue about the quality of their players, but what's inarguable is they were among the favourites, certainly above Australia, Netherlands and Croatia. Even after they lost to Saudi Arabia, if they'd lost any of their knockout games prior to the finals it would have been an upset
Click to expand...
You're just jealous, understandably tbf, given your allegiance to the Saudi git who was sacked and was atrocious in the tournament. Messi had a great individual wc campaign and played a huge role in their victory. He was the standout player in pretty much every game while playing with average teammates.And yeah, Portugal had a better team than Argentina, yet they did not win it, and Ronaldo himself was shit.

Netherlands had a long unbeaten run, and Croatia are a good side who can beat any team and they have better players in their midfield than Argentina.

Before comparing Messi to players like James Rodriguez, you need to consider the context. Messi has won league titles as the mvp, the ucl as the mvp, domestic cups as the mvp, copa America as the mvp, the Olympic gold as the mvp, the U20 wc as the mvp and now the wc as the mvp. And he has 7 ballond'ors. For Messi, the wc win as the best player cements his legacy. Whether you like it or not, the wc is the most prestigious tournament in existence.
 
jm99 said:
It wasnt just the 60 seconds though from 80 mins on Argentina looked shell shocked and France looked like they were going to win, then again in extra time I thought mbappe had won it for them at the end but he just didn't get the shot away, but I thought he was the best player even if he just shone in moments
Click to expand...
No he wasn't. Was anonymous for 80 minutes than scored 2 in a minute. But even after that he did not create or offer a consistent threat.

jm99 said:
I don't disagree he might when he's finished but I saw someone on here argue that Pele at 17 was greater than ronaldo's whole career because of one world cup, so by that metric you'd have mbappe as a top 3 or 4 player all time and probably ahead of Messi if you're including 2018 and 2022, but that's obviously not how football works. He'll definitely go down as an all time great when he's done, though if he stays at psg his whole career I think he'll need 2 or 3 CLs
Click to expand...
Greatness in football is not just about achievements because it is a teamsport. Individual performances matter which is why winning the wc as the outstanding player matters. Otherwise players like Bebeto and Rivaldo would be held in a higher esteem.

In addition, an isolated world cup even as the player of the tournament is not sufficient to get to absolute goat level, you need a body of work in addition.

Mbappe won the WC in 2018 but wasn't the tournament's best player or even France's best player. And in this tournament, Griezmann was France's best player apart from the final. Mbappe also does not have the body of work as yet to support any claim to be amongst the very best.

The reason Pele is held in such high esteem is not just because of the world cups but he was widely considered the best player in the world for a long time during the 60s era. Ditto Maradona. And ditto Messi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.