Lionel Messi - Performances

[anant]

Why not? Nobody expects us to qualify easily here. Getting to this many tournaments in a row is a great achievement for us and it's something that I don't think we'd be able to repeat anytime soon had it not been for the expansion of the tournaments.

With the expansion of tournaments you've almost always been seeded in the 1st pot. Apart from one of the last 2 international tournaments in which you had a tricky group, don't think there has been a draw and people would have said that they didn't expect you tlo go through. The fact that you've struggled to seal qualifications in a straight forward group is pretty damning.
And while I agree there are times where teams struggle it shouldn't be a blot on legacy of a player be it Ronaldo or Messi as Cal had pointed out

 

[Stocar]

There has, and never will be a superior or more defensively imperious league above 80's and early 90's serie A. The high press of today is good... for this era. In the time of 2pts for a win, it would be suicidal, and the quality of midfielder and their dribbling ability would have a field day beating the high press and strolling on to goal with only a discombobulated backline to take on.

In that era, a man marker, devoted solely to taking out the opposition's most dangerous player and ushering him into packed, unwavering defensive units was the thing. It was phased out over time because of how much it compromised the defensive team, and more importantly, with the arrival of 3pts for a win.

In short, to ever get a league with the defensive quality and superiority of Maradona's Serie A, you would need to go back to 2pts for a win, which would make defensive fortresses a thing once more. No player who has arrived, post-2pts-for-a-win, has any comprehension of what it is like to play in such utterly stifling conditions, but even then, Ronaldo played in a Serie A that is miles ahead of anything since in terms of defensive class.

This is just pure hyperbole and nostalgia. The game has evolved, like in any other major sport.

 

[broccoli]

What a trainwreck of a post.

Personally I thought it was brilliant.

 

[Synco]

@Fortitude
Some interesting points you're making there, but at one point it doesn't add up for me.

If the conditions for ball-carrying, all-purpose #10s were so much more difficult back then, and if the subsequent abandonment of man marking and better foul protection is making it theoretically easier being a classical #10: why don't we see that player type flourish today? Wouldn't it be the prime weapon against the supposedly weaker defenses?

(The obvious counter-thesis would be that the prevalence of zonal marking and superior athleticism in today's football is making it largely impossible to play that way. I'm not able to actually argue that, though.)

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Messi only played 10 of the 18 games Argentina had to play to qualify. They got 21 points in those games, Argentina only got 7 in the games he didnt play.

Which has no relevance as to why that tweet makes Lineker a chicken.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

There has, and never will be a superior or more defensively imperious league above 80's and early 90's serie A. The high press of today is good... for this era. In the time of 2pts for a win, it would be suicidal, and the quality of midfielder and their dribbling ability would have a field day beating the high press and strolling on to goal with only a discombobulated backline to take on.

In that era, a man marker, devoted solely to taking out the opposition's most dangerous player and ushering him into packed, unwavering defensive units was the thing. It was phased out over time because of how much it compromised the defensive team, and more importantly, with the arrival of 3pts for a win.

In short, to ever get a league with the defensive quality and superiority of Maradona's Serie A, you would need to go back to 2pts for a win, which would make defensive fortresses a thing once more. No player who has arrived, post-2pts-for-a-win, has any comprehension of what it is like to play in such utterly stifling conditions, but even then, Ronaldo played in a Serie A that is miles ahead of anything since in terms of defensive class.

The notion of Messi being 'more unstoppable' in the era of Maradona is, frankly, absurd. To even produce at 80% current level in those times would be incredible. Platini, Zico and Maradona were incredulous for putting up the numbers they did, Messi's goal-rate, even if it was just 5 goals more than them, would be phenomenal. You can absolutely forget about the numbers we witness these days being translated to that time, however.


The interesting thing about Maradona is he was a prolific player well before Messi was in terms of age. At 15(!) through to 21, he had 116 goals in 166 games. It's only because he was so utterly dominant playing further back that it became his thing. It's a catch 22: do you want to grab goals and not control the game, or completely control the game and hope to nick a goal in the process? That was the conundrum for managers handling Maradona, and it's over time that his finishing declined because he was no longer deployed in the position which would see his frequency of shots remain high and finely attuned.

The trajectory Maradona was actually on is superior to Messi's in terms of equivalency per age. He started banging them in earlier and showed no signs of decline if he'd been left to do the job he was initially put in teams to do. I will say, however, that the moment Maradona set foot in that Serie A, his numbers would have dropped, as would anyone's, because of both the quality and cynicism of the league. Even for Barcelona he had his ankle destroyed and it would no doubt have been worse if he was putting up insane numbers in Serie A - the simple way to put a stop to that (prolific scoring) was to take out the player, which is something Zico and Van Basten succumbed to.

Brilliant post

 

[RedStarUnited]

Which has no relevance as to why that tweet makes Lineker a chicken.

I was kind of referencing the part you said doesnt make Messi a great but okay.

 

[giorno]

@Fortitude
Some interesting points you're making there, but at one point it doesn't add up for me.

If the conditions for ball-carrying, all-purpose #10s were so much more difficult back then, and if the subsequent abandonment of man marking and better foul protection is making it theoretically easier being a classical #10: why don't we see that player type flourish today? Wouldn't it be the prime weapon against the supposedly weaker defenses?

(The obvious counter-thesis would be that the prevalence of zonal marking and superior athleticism in today's football is making it largely impossible to play that way. I'm not able to actually argue that, though.)

?? What do you think Hazard, De Bruyne, Silva, Eriksen, Mata, Ozil, Isco, Dybala, etc.... are?

Maradona was different from Messi mostly because of the teams he played for. Messi has often been asked to play like Maradona used to for Argentina. Just look at his 2010 WC for a comparison. The difference there is Maradona had that one bout of omnipotence in Mexico(and from the outside looked a better leader than Messi)

But as for comparing numbers, it just doesn't work. The eras are too different, there's too many things which are impossible to compare

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I was kind of referencing the part you said doesnt make Messi a great but okay.

You are just so offside:
First, I never challenged Messi's greatness ever for its not remotely debatable.

2nd, from that tweet Lineker clearly imagines a hatrick to merely qualify a nation to a world cup counts as proof a particular player is the G.O.A T. Which is reasoning worthy of a chicken. And NB. Being a great is NOT interchangeable with being thee Greatest Of All time.

 

[Synco]

?? What do you think Hazard, De Bruyne, Silva, Eriksen, Mata, Ozil, Isco, Dybala, etc.... are?

Perhaps I have a wrong picture of what classical #10s did, but when thinking of players like Netzer and Zidane, my impression is that they combined traits that today are more distributed between several specialists.

For example, in the German NT the dominant playmaker aspect is mainly covered by the deeper acting CM Kroos, while the attacking/final third playmaker aspect is mainly covered by Özil. When I recently saw a 1972 game with Netzer, he kind of covered all of that: receiving the ball rather early, passing from deep or pushing up into the final third (often spending quite some time carrying the ball), and looking for the final ball near the oppo's box.

Isco is one of the current players that cover all of that on a high level while playing bang in the centre (others like Hazard and Ribery often gravitate towards the wings), and in my impression there aren't many of that ilk. That's where my question came from.

 

[Fortitude]

This is just pure hyperbole and nostalgia. The game has evolved, like in any other major sport.

That's no kind of answer.

Besides which, football has not got linear development, just as most major sports do not. What you have is a bunch of rule changes and modifications that make for a different game, not always a better one.

More entertaining, sure, because the authorities did everything they could to make the game more entertaining than the eyesore and reductionist sport it had become in the best league on the planet. They even went as far as to change rules after World Cup '90, such was its cynicism and stoic nature. Those things happened for a reason.

@Fortitude
Some interesting points you're making there, but at one point it doesn't add up for me.

If the conditions for ball-carrying, all-purpose #10s were so much more difficult back then, and if the subsequent abandonment of man marking and better foul protection is making it theoretically easier being a classical #10: why don't we see that player type flourish today? Wouldn't it be the prime weapon against the supposedly weaker defenses?

(The obvious counter-thesis would be that the prevalence of zonal marking and superior athleticism in today's football is making it largely impossible to play that way. I'm not able to actually argue that, though.)

As giorno said, there are a lot of #10's out there, but all-encompassing brilliance that happened to have Zico, Platini and Maradona in a single era is just a glitch in the matrix and not normal for any time period.

You have to have a player who can do everything first and foremost; Platini was like 3 players rolled into one, such was his brilliance in three distinct areas of the pitch. He had arguably: the best deep passing on the planet; the best through ball, short passing vision and combination player (as seen with his maestro Euro '84), and, he was one of the best finishers and goalscorers, too. Among all the #10's we have now, only Messi has such a broad skillset as to be a peer to that. Zico was the most like Messi from the 3 in terms of positions and how far he would drop back. Maradona had Platini's range of skills (plus much superior dribbling and ability to go straight through a team by himself) and willingness to drop super deep, plus he could/would play wide if needed. All three of them have a rightful claim to be the best passers the game has ever seen.

There were a lot of #10's in that era that weren't half as effective, so it's not a universal thing that #10's of that era were default beastly.

We can run through the #10's now, but apart from Messi, they are massively inferior to those 3, but that's because, theoretically, a genius of that level is once a generation, and not three all coming along almost at once. Before Messi, you have to go back to Ronaldinho for this kind of level, and before him, Zidane, possibly, although his numbers don't come close for him to fit the mould. What we generally have per generation is specialists who have to be catered for and worked into a team to flourish - those who excel at one or two specific skillsets but fall well short in others. Laudrup, Valderamma, Zidane(imo), Iniesta, Oezil, Isco etc are the type who can pass or split a team, but their strike rates are poor and they had to have certain conditions met around them to perform,

I don't think modern tactics have a say as much as the infrequency with which a Platini, Zico, Maradona, Ronaldinho or Messi come along. You can't press any of those players out of a game. Their goal threat, skills, intelligence, movement and guile is on a different level to the aforementioned grouping, and that, ultimately, is what separates them, imo.

 

[Fortitude]

Perhaps I have a wrong picture of what classical #10s did, but when thinking of players like Netzer and Zidane, my impression is that they combined traits that today are more distributed between several specialists.

For example, in the German NT the dominant playmaker aspect is mainly covered by the deeper acting CM Kroos, while the attacking/final third playmaker aspect is mainly covered by Özil. When I recently saw a 1972 game with Netzer, he kind of covered all of that: receiving the ball rather early, passing from deep or pushing up into the final third (often spending quite some time carrying the ball), and looking for the final ball near the oppo's box.

Isco is one of the current players that cover all of that on a high level while playing bang in the centre (others like Hazard and Ribery often gravitate towards the wings), and in my impression there aren't many of that ilk. That's where my question came from.

Netzer is almost a unique entity, and another who has a claim to be the best long range passer of all-time. He was catered for a lot, just like Zidane, so he is in a different grouping to the kings, or whatever you want to call them. His goal threat was also more 'classical' which makes him more of a generic playmaking specialist rather than an all-encompassing player who could do everything offensively to a ridiculously high standard.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

What I find amazing is people use unspoken rule in most sport that as that sports have got better tactically and technically with time and co relating it with football. Football is the opposite and unique. Almost every decade it has gotten easier. Rule changes introduced substitutes and added the number that could play, cards to control fouling, rules to ban certain types of fouling, regular rule changes to the offside law to make defending harder and harder, rule changes to protect the games stars, rule changes to give more benefit of the doubt to attacking teams, moves to make the ball lighter, playing boots lighter, increased squad depth, rule changes to enable free movement of the best talent, rule changes to enable the best teams more often than not face each other rather than just champions. The list is long. Add that to medical and sports science advancements. It is a misguided assumption to assume the game today is harder. This is what makes era comparisons very hard.

 

[jungledrums]

What I find amazing is people use unspoken rule in most sport that as that sports have got better tactically and technically with time and co relating it with football. Football is the opposite and unique. Almost every decade it has gotten easier. Rule changes introduced substitutes and added the number that could play, cards to control fouling, rules to ban certain types of fouling, regular rule changes to the offside law to make defending harder and harder, rule changes to protect the games stars, rule changes to give more benefit of the doubt to attacking teams, moves to make the ball lighter, playing boots lighter, increased squad depth, rule changes to enable free movement of the best talent, rule changes to enable the best teams more often than not face each other rather than just champions. The list is long. Add that to medical and sports science advancements. It is a misguided assumption to assume the game today is harder. This is what makes era comparisons very hard.

Depends how you define harder? I would say the game is unquestionably better today, but I'm not sure that's what you're saying. The athletes are improving, therefore it stands to reason that the game is improving. Granted, football is a thinking man's game, but that shouldn't discount the physical side of the game. You alluded to the improvement of the tactical and technical side though, so the combination of improved 'coaching' (ie technically and tactically), and improved athletes (physically) must equate to the game improving overall, and thus being harder? Or am I missing your point?

 

[Lord SInister]

I'm not sorry to say you are taking out your arse.

That's pure nonsense. Maradona was the purest version of an old school 10. He was oriented to creating more than scoring goals, and was a proper midfielder even though he had a decent goal record and carried a proper goal threat. He never ever employed nor played like a Del Piero type.
And comparing an Iniesta type of player to him is an extreme version of being offside on this particular topic.

See the my arguement with your post original, is you are trying to make it like, maradona did not scored as much goals as Messi or Cristiano, because he did not played for the goals, he was more of a creater/assister/passer whatever.
While what I am saying is that, the only difference why Maradona could not score as much as Messi or Cristiano is because of the teams, he is played for. Maradona was not a your Riquelme or Laudrup or Zidane or KDB or Silva type of playmaker. He was very much Pele, Messi, Zico, Cruyff, Puskas, Di Stefano or Platani or Baggio in his approach, yes he was creator just like the other mentioned, but he like them was the go goal getter of the team.

I am not comparing him with Iniesta, I was just point out, that your original quote suggested that you are trying to say Maradona was basically a midfielder who also had a knack of scoring goals. Which I don't think is true, as my point Maradona was as much goal hungry, as was Messi or Cristiano or any great attacker ever born.

Its not my fault, but yours alone that you wrongly imagine that being oriented to creating equals to being a pass first kind of player. Which simply betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the role Maradona played on a football pitch.

Well it has more to do with you and me not agreeing on Maradona's role/approach/intent on pitch, rather than me being a pretentious ass, while you are trying to portray him as a midfielder, while my argument is he was a more of a second striker/advanced playmaker or whatever it is called for most part of his career.

 

[Sammyjunn]

Ban that broccoli guy from this thread please, absurd and provocative posts only.

 

[Synco]

@Fortitude
What you say about the once-in-a-generation talents makes sense. So I guess an interesting point will be how lesser playmakers acted in the past; if they were typically able to combine the 'midfield general' and final third playmaker aspects (on a lower level) or not. I'll look out for that when watching older games.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

What I find amazing is people use unspoken rule in most sport that as that sports have got better tactically and technically with time and co relating it with football. Football is the opposite and unique. Almost every decade it has gotten easier. Rule changes introduced substitutes and added the number that could play, cards to control fouling, rules to ban certain types of fouling, regular rule changes to the offside law to make defending harder and harder, rule changes to protect the games stars, rule changes to give more benefit of the doubt to attacking teams, moves to make the ball lighter, playing boots lighter, increased squad depth, rule changes to enable free movement of the best talent, rule changes to enable the best teams more often than not face each other rather than just champions. The list is long. Add that to medical and sports science advancements. It is a misguided assumption to assume the game today is harder. This is what makes era comparisons very hard.

It works both ways, really. I find a lot of posters here only focus on bigging up the past and seemingly stretching the imagination as to how superior players, teams, everything was back then.

I doubt everything is easier now.

1. When I look at clips of Best and Pele, while tackles and pitches seem worse, the standard of defensive organisation and pressing is miles behind what I see now.

When I compare when I started watching football to today, the best defenders are inferior now but collecting pressing has improved and the stress is less on individual heroic defending and more on a tactic. It's more evolution than better/worse.

2. You say playing boots are lighter, squad depth is increased and there is free movement of best talent, but that has an impact across the board - the people you think have it easier and their opponents. Attackers and defenders. Or is Messi and star attackers getting all these benefits alone?

3. The rules do protect attackers more, but at the same time I don't think Messi or any contender for being the greatest ever would have an issue with tougher tackling. Just like how those players wouldn't struggle in this era. Greats will find a way past these hurdles or another era. (Please don't suggest hurdles only existed earlier)

The main difference, it seems to me, is that the best players are able to play in super teams which the likes of Maradona couldn't always. But then it's not obvious that he'd match these club achievements in the same scenario.

Anyway what I do agree on is that comparisons across eras is pointless because of all that changes. Yet people are so obsessive about crowning someone the best ever. The people who love hailing the bygone era will only trumpet Pele and Maradona and those who believe nothing is better than what they've seen will focus on Messi.

I'll stick to what I've seen and know, which is that Messi is comfortably the greatest footballer I've ever seen and among the greatest sportsman I've seen.

 

[Sammyjunn]

It works both ways, really. I find a lot of posters here only focus on bigging up the past and seemingly stretching the imagination as to how superior players, teams, everything was back then.

I doubt everything is easier now.

1. When I look at clips of Best and Pele, while tackles and pitches seem worse, the standard of defensive organisation and pressing is miles behind what I see now.

When I compare when I started watching football to today, the best defenders are inferior now but collecting pressing has improved and the stress is less on individual heroic defending and more on a tactic. It's more evolution than better/worse.

2. You say playing boots are lighter, squad depth is increased and there is free movement of best talent, but that has an impact across the board - the people you think have it easier and their opponents. Attackers and defenders. Or is Messi and star attackers getting all these benefits alone?

3. The rules do protect attackers more, but at the same time I don't think Messi or any contender for being the greatest ever would have an issue with tougher tackling. Just like how those players wouldn't struggle in this era. Greats will find a way past these hurdles or another era. (Please don't suggest hurdles only existed earlier)

The main difference, it seems to me, is that the best players are able to play in super teams which the likes of Maradona couldn't always. But then it's not obvious that he'd match these club achievements in the same scenario.

Anyway what I do agree on is that comparisons across eras is pointless because of all that changes. Yet people are so obsessive about crowning someone the best ever. The people who love hailing the bygone era will only trumpet Pele and Maradona and those who believe nothing is better than what they've seen will focus on Messi.

I'll stick to what I've seen and know, which is that Messi is comfortably the greatest footballer I've ever seen and among the greatest sportsman I've seen.

This post is much closer to the truth than the post you replied to, it would be really daft to suggest that football only gets easier with thr time.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

See the my arguement with your post original, is you are trying to make it like, maradona did not scored as much goals as Messi or Cristiano, because he did not played for the goals, he was more of a creater/assister/passer whatever.
While what I am saying is that, the only difference why Maradona could not score as much as Messi or Cristiano is because of the teams, he is played for. Maradona was not a your Riquelme or Laudrup or Zidane or KDB or Silva type of playmaker. He was very much Pele, Messi, Zico, Cruyff, Puskas, Di Stefano or Platani or Baggio in his approach, yes he was creator just like the other mentioned, but he like them was the go goal getter of the team.

I now get better what you meant tbf.
But still think you misunderstood me. Maradona did start
Out like the Pele's. But the older he got the more he got involved in running the team. By the time of his peak he became more of a creator, even though he never lost his knack to score or take responsibility for goal scoring. That is why its easy to confuse peak Maradona with a second striker type, yet he was more of a prolific trequartista. A prolific attacking midfielder. At his peak his game was more oriented to creating. Though he always took responsibility for goals when the chance arose.

Messi in comparison started out like Maradona did and stayed that way. Always employed as the goal threat in chief. Always employed as wide, central or second striker. So he has always been more oriented to getting goals whilst maintaining his natural knack to playmake. Sort of like higher grade version of what Henry was. Furthemore, due to his rival with CR7, he became more oriented to goal getting. That is why apart from the type of teams he played for, I don't believe Maradona at his peak would necessarily put up Messi like figures in our era. Or that its fair to use the goal records as gauge for your who is better because of the slightly opposite tangents their careers took at the peak in terms of role orientation.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Depends how you define harder? I would say the game is unquestionably better today, but I'm not sure that's what you're saying. The athletes are improving, therefore it stands to reason that the game is improving. Granted, football is a thinking man's game, but that shouldn't discount the physical side of the game. You alluded to the improvement of the tactical and technical side though, so the combination of improved 'coaching' (ie technically and tactically), and improved athletes (physically) must equate to the game improving overall, and thus being harder? Or am I missing your point?

I think you are missing my point. The game is a better spectacle today. Both in terms of the consistency of the technical and tactical spectacle and conditioning of players. But it isn't harder. Especially for attacking players and teams. Back in the day the rules didn't favor nor protect them as much. Remember things like the back pass, the first offside rule, and tackles from behind to name a few things.

I'll even give the example of the balls used. The current ball is light and can do all sorts of wicked trajectories when hit certain ways by dead ball specialists that seem breathtaking.. Yet in Pele's day there were still people doing that with much heavier, less aerodynamic balls.

Even in terms of competition. There was a time you had to only win things with who you were surrounded with from the time you started out playing at a club. Yet nowadays a super star can have an entire side recruited to enable them have a platform to win things. It makes for a superior product. But IMO its way easier.

 

[Fortitude]

@Fortitude
What you say about the once-in-a-generation talents makes sense. So I guess an interesting point will be how lesser playmakers acted in the past; if they were typically able to combine the 'midfield general' and final third playmaker aspects (on a lower level) or not. I'll look out for that when watching older games.

I see it as the Big 3 being seen as saviours and separated from the pack in terms of expectation and how much hope they all had piled onto them. Again, only Messi comes close to having that kind of pressure and expectation to do something that wins his team the game. It's the same pressure that was piled onto Ronaldinho, also, and something practically ever other #10 of that time or this gets a pass for if their supply is there but others aren't finishing the chances. For the aforementioned, they were then expected to pick up the slack for others and do their job for them, otherwise they would be seen to have a less than <insert> -level game.

Laudrup for example, was an extremely flakey player for all his talent, and as long as his through balls where up to standard and he set a few chances up for others, he was seen to have had a good to very good/excellent game. You apply that exact same ruling to Platini or Zico or Maradona, and it would be seen as an average to poor game. I don't think that's dissimilar to how things are for the likes of an Oezil or Iniesta or Isco compared to Messi in the here and now. All four of them could supply chances on a platter, but only one of them will be assessed to not have done the extra to win his team the game.

Something I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is that in times gone by a strikers job was defined and they had an obligation to put away chances supplied to them by others. Strikers these days can circumvent that by being greater at other things that bring team-mates into play etc and don't have to be as clinical to be deemed a success, and it was that past tandem that meant a lot of #10's were seen as top class for just roaming their area of the pitch and supplying the guy who is supposed to put the ball in the back of the net with a constant stream of chances.

I've always thought that those just on the rung below these true elites got away with not having to develop themselves in the same way. Same then as now in that you rarely see them come on leaps and bounds in the things they could be doing better at with the bottom line being that as long as they remain expert at what they're in the team to do, they can coast and not seek the extra. Is it by design or raw desire that the elites push past those same barriers and enter realms of improvement others do not, or is just because of pure ability and intelligence that it happens that way? It feels to me like the only cap or limiter for the elites is age or injury, and outside of that, they always improved in something or other throughout practically their entire careers as opposed to the commonplace plateaus I can name for 10's if not 100's of others who surely could have developed further.

I doubt everything is easier now.

What do you think is harder?

 

[VorZakone]

It works both ways, really. I find a lot of posters here only focus on bigging up the past and seemingly stretching the imagination as to how superior players, teams, everything was back then.

I doubt everything is easier now.

1. When I look at clips of Best and Pele, while tackles and pitches seem worse, the standard of defensive organisation and pressing is miles behind what I see now.

When I compare when I started watching football to today, the best defenders are inferior now but collecting pressing has improved and the stress is less on individual heroic defending and more on a tactic. It's more evolution than better/worse.

2. You say playing boots are lighter, squad depth is increased and there is free movement of best talent, but that has an impact across the board - the people you think have it easier and their opponents. Attackers and defenders. Or is Messi and star attackers getting all these benefits alone?

3. The rules do protect attackers more, but at the same time I don't think Messi or any contender for being the greatest ever would have an issue with tougher tackling. Just like how those players wouldn't struggle in this era. Greats will find a way past these hurdles or another era. (Please don't suggest hurdles only existed earlier)

The main difference, it seems to me, is that the best players are able to play in super teams which the likes of Maradona couldn't always. But then it's not obvious that he'd match these club achievements in the same scenario.

Anyway what I do agree on is that comparisons across eras is pointless because of all that changes. Yet people are so obsessive about crowning someone the best ever. The people who love hailing the bygone era will only trumpet Pele and Maradona and those who believe nothing is better than what they've seen will focus on Messi.

I'll stick to what I've seen and know, which is that Messi is comfortably the greatest footballer I've ever seen and among the greatest sportsman I've seen.

Sums up my sentiments.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

It works both ways, really. I find a lot of posters here only focus on bigging up the past and seemingly stretching the imagination as to how superior players, teams, everything was back then.
[/Quot] I agree. But my point is not about painting the past as superior. Its about giving it the contextual respect it deserves. I mean, when people glibly make comments ala Charlie Nicholas, that Pele never played in Europe therefore a Mess is better, it shows a lack of respect and understanding of what the game was like back then. And smacks of judging it based on today's conditions.

I doubt everything is easier now.

Not everything. But most things. I honestly don't believe its deniable. Especially technically and offensively.

1. When I look at clips of Best and Pele, while tackles and pitches seem worse, the standard of defensive organisation and pressing is miles behind what I see now.

That is because you are over looking the fact man marking as the favoured style of defending was more popular then. Not only did defenders than have the back pass to the goal keeper and offsides helping them. They were free to take you out pretty much however they pleased in most cases. That is why they relayed on mano a mano defending than on the collective. That is why when revolutionaries like the inventor of catenaccio and Rinus Michel's, brought tactical styles the involved organized collective, be it with defending, pressing and attacking, their teams were nigh unplayable. And in places like Italy, from the advent of catenaccio, defensive and tactical organization was a must. Its easy to look at it in now and think it 'easy'. But it wasn't. Especially in the Serie A. And the 2 points for a win didn't help matters either.

When I compare when I started watching football to today, the best defenders are inferior now but collecting pressing has improved and the stress is less on individual heroic defending and more on a tactic. It's more evolution than better/worse.

I agree its evolution. Defending for example has had to evolve to meet the challenge the added advantage rule changes have gifted to attacking players and teams. But that evolution has not really curtailed the added advantages attacking greats off this era have.

2. You say playing boots are lighter, squad depth is increased and there is free movement of best talent, but that has an impact across the board - the people you think have it easier and their opponents. Attackers and defenders. Or is Messi and star attackers getting all these benefits alone?

That part of the comment was not player specific. It was era specific. Messi and his entire generation enjoy equipment and rule benefits the Pele, Platini's and Maradona's never had. That's just a reality of the evolution of the sport.
So it makes no sense to ever judge past eras on current terms. Even vice verse is questionable too. For its not really the fault of the Messi's that the rose to prominence in an era of protection.

3. The rules do protect attackers more, but at the same time I don't think Messi or any contender for being the greatest ever would have an issue with tougher tackling. Just like how those players wouldn't struggle in this era. Greats will find a way past these hurdles or another era. (Please don't suggest hurdles only existed earlier)

It wasn't just a matter of 'tougher' tackling. Back in the day defenders and defending sides were free to do almost anything to stop you. Its one of the reasons career peaks were shorter. Players in the current era are largely free to thrive with minimalist hassle. Players in this era do have it easier. That is why when they have talent arguably up there with Maradona, Did Stefano and Pele, as is the case of LM10 and CR7, with the added insatiable drive those prior greats had, they are like gods amongst mean with their offensive achievements.

Anyway what I do agree on is that comparisons across eras is pointless because of all that changes. Yet people are so obsessive about crowning someone the best ever. The people who love hailing the bygone era will only trumpet Pele and Maradona and those who believe nothing is better than what they've seen will focus on Messi.

I'll stick to what I've seen and know, which is that Messi is comfortably the greatest footballer I've ever seen and among the greatest sportsman I've seen.

That's fair enough. For me still, till he and CR7 do the bear minimum of the bar set by Pele and Maradona, which was having a eta defining career and at least one era defining performance at a world cup in international football, I can't place them in that class. They will remain. On par with Di Stefano and Cruyff in my book. Not above

 

[Sammyjunn]

@Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber
Your last argument is a bit flawed as the actual level of the CL for example is higher than the WC level. The platform is bigger and hyped but CL contains all of the best players in the world and the best team have stronger assembled teams, who train more and longer than National Teams who are weaker. Holland who finished 3rd in 2014 had one World Class player in Robben, whilst teams like Juventus and City have multiple of them. There is a lot of hype and sentiment that comes with the WC.

And getting to play in superteams (which Pele for example also played in) also means getting to play against superteams. Messi and Ronaldo have excelled against these teams too.

 

[Stocar]

That's no kind of answer.

We've seen this argument million times before, and no one ever changes opinion, so I'd just skip it. Football is essentially a game of skills and tactics, so the crux of the argument is about something that's not really quantifiable or measurable. It all comes down to subjective perception. For example:

There has, and never will be a superior or more defensively imperious league above 80's and early 90's serie A. The high press of today is good... for this era. In the time of 2pts for a win, it would be suicidal, and the quality of midfielder and their dribbling ability would have a field day beating the high press and strolling on to goal with only a discombobulated backline to take on.

What I find amazing is people use unspoken rule in most sport that as that sports have got better tactically and technically with time and co relating it with football. Football is the opposite and unique. Almost every decade it has gotten easier.

I find these opinions to be emotionally biased, myopic and completely wrong. The idea that skills and tactics in professional football haven't evolved significantly, or even at all, is honestly baffling to me. But that's also my subjective opinion. There's not much, if any, objective data I can refer to. And, like I said, people rarely change this kind of opinions, so let's just leave it at that.

 

[Fortitude]

We've seen this argument million times before, and no one ever changes opinion, so I'd just skip it. Football is essentially a game of skills and tactics, so the crux of the argument is about something that's not really quantifiable or measurable. It all comes down to subjective perception. For example:


I find these opinions to be emotionally biased, myopic and completely wrong. The idea that skills and tactics in professional football haven't evolved significantly, or even at all, is honestly baffling to me. But that's also my subjective opinion. There's not much, if any, objective data I can refer to. And, like I said, people rarely change this kind of opinions, so let's just leave it at that.

No, I am all ears/eyes. The data backs up how miserly the era was for goals. It also evidences itself with the amount of players injured systematically by others and forced into early retirement.

You call it bias as if I am fan of dour, stagnant and stifling football rather than someone stating it as it Is, or was.

You made sure not to contest my points by simply making a blanket statement about 'evolution'. You don't even seem to acknowledge that 2pts for a win in this day and age would see another era of cynicism and suffocating conditions. But... if you're not going to offer any counters I'll leave you to it. It's just a tad ironic you'd say I'm the staunch one if that's what you choose to do.

Myopia is also an interesting choice of word given the clamour many here have to dismiss anything outside of current football or anything that favours what they choose to believe in.

This notion of linearity and building blocks on top of what has come before has been a red herring and will remain one. It's fairer to say some things are torn down and rebuilt from scratch. They don't have much bearing because they alter the path of contingency to an extreme degree. Tactics are then a smorgasbord because certain ways of playing and countering are not applicable to the new construct that comes about with significant rule changes.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

What do you think is harder?

I don't claim to be an expert of a bygone era. But there's no sport on the planet in which every got easier with time. Where technology helps you in some areas these days, the over analysis and media pressure/scrutiny is about a 100 times more. While you play in team of phenomenal talents so does your rival that's also better than would be in the 50s.

Anyway it's not all that important either. Messi would savage defences in any era, as would Pele or Maradona. The greatest can deal with what are tiny hurdles for them. The numbers Messi and Ronaldo get are inflated due to their super teams. But they're still absolutely absurd goalscorer regardless. The reason why Messi is so incredible is not his goalscoring alone. It's how good he is overall in addition to that.

 

[Stocar]

This notion of linearity and building blocks on top of what has come before has been a red herring and will remain one. It's fairer to say some things are torn down and rebuilt from scratch. They don't have much bearing because they alter the path of contingency to an extreme degree. Tactics are then a smorgasbord because certain ways of playing and countering are not applicable to the new construct that comes about with significant rule changes.

What I would agree is that not everything in the game is subject to linear progress, that some things do get lost, and that there was more freedom for players to express themselves on the pitch in previous eras. But I firmly believe (and my perception affirms it) that all games based on skills and tactics do evolve in general, and significantly so. Again, that is based mostly on subjective perception and opinion, and not much data can be brought up to settle the argument.

 

[giorno]

Perhaps I have a wrong picture of what classical #10s did, but when thinking of players like Netzer and Zidane, my impression is that they combined traits that today are more distributed between several specialists.

For example, in the German NT the dominant playmaker aspect is mainly covered by the deeper acting CM Kroos, while the attacking/final third playmaker aspect is mainly covered by Özil. When I recently saw a 1972 game with Netzer, he kind of covered all of that: receiving the ball rather early, passing from deep or pushing up into the final third (often spending quite some time carrying the ball), and looking for the final ball near the oppo's box.

Isco is one of the current players that cover all of that on a high level while playing bang in the centre (others like Hazard and Ribery often gravitate towards the wings), and in my impression there aren't many of that ilk. That's where my question came from.

Kroos in the 70s would have played like Netzer. Netzer now would play like Kroos. It's just the way the game evolved. Didi or Rivera would be different players now than they were back then. Hazard and Iniesta would habe been different players then than they are now

 

[Fortitude]

I don't claim to be an expert of a bygone era. But there's no sport on the planet in which every got easier with time. Where technology helps you in some areas these days, the over analysis and media pressure/scrutiny is about a 100 times more. While you play in team of phenomenal talents so does your rival that's also better than would be in the 50s.

Anyway it's not all that important either. Messi would savage defences in any era, as would Pele or Maradona. The greatest can deal with what are tiny hurdles for them. The numbers Messi and Ronaldo get are inflated due to their super teams. But they're still absolutely absurd goalscorer regardless. The reason why Messi is so incredible is not his goalscoring alone. It's how good he is overall in addition to that.

I'm not trying to catch you out as I am genuinely curious about what believe is harder in a game that has been and reworked continually to allow players (attackers) to play as they do now without constant fear of career threatening tackles they don't even see coming and so forth.

What I would agree is that not everything in the game is subject to linear progress, that some things do get lost, and that there was more freedom for players to express themselves on the pitch in previous eras. But I firmly believe (and my perception affirms it) that all games based on skills and tactics do evolve in general, and significantly so. Again, that is based mostly on subjective perception and opinion, and not much data can be brought up to settle the argument.

The numbers for Serie A in terms of goals for and against are stark and clear during the 2pts-for-a-win era. The data is clear. It was a horrible and cynical league but also defensively spectacular.

The ability to kill a football game was at the forefront of the posts WC90' changes and they were badly needed if football was to become entertainment over (or at least alongside) results once again.

I don't know what you find subjective in this as the sweeping tactical changes are not really debatable- there were teams who were masters prior to the passback rule being abolished who had to find a different way to play football after its introduction and the same goes for tactical planning when 3pts were on the table instead of two. A host of masterful hatchet men were made redundant with the cleaning up of the tackle from behind or the ability to blindside their target. There's nothing linear to something that once was, being completely abolished; the game is reset and a new way has to be built from scratch from the academy level upward.

Football essentially moves along parallel lines because of the sweeping changes brought in to alter/improve aspects and that makes linear development impossible.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I'm not trying to catch you out as I am genuinely curious about what believe is harder in a game that has been and reworked continually to allow players (attackers) to play as they do now without constant fear of career threatening tackles they don't even see coming and so forth.
The numbers for Serie A in terms of goals for and against are stark and clear during the 2pts-for-a-win era. The data is clear. It was a horrible and cynical league but also defensively spectacular.

That's fine. I have no issues with the data. It's all relative. Messi would have stood out as miles better than everyone on the pitch in any era, like he does now. Horrid tackles or not. That's why I'm saying it's not all that relevant. These great players would succeed in every era. Same with Pele or whoever from further back.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Your last argument is a bit flawed as the actual level of the CL for example is higher than the WC level. The platform is bigger and hyped but CL contains all of the best players in the world and the best team have stronger assembled teams, who train more and longer than National Teams who are weaker. Holland who finished 3rd in 2014 had one World Class player in Robben, whilst teams like Juventus and City have multiple of them. There is a lot of hype and sentiment that comes with the WC.

And getting to play in superteams (which Pele for example also played in) also means getting to play against superteams. Messi and Ronaldo have excelled against these teams too.

The champions league IMO is a comfort zone for today's stars. The level of play may be higher but IMO its not harder than a world cup. As a star you are guaranteed in the champions league to be in a super team or a team assembled to your every whim to enable you consistently put out your best. You will also be likely coached by a superstar manager and buy and large the playing field isn't level.

At international level in comparison, the standard may be lower due to the accident of birth limitation, but that stipulation largely makes the playing field level. You have no choice but to make winners of the country men you are surrounded with. You have to gel and become a team to succeed rather tgan rely in the collectiom of collective class yoy can have at club level to bail you out if your are not in a gelled team. Furthermore, if you are unfortunate like a Bale, you'll probably win nada. But what you do with out the comforts of being surrounded by superstars and a team assembled strictly to cater to your talent, proves to be a steeper challenge. That is the main reason why there is a super discrepancy between how far and ahead of everyone the likes of CR7 and LM10 are at club level and how small the gap is with others at international level. That is why for me a great who can't conquer club level as it exists to day and the more level playing field that is international game, at the same time in one career in my eyes can not earn the title of G.O.A.T.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

What I would agree is that not everything in the game is subject to linear progress, that some things do get lost, and that there was more freedom for players to express themselves on the pitch in previous eras. But I firmly believe (and my perception affirms it) that all games based on skills and tactics do evolve in general, and significantly so. Again, that is based mostly on subjective perception and opinion, and not much data can be brought up to settle the argument.

But if tactics of today are far and ahead of what existed in the past. Why is it that the greatest team of this era (Barca 2008-2012) basically recycled the football tactics as philosophy of Rinus Michels Ajax team of the 70s. With almost identical success?

 

[amolbhatia50k]

But if tactics of today are far and ahead of what existed in the past. Why is it that the greatest team of this era (Barca 2008-2012) basically recycled the football tactics as philosophy of Rinus Michels Ajax team of the 70s. With almost identical success?

Many consider it the greatest ever so it must have built on what those teams did. Pep is not reknown for being a pure copycat. He's obviously reknown for evolving and improving upon things done on the past. Just because a lot for the ideas are similar it doesn't mean he's done the exact same thing. And I've nowhere read that he's basically just done what others have done many times before. Even sacchi says that pep has further evolved things tactically and taken it even further.

I don't understand why people are so pro one era and anti another.

 

[lsd]

That's fine. I have no issues with the data. It's all relative. Messi would have stood out as miles better than everyone on the pitch in any era, like he does now. Horrid tackles or not. That's why I'm saying it's not all that relevant. These great players would succeed in every era. Same with Pele or whoever from further back.

Simply not true and you cant say that .You cannot say Messi would stand out as miles better on the pitch if the likes of Pele,Best ,Cruyff or Maradona were on the same pitch.

Again why are people so obsessed with wanting to believe what they see now it's better than anyone ever saw before .

If you want to say he is the best player in the world now or the best player you have witnessed then do so but can we please get over with this desire to say someone is the best ever

 

[serghei]

Few people here can make the difference between ability, performances, and career. Some think they speak about ability, but in reality they speak about performances and even more so about career. Instead of discussing Messi's dribbling, his passing technique, the way he uses his low center of gravity to be quicker than the opponent, the way he uses players' inertia to wrong foot them, often without moving but only giving the sensation that he will move in a direction, so so many innate things about him which scream genius. All this things, when you add them, your realise they are purely a result of his immense talent, like a natural expression of it. Like with Federer and tennis. Genius. Could have played in the 60's and still be as great. Not a result of the era he's playing in.

Yea, 90+ goals in a year, or some of Messi's career stats and numbers, those can be attributed to the new age of football, among others. But some of the minuses of his career can too, like the state of today's NT football which has affected his performances for Argentina. People say all the time that, back in the day, many top players would play in their national league, in order to explain the lack of superteams like today's Barca and Real, which are a collection of all-stars around the world. But doesn't this mean that National Team football was more cohesive as a result back then, considering that most Arazilians played in Brazil, most Argentinians played in Argentina, most French players played in France and so on?

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Simply not true and you cant say that .You cannot say Messi would stand out as miles better on the pitch if the likes of Pele,Best ,Cruyff or Maradona were on the same pitch.

Again why are people so obsessed with wanting to believe what they see now it's better than anyone ever saw before .

If you want to say he is the best player in the world now or the best player you have witnessed then do so but can we please get over with this desire to say someone is the best ever

You're barking up the wrong tree. I've already criticised others for obsessively wanting to crown someone. And there's as many obsessed with wanting to do that with past players as current players. Your criticism interestingly is limited to just one group which is convenient (seemingly biased?)

What I meant, given I said it applies to Maradona and Pele too (all the absolute greats really) was that the likes of Messi and other absolute top tier players look a level above everyone around them and that would be true of Messi in any era, Pele in any era etc. Obviously I'm not creating a match where apparently all the best players are playing right beside each other.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Few people here can make the difference between ability, performances, and career. Some think they speak about ability, but in reality they speak about performances and even more so about career. Instead of discussing Messi's dribbling, his passing technique, the way he uses his low center of gravity to be quicker than the opponent, the way he uses players' inertia to wrong foot them, often without moving but only giving the sensation that he will move in a direction, so so many innate things about him which scream genius. All this things, when you add them, your realise they are purely a result of his immense talent, like a natural expression of it. Like with Federer and tennis. Genius. Could have played in the 60's and still be as great. Not a result of the era he's playing in.

Yea, 90+ goals in a year, or some of Messi's career stats and numbers, those can be attributed to the new age of football, among others. But some of the minuses of his career can too, like the state of today's NT football which has affected his performances for Argentina. People say all the time that, back in the day, many top players would play in their national league, in order to explain the lack of superteams like today's Barca and Real, which are a collection of all-stars around the world. But doesn't this mean that National Team football was more cohesive as a result back then, considering that most Arazilians played in Brazil, most Argentinians played in Argentina, most French players played in France and so on?

Personally that's what I look at. I look at the level of the performance and the sheer genius rather than just what the team manages collectively. He's like Federer for me. He does things that make you wonder it's even possible.

And I think your point may be correct. I think Pele and the Brazilian players played in a NT that had a proper identity possibly due to all the players playing in the same Brazilian league? And then you have the disjointed Argentina of today with players from everyone and lots of players and the management disappointing. It's really different circumstances and different people have different advantages.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Many consider it the greatest ever so it must have built on what those teams did. Pep is not reknown for being a pure copycat. He's obviously reknown for evolving and improving upon things done on the past. Just because a lot for the ideas are similar it doesn't mean he's done the exact same thing.

I feel people wrongly think copying what was done in the past is a bad thing. On the contrary it is in my opinion a sign of genius. To literally be able to copy a philosophy to your time and era and stamp your own imprint of it on to any side you coach is remarkable. Sacchi did it before Pep. As did LVG in his earlier Ajax day. He like them just continued the Rinus Michels tradition. Fluid, pressing, flair, controlling, attacking football. Sacchi was a 4-4-2 man. LVG a 3-4-3/4-3-3 Dutch philosophy man though , whilst Pep married that to the Spanish traditions in 4-3-3/3-3-1-3 shape. My point was rather to be pro this era or that. Tactics in football have been cyclical. Rather than revolutionary across eras. In football a few have created revolutions. Others have simply adopted those revolutions to their eras.

On another note, I personally don't believe anyone has built a machine as devastating as Sacchi's Milan. A side that even post him were largely unplayable defensively and offensively. The closest I've seen to it in our era was LVGs youth Ajax which sadly got broken up to quickly. Pep literally built a side arguably better attacking wise but not as good defensively. But its deservedly rates up there with the Milan side and is currently the best team of the current 2000's era