I will. If he continues playing the way he has been.
I don't give a feck if he wins the world cup or not.
Lionel Messi
- Thread starter cesc's_mullet
- Start date
- Status
I will. If he continues playing the way he has been.
I don't give a feck if he wins the world cup or not.
excellent point, but for Cal what applies for messi doesnt apply for his heroes
messi needs to prove his value in the world cup stages, ronaldo doesnt
messi played in one great team, pele, distefano, cruyff and maradona didnt
I do agree with that. What I am saying is it's not an absolute criteria. There are other ways of making your mark. He'd just have to plough new boundaries for what can be achieved at club level.
Mind you, I am not pronouncing him better or as good as those two just yet. Though imo, he is better than the contenders, so he is probably worth being named in their company as the top 3.
Then you = no one serious. Thanks for making my point for me.
This is a ridiculous argument, chief. You are utterly ignoring the possibility that football can change.
Was it fair that Di Stefano has been so overlooked? Probably not. But he didn't have the exposure. Messi has though and there is no reason to count it against him just because it counted against Di Stefano. To say so is bordering on petulance.
It has zilch to do with my opinion. Pele and Maradona where rated as the best ever precisely because they excelled at both club football and national team football. That is a fact. To attempt to front the notion that someone will come along and be placed alongside them or be rated as superior to them with out that is frankly laughable.
I always present to you Di Stefano as proof as to why that line of arguement is preposterous. For even Messi himself hasnt yet caught up with Di Stefano's club level exploits. Yet even Di Stefano isn't classed as Pele or Maradona's equal because of his international record.
dogmatic.
It isn't. I'm just not pandering to the latest fancy. Plain and simple. For some reason some of you are so desperate to crown Messi the best ever before his time comes. The lad is only about 24. He has years to go yet.
I am not crowning him the best ever just yet. He has a way to go. I am saying there are more than one path to get there.
Then you = no one serious. Thanks for making my point for me.
Har. har. har.
Bullshit. I haven't ignored anything. Of course football has changed. Just not in the way you;d like us to all think.
Unlike you I know that the dynamics of football competition have never changed. It's still harder to win a world cup as a star player than it is to win the champions league as a star player for big side. That was the case then and still is the case now.
Lousy argument again. He had all the exposure needed for his records still stand to this day. It's simply his international record that counts against him when considering the greatest ever. It's not fair but that's how it is. I don't see why things should be any different for Messi.
Rather to insist that it shouldn't is what is the real petulance. There is no valid reason you can give as to why Messi should be given preferential treatment.
Because football has changed. Christ.
The mass media has changed football. Outside Brazil, Pele was pronounced the best ever based on a few cup games every four years for most people. Most people never saw him play at club level. Those criteria would never hold up today. Di Stefano didn't shine on a stage that gave him sufficient exposure, so was overlooked.
Messi shines on a stage that has exposure in the modern game, just like Pele and Maradona did. Your argument is basically this: Well, if comparatively few people watched Di Stefano at club level, then we ignore the exposure Messi has got from it. That's petulance that ignores the changes that football has gone through. Changes that also change how the public perceives and evaluates footballers.
Club football has changed too, it is far more competitive now than it was when they played. It matters more. This is also something to take into consideration. You basically try to evaluate them in a static bubble.
Nah mate, i see your point and it's a fair one. But you are dismissing the WC too easily because of the popularity of the CL. How many players have gained worldwide recognition in the last few years due to their performances in the CL?
Not many as far as i am aware. Yet look at the last WC, the likes of Mesut Ozil, Sami Khedira, J. Hernandez, KP Boateng, Alexis Sanchez, Diego Forlan, Luis Suarez, J. Boateng, Manuel Neuer, Asamoah Gyan, Anthony Annan, Honda and Jong Tae Se. Add to that the likes of Miroslav Klose who has done nothing of note in club football, yet will forever be regarded a great because of his WC record.
You can claim the CL is now of a higher quality than the WC, and you may well have a point. But you simply cannot dismiss the worldwide effect the WC still has on making or breaking reputations in only a 4 week period. The CL will simply never have that impact on a players career in such a short space of time. That is an irrefutable fact imo.
There is no doubt that the World Cup is still the biggest stage, but the gap has lessened imo.
Klose won't really be remembered as a great, though his world cup exploits will certainly keep him longer in memory. In fact, he is a good example of how football has changed. His comparatively lacklustre club exploits tells most people he is not as good as his WC exploits would suggest. I think he would be remembered more fondly if he had pkayed 30 years ago.
Ronaldinho won a world cup, but that is not really what he is most remembered for. He is one of the most iconic footballers of the past 20 years due to his performances in the Barcelona shirt and I think it is accurate to say in the eyes of the public his club achievements outshine his world cup glory in regards to his personal legend.
you must have been drinking Danny,. Presuming that 1982 is you DOB then it is hardly surprising that you are talking such utter shite, about things you can clearly have no memory of. Messi is top drawer and deserves his place amongst the greats, but don't think that being the star player amongst one of the best teams ever puts him apart from Maradona at club level.
Did you not realise that Maradona went to unfashionable Napoli, and inspired them to their only Italian titles. Not once but twice with 2 second places, in 4 seasons, followed by UEFA cup success during an unprecedented period of success for Napoil, when Italian football was at it's strongest?
May i point out that their last title was won defeating the Milan team of Rikjaard, Gullit and Van Basten, who are widely regarded as one of the greatest teams ever, in one of the most dominant periods for Italian football.
That would be comparable to Messi coming to England and inspiring Wigan to the 2 PL title 3/4 years ago, when our league was at it's strongest.
So don't think success in the CL makes what Messi has achieved with a European heavyweight, completely blows away Maradona's achievements in club football, because you are wrong.
What he achieved with Napoli at that time, is every bit as impressive as being the star player in a team of greats, at a time when they have very few serious rivals.
I don't think Messi has to perform at the World Cup to be regarded as one of the greatest players of all-time. Sure, Pele and Maradona are known for performing on the national stage, however the game of football is fast changing now. Some may not like it, but club football is more important than international football. Because of that, the Champions League is more important than the World Cup.
Also, you have to look at the quality of side that these players played in. The Brazil sides that Pele won with were light years ahead of this current Argentina side that Messi plays in. Whether the Argentina sides Maradona played in are a lot better than the ones Messi has played in or not, is debatable, however what we do know is that Maradona played in a side which was set up perfectly for him and revolved around him. Ideally, the Argentina manager would develop a system which compliments Messi, but at the moment, he hasn't done so. Due to that, he has to play a completely different role. He does play it well, but it's not what he's known for doing best.
It's also quite hypocrticial, in a way. There have been people in this thread saying that Messi cannot be one of the all-time greats until he plays well at a World Cup. I'm sure that most of those very same people wouldn't hesitate to call George Best an all-time great, despite the fact that he didn't even play in one during his footballing career.
Also, you have to look at the quality of side that these players played in. The Brazil sides that Pele won with were light years ahead of this current Argentina side that Messi plays in. Whether the Argentina sides Maradona played in are a lot better than the ones Messi has played in or not, is debatable, however what we do know is that Maradona played in a side which was set up perfectly for him and revolved around him. Ideally, the Argentina manager would develop a system which compliments Messi, but at the moment, he hasn't done so. Due to that, he has to play a completely different role. He does play it well, but it's not what he's known for doing best.
It's also quite hypocrticial, in a way. There have been people in this thread saying that Messi cannot be one of the all-time greats until he plays well at a World Cup. I'm sure that most of those very same people wouldn't hesitate to call George Best an all-time great, despite the fact that he didn't even play in one during his footballing career.
Oh Come on. It's competition dynamics have not. I already explained that before. I don't care how much more exposure you think media gives Messi. It doesn't change the facts on the ground. The dynamics of competitive football are the same as they always have been. Stars shine brightest at club level whilst winning things and find it much harder to muster that same level at international level and much harder to win things. That is why looking at both club and international level has always been the criteria to separate the footballing greats from each other.
The only time your argument will ever hold water is if international football ceased to exist.
The gap has lessened, i don't think anyone is disputing that. What i am suggesting is that people are now dismissing the merits of the WC way too easily. You are touting Ronaldinho as being better remembered for his time with Barca than his success with Brazil, and in that instance you may be right.
But that is only one stand out player of sublime skill making that type of impression in club football, and even then i would say it is arguable whether Ronaldinho has ever scored a more widely remembered goal for Barca, than the freekick for Brazil against England in the 2002 WC. Is it his defining moment as player? Probably not, but it is as generally memorable as anything he produced at club level, solely because it happened in a WC.
What the argument is, is whether the WC is any longer a greater competition than the CL and whether performances in the CL should now be considered more highly than those in the WC.
Imo no. Klose is an average striker who has made an irrefutable reputation for himself by performing in the WC. That is impossible to achieve in the CL, because there is no average player who can make such a worldwide impression. That can only indicate one thing, that the WC is still the pinnacle of football, and despite those who denounce it's worthiness, for me stats like those of Klose, plus the impact on the careers of those who may only ever play one WC is comparable to nothing in club football.
Most players are catapulted into the limelight by a good WC showing and there they will stay despite not necessarily living up to the billing for whichever club they sign for off the back of that. There is simply no club situation where that ever has, or ever will be the case.
Messi is top drawer and deserves his place amongst the greats, but don't think that being the star player amongst one of the best teams ever puts him apart from Maradona at club level.
Did you not realise that Maradona went to unfashionable Napoli, and inspired them to their only Italian titles. Not once but twice with 2 second places, in 4 seasons, followed by UEFA cup success during an unprecedented period of success for Napoil, when Italian football was at it's strongest?
May i point out that their last title was won defeating the Milan team of Rikjaard, Gullit and Van Basten, who are widely regarded as one of the greatest teams ever, in one of the most dominant periods for Italian football.
That would be comparable to Messi coming to England and inspiring Wigan to the 2 PL title 3/4 years ago, when our league was at it's strongest.
So don't think success in the CL makes what Messi has achieved with a European heavyweight, completely blows away Maradona's achievements in club football, because you are wrong.
What he achieved with Napoli at that time, is every bit as impressive as being the star player in a team of greats, at a time when they have very few serious rivals.
everyone talks about maradonas napoli as it was the first no good team to ever win something
when napoli won the two scudettos (86–87 and 89–90), also verona (90–91) and sampdoria (84–85) did
but no one talks about any of the players that brought those teams to win the scudetto as gods
this was veronas team according to wikipedia:
Claudio Garella; Mauro Ferroni, Luciano Marangon, Roberto Tricella, Silvano Fontolan, Hans-Peter Briegel, Fanna Pietro, Domenico Volpati, Antonio Di Gennaro, Giuseppe Galderisi, Preben Elkjær Larsen
and this one was sampdorias: Gianluca Pagliuca, Giulio Nuciari, Moreno Mannini, Pietro Vierchowod, Luca Pellegrini, Marco Lanna, Giovanni Dall'Igna, Ivano Bonetti, Giuseppe Dossena, Toninho Cerezo, Attilio Lombardo, Fausto Pari, Srečko Katanec, Giovanni Invernizzi,Alexei Mikhailichenko, Gianluca Vialli, Roberto Mancini, Marco Branca, Umberto Calcagno
now this gives some perspective to maradona's "epic" achievement
Correct. But to be considered their equal or better he has to. There is no escaping that reality.
If he doesn't win or at the very least perform very well at a world cup he will just be the same as Best & Di Stefano.
Perhaps in order to be widely considered better than those players he will have to be dominate at a World Cup, but that's really irrelevant to whether he actually IS the greatest ever. They're two separate questions, but they seem to get confused on here.
In my opinion, the only thing stopping Messi from being crowned the greatest of all time is the fact that for all of his plaudits, he has only done it with Barcelona. That Barcelona side is seriously a class apart from any other team right now in the world apart from the Spain national team.
Prove that he can do it by the end of his career without the likes of Xavi and Co. and I'll admit he's the greatest player of all time. For now, he's close but Maradona wins it for now.
Prove that he can do it by the end of his career without the likes of Xavi and Co. and I'll admit he's the greatest player of all time. For now, he's close but Maradona wins it for now.
Well cheesy, congratulations on missing the point a record amount of times in such a short post!
Do you not realise the contradiction in what you just stated. Best is regarded as one of the best ever despite playing at a time, when the WC was the only stage players had, to make such a worldwide impact.
What does that indicate to you about the impact he must have made on football across the world, despite not having a WC stage upon which to state his claim?
Best was not criticised for failing to produce on the biggest stage, he made his mark despite not having the benefit of a WC opportunity at all, ever!
Where do people get the idea that club football is now more important than the WC. Where is the evidence for that claim? Mostly from British fans who refuse to follow England because of their ineptitude, or other British fans whose teams have a very small chance of ever getting to one.
Do you honestly think the CL is bigger in the states than the WC when the US national team is playing? You are falling into the trap of believing because the English have lost all patriotism, that every other country across the world feels the same. Absolute bollocks! The impact on players careers from a good showing in only one WC, dwarfs into insignificance anything that can be achieved at club level within the same period.
So the impact simply cannot be considered the same. The WC is still the pinnacle because it encompasses the whole world of football, not just a few clubs in Europe who happen to have signed most of the best players. That seems to be waht is most important to some people, whether all of the best players play int he CL so it must be the best competition. Rubbish, a few elite clubs in Europe, do not represent the interests of an entire planet, that is the point most of you tend to miss, and it is why your judgement is flawed imo.
Have no clue what your point is Marco, im afraid. Did i say it was the only time in Italian history it had ever happened?
My only point was to highlight that the 2 Scudetto's, 2 second place finishes and a Uefa cup is the only success Napoli had had, and a large part of that and attracting the likes of Careca were down to the presence of Maradona.
Saying he did nothing at club level compared to Messi was wrong imo, so i contested it. It would be like dismissing Clough's EC wins with Forest, because they were not the only English team to win it.
Being part of possibly the greatest club side ever in a time when they have no serious rivals is all well and good, but what Maradona achieved at a time when Italian football was producing some fantastic sides and had most of the best players is an achievement that should not be overlooked.
You're gonna have to recant that. I can't recall any runner-up who are as strong as the current Real Madrid side. This is one of the best sides they have had, they broke the record for points accumulated in la liga, and still finished second.
That is the dispute actually. Chief is setting up the world cup as an absolute criteria, so far removed from club football it cannot possibly compare.
I am saying the world cup is still the greatest stage in world football, that Messi is not quite at the level of Pele and Maradona just yet, but that he nonetheless could be even if he doesn't win the world cup. It would 'just' require some extraordinary achievement at club level.
In isolation, 1 WC > 1 CL, for sure. But when we start talking trios and more of CL triumphs, I think it changes.
I disagree. I think there are plenty of players without world cup glory who will be remembered a lot more fondly and longer than Klose. Laudrup, Bastituta, just off the top of my head. There is no singular event that is as memorable for them, but their club exploits do and will trump Klose's legacy.
Granted, Klose achieved his legacy with much less work, which is proof that the world cup is the most illustrious competition. But I am not arguing against that. I am arguing against the proposition that it is the competition sine qua non and that the best must by definition excel there to prove themselves the best.
Elkjær was a bit of a god for what he did with Verona, tbh.
Damn straight. Chain smoker and chain goal scorer (is that a word?). He was brilliant.
What I interpret (whether the author intends or not) from this post is that fans are fickle and that if you don't play in a WC and have a decent tournament you essentially don't exist (unless your Best, who's club performances induced circle jerks in the Favelas of Rio despite there being just the one b&w telly in the city
).And you're calling someone contradictory.
my point is that maradona's napoli isn't the only "no good team" to ever win the scudeto
simply because that "italian football that was producing some fantastic sides" saw verona and sampdoria win the scudeto for their first and oly time in their unglorious history
so, again, what maradona did, wasnt unheard of
apotheosis, to be honest I only agree with the first three words of your last post..
First, I have one word for you: Chill.
Second, after you calm down you should read marcos' post again.
Third, it's not like the winner in the debate will win a million dollars, so you don't have to lie about it, and I'm pretty sure I didn't say Maradona did nothing at club level.
Fourth, Messi won the things Maradona won (or its equivalent) more times already, in addition to a bunch of things that Maradona never won at club level. This is a fact.
Fifth, so when it comes to club level trophies doesn't count, the squad you're playing with does. But when it comes to international level, this is suddenly not applicable?
First, I have one word for you: Chill.
Second, after you calm down you should read marcos' post again.
Third, it's not like the winner in the debate will win a million dollars, so you don't have to lie about it, and I'm pretty sure I didn't say Maradona did nothing at club level.
Fourth, Messi won the things Maradona won (or its equivalent) more times already, in addition to a bunch of things that Maradona never won at club level. This is a fact.
Fifth, so when it comes to club level trophies doesn't count, the squad you're playing with does. But when it comes to international level, this is suddenly not applicable?
I don't think Napoli was quite that bad. Three years before Diego came, they finished 3rd. And they had players like Ferrara and De Napoli and even a young Zola as Maradona's understudy when they won their second title.
Maybe more comparable to lifting Aston Villa to the top spot.
But even though he had these accomplishments, there are nevertheless allowances that must be made. He failed to inspire Barcelona, a better team with lesser competition, to similar achievement and tbf, he struggled in the Serie A to begin with.
And this is worth bearing in mind imo. He was obviously still a huge star when he went to Napoli, having twice been the world's most expensive player. But he was 24 when he moved to Napoli, younger than Messi is now and still hadn't really done any of the things that most people place him into the echelon of the best ever for. Messi has achieved far more at a similar age. If he keeps this up, it will be something else. Just as Maradona's Napoli and WC exploits were something else.
Good point.
Wasn't he bought off the back of a great WC in 86?
Classic case of missing the point.
My argument is that the world cup counts when you want to determine whether a player is the greatest ever or not. That its still used as the bench mark to separate the greats from each other.
You on the other hand are claiming it doesn't count any more.
Nah, he had been at Verona for several seasons by then.
Of course it counts. It's not an absolute criteria anymore than Messi having to win the title with Mallorca is.
Based on what? They have won nothing yet. they have great players but they are still only a developing team with some great players. So if we are looking for achievements at club level as a mark of greatness, this team still has it all to prove.
When i say no serious rivals, i mean generally. Both Milan clubs are not that strong, the English clubs are looking weaker than at any point in the last 5 years, so really even if Madrid are their strongest rival at present, there is not really many serious contenders from anywhere else.
Munich possibly, but on the whole there is no longer a couple of strong teams from a 3 or 4 of the top leagues who can reasonably considered potential champions. So the point was general, and still applies even you rate Madrid as better than their current achievements.
Bullshit. A Messi wining a title with a Mallorca bears no equality nor equivalence with a person having to win or at worst excel at a world cup ala Cruyff as criteria for him to ever be considered an equal or superior than Pele or Maradona. Dress it up all you want but your argument is simply based on the ridiculous premise that the world cup does not count as criteria for separating greats and determining the greatest ever amongst them anymore.
Well, then you've set up a nice circular argument for yourself.
A: Barcelona being the best when they have no serious rivals is all well and good.
B: Objection: Real Madrid are serious rivals.
C: No, because Barcelona keep beating them.
Basically, if Real beat Barca and barca then beat Real, Barca would have more pedigree because they beat a side with stronger credentials than if they just keep winning?
An argument that proposes that as long as Barca keep winning everything, they can have no serious rivals because there are no one else around winning things is no argument at all.
- Status