Literally watched him live every other week for nearly 10 years between inter and milan. Seedorf was, at best, when he cared for it(which was rare in itself), not a complete liability defensively. What he actually was was a great attacking player both on and off the ball. Fairly complete in that regard, yes. But a CM? He was a CM in the same way Iniesta wasOh Giorno, take those Real tinted specs off. Also can you just tag posters instead of spammingso they know you're commenting on their post, that was one of the biggest complaints of the caf rift we need to fix. He played more advanced for you lot and, to a lesser extent, Ancelotti, but he was a CM through and through and he was good defensively.
Lionel Messi | PSG Watch
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Mezzala, yeah, but he honestly, here in Italy he's always been considered a CAM, being adapted. Seedorf himself considered himself a CAM. One of the reasons why Gattuso was so revered was his ability to cover defensively for 3 players - because Pirlo, Seedorf and Kaka/Rui Costa didn't do much defending and weren't very good at it either when they did
And yes, you are correct about Ambrosini. Also after they lost Shevchenko and failed to replace him Ambrosini was moved to the starting XI, with Seedorf higher up next to Kaka behind a lone striker
PS carrillero is spanish for wingback
Whilst I can see this - the way a player gets to play is highly relevant on both the team he plays for and the teams he plays against.
Nicolas Pepe was great in Ligue 1 for whatever team he played for and great against the teams he played against.
He not only moved the league, he moved the team he played for and the teams he played against - ultimately showing a more accurate representation of how good he actually was.
Now no one is saying that Messi is Nicolas Pepe - Lionel Messi is one of the greatest players of all time - easily in the top 3-4; no one is trying to put that in doubt - it's more to show that him being viewed as the undoubted Number 1 could be different (not exactly will be different) if he did play his career through a change of clubs other than just Barcelona, a different of leagues than just La Liga, different clubs he had to play against with different styles for full 365 days every season.
For me this is all that's happening in Ligue 1 right now.
This is literally the same year he won another Balon D'or for his performances for Barcelona and Argentina - and soon as he moves league, the club he plays for and the clubs/players/tactics he plays against - he can still look like one of the greatest of all time - but things look a bit more off, less consistent and less fluid than it ever did before. Its not a big difference, but it is still a difference - a difference that could have, not would have made, him go from being the undoubted Number 1 GOAT in so many people's mind to maybe just being one of the top 3.
No, it's actually carrilero, only one "L". It's not just the spelling, the pronunciation of "carrillero" (which as far as I know is not even a word) would also be different as in Spanish "L" and "LL" are pronounced differently.
I think a reasonable argument could be made that more factors go into a 38-game league than, say, a 13-game trophy, and an individual player's influence is diluted there.
I think individual performance and context is what counts. Ronaldo left Madrid with over a goal pr. game. He was their most prolific goalscorer in the CL as well. Only winnning 2 league titles sucks though but they up against Messi's Barca and a strong Athletico.
It was the strength of the opposition.
It's not one particular thing or another.
Yep, you're correct. Grammar eh
He better be that was his main role and the team was built around that. I'm really not convinced by those arguments, the way I see it we have two great players that are pretty close and the hierarchy between them is subjective. Now for me Football is a team sport and what matter is who was a key member of the most successful teams and it's not as if Ronaldo played for actually inferior teams at Real Madrid so at some point I do think that we have to wonder why they have been far less successful when it comes to league performances and one of my opinions is that prime-Ronaldo used to cannibalize his team attacking players, they would sacrifice for him more than they should have. In cup formats it's not a bad idea but the league is won as a team.
I don't know. In the 2009-2010 campaign they got 96 points and finished 2nd. In 2011 they got 92 points. Normally this would make you champion, but Real and Barca were just 2 super teams up against eachother. Messi was better in the league though.
The most goals Messi and Ronaldo scored in the league was 50 (!!) and 48 (!!) and neither won the league that season.
It's not really Ronaldo's fault that Perez inexplicably sold Di Maria and Alonso right after winning a CL only to see Modric injured for a good chunk of that season and Ancelotti having to play Ramos in midfield, or that Perez hired Benitez for no apparent reason, or that Mourinho had his typical fallout with the players. It's not really Messi's fault that Valverde was fired mid-season while being 1st in La Liga or that Barcelona went bankrupt. Things like that have bigger effects on winning league titles than whether the player is selfish.
This is not the thread, but can you please check the number of assists Ronaldo has in Real Madrid and the number of goals Benzema has in this period?
In fact in the Champions League Ronaldo has more assists and more assists per game in this period than Messi.
Oh you'll find many blaming Messi for being bankrupt due his salary. But yeah the onus is on the management to a great extent.
I think the biggest reason why Barcelona beat Madrid in La Liga more is because they simply were more consistent team in the league and head to head Real always were the inferior team, I mean during peak Barcelona seasons, Real rarely won dominating the game. In the CL, apart from having the CL goat, I think what favoured Madrid more is they had a great attitude, Barcelona used to melt under pressure, especially their defense , while Real Madrid had Ramos who used to be imperious in the CL, and ofcourse BBC upfront.
There is also whole thing with managers and stuff like that. Apart from the mediocre managers they were way too rigid(Barca) in their approach. Great managers make their teams adaptable. After Real Madrid were twatted 5-0 by Barca he never took the same approach against them again.
yup, most of the casual who only saw El CLassico thought Mou's MAdrid was negative team. although they were one of the most entertaining team ever IMO. their counter attacks were so lethal, who could forget the famous 0-0 vs Valencia. Sriously one of the best draws I ever saw, so much end to end action.
I don't know about that perception, in the end when you compare both teams prime there is only one CL that separate them. And Real Madrid weren't all conquering when they won outside of the one won by Ancelotti. The way you put it one would believe that one team was a lot more successful than the other in the CL which isn't true.
They were pretty all-conquering in Zizou's 2nd season at the club when they won the league and the CL. I recall they broke a few records that season.
They had their first loss all season mid-January, and ended up with 5 losses overall. Their only loss in the CL came against Atleti in the 2nd leg when they had won the first leg 3-0. Every other game in the KOs they won, pretty convincingly.
Real werent in their prime in 2008-9. It was after that they went full galactico.
I'm not sure about the relevance on that statement but that's true.
Not really sure how relevant it is either. But Madrid were a lot more succesfull in the CL while Ronaldo was there. It could be interesting to pinpoint when Barcelona's prime ended because it was a long time before Messi left, but they were still a force in la liga. 2018-2019 Barcelona was mediocre but Messi was brilliant that season but they been going downhill ever since.
No they weren't all-conquering, it was a close league campaign and the actual games in the CL were pretty close for the most part. Even the final against Juventus was close for the most part. But let's say that you have two impressive campaigns, that doesn't actually make the difference between Barcelona and Madrid, Barcelona have had a similar amount of convincing campaigns during their prime.
And I sense a misinterpretation, my point is that you can't actually separate Barcelona and Real Madrid when you consider their respective primes. Even if you give the edge to Real Madrid, it's an edge not a landslide victory.
Last edited:
Its not really. Barca won 3 CL in their prime and Madrid won 4 in their prime, but Barca won a lot more la liga titles. A 3 peat of CL's has some significance to it though.
What is "not really"?
3 vs 4 isn't a big difference and it's definitely not a difference large enough to claim that Barcelona particularly struggled in the CL compared to Real Madrid. To me it's hyperbolic to put these teams in two totally different categories and judge one negatively, particularly when I think that the better opponents were during Barcelona prime in United(2009), Inter(2010) and Bayern(2012), but then again that's subjective.
What is this monstrosity.
I just meant its not really a big difference.
I watched the highlights from the monaco match and didnt think he was that poor really. Hardly his best but unlucky not to score and his assist to mpabbe was nice.
Poor by Messi's standards, if it was any other player it would've been a 7/10 performance.
The funniest thing is when you remove the players that won the world Cup from that list - its so bloody true
What, like Maldini who never won the World Cup?
Also Shearer and Baggio. Scholes and Giggs never left their comfort zone either. Same with Ferdinand. Also someone like Lewandowski hasnt tried himself in the PL or La Liga. But he doesn't get to win an international trophy because Poland is shit.
Poland isn't shit, but they are far away from winning a tournament or getting far...they don't have the quality.
Portugal situation is worse, as they do have good players and still they can only dominate poor sides like Luxembourg and Ireland, i don't remember them dominating a decent or very good side, when they face decent/good teams it's either getting away with a jammy goal after being dominated or losing.
I understand this argument but when Messi is one of 3 top scorers against the big 6 in PL yet never played in it or Lewandowski record in CL last 5 years I don’t think they would struggle with Burnley.
Players not leaving is a reason. Messi was winning everything at Barca and for years was the best team in the world in a city with great weather that he’s played for all his career.
Same as Scholes and Giggs.they played for us and won every year after coming through the ranks.
Yes some players might flop but the PL has Salah running a muck more than the Italian league then the other top 2 scorers are Dennis for Watford who didn’t do much elsewhere and Vardy who used to play conference.
Some players have a hard time adapting to the PL and others don’t
Just like Scholes and Giggs didn't want to leave United, why would Messi want to downgrade in his prime? He handed in a transfer request in 2020 when he realized Barca was finished. United were never finished under Fergie. Also as I say I think people underestimate the loyalty Messi had to Barca, but this will obviously be belittled by his wages. He was La Mazia product like Xavi and Iniesta etc. Ronaldo was talking about leaving after the winking incident. He was an icon for sure, but he couldn't wait to go to Madrid. Messi was happy at where he was and I can't blame him. Huge club than became even greater during his time, the city, weather and language. Why would he want to go to Man Utd, City, Pool, Chelsea etc and who could afford his wages and transfer fee also well knowing that barca would never sell. They wouldn't even sell him when he was past it.
They were all conquering though - they lost 5 games all season. That's the same as us in our treble season. In fact, their CL campaign mirrors ours pretty closely. It's pretty comprehensive.
They ended up with 90+ in the league as well, so there weren't even a lot of draws. I get your point that Barca was also strong, but Real ended up with a league and CL double that season. That's as conquering as a team can be (without the CdR).
The final vs Juventus was one of the most one-sided finals I've seen, so I think you're pretty wide of the mark there.
Agree with your last sentence.
Not really. The first half was dominated by Juventus and the second half by Real Madrid. It wasn't a one sided game and took tactical changes at half time for Real Madrid to actually dominate.
Real Madrid ended up destroying them really.
The second part of the second half was one sided but not the rest. My point is again about the hyperboles, there is no way to seriously rate anything if we just go and exaggerate everything instead of trying to be accurate. Real Madrid deserved that win, overall they dominated but for example Navas was a big part of that win and the way people are seemingly now interpreting it, it feels that the scoreline overshadows what actually happened during that game.