Those who think club football alone will elevate Messi to a level higher than Maradona and Pele need to remember Di Stefano. No one at club level has achieved what he did. Yet even he is placed below them.
Lionel Messi
- Thread starter cesc's_mullet
- Start date
- Status
American commentators.Going absolutely mad @ 7:20.
Mental. Absolutely mental.
Oh and Messi did well too
Unfortunately for you a whole load of coaches and ex professionals have already backed him as the greatest of all time, before hes only 25 too.
Might seem ridiculous to some people but it will happen whether they like it or not.
Right on. Additionally, its about how you are remembered by football people (fans, coaches, players, etc). With all those high profile endorsements as the best ever he has already and the media attention around his extraordinary achievements and being portrayed as some creature from outer space playing football with humans, there's no question he'll go down as the best ever. This is how these auras are created, its how it happened for Pele and Maradona, its how its happening for Messi.
It's not unfortunate for me. I lose nothing. Bottom line if he doesn't win a world cup only fan boys will rate him above Maradona and Pele. Not anyone objective or serious.
For when you want to bring up club football. Let him beat or equal Di Stefano's contribution to 5 European cups before he gets crowned as the best ever at club level. Especially now that there is a real possibility Barca wont be as strong as before sans Guardiola.
For me people are all too eager to crown Messi the best ever when he is career is not even half way through.
famboys like the ex pro's who played with and against the likes of Maradona?
What you mean is 'people who don't share my view'.
Theres alot of people who won't go with your barometer for a footballers status, you'll just need to accept that.
I disagree. The world cup is a unique challenge where you get taken away from your comfort zones and teams build solely fo suit your needs, and into a slightly alien environment with a small amount of games to rise to the occasion and knit a bunch together into champions. It takes a certain quality to succeed in that environment which isn't ever really tested at club level. On that basis alone the player who is the best ever needs to prove he can be the best at thid unique challenge too. On top of that, it is the games biggest and most important prize.
So yeah, for me, maybe not win, but a player must dominate world cups to be the best ever. Unless he plays for too small a nation. Messi doesn't.
Imagine if Ali never inspired his team to basketball's biggest prize. Or Ali didn't win his sport's. Or if the Australian cricket team never won the cricket world cup (they won it thrice).
Yes. I mean we've had the likes of Souness claiming Dalglish was superior to Maradona.....
No. I mean fan boys. The type who rush to a Messi thread to praise to the highest heavens a hat trick against a Brazilian olympic team. As fantastic at it was....
Anyone who is objective goes by that barometer. For its the barometer that got Maradona and Pele rated the best ahead of everyone else in the first place. It's only fan boys who try their level best daily to try and shift the goal post in favour of Messi. Way before his time to reach that echelon comes. Personally I don't see what they are in such a hurry for.
If Messi is the best ever by his career's end he'd have proved it.
What about that club football presents a unique challenge by requiring an individual to perform week in, week out for years in order to achieve both personally and team-wise? How about that? You're absolutely right about the WC, but you're wrong when you think that it is rational to claim that that is the one and only measure of how good a player is - that is just about as irrational an argument you can come up with. And, you're mistaken, Michael Jordan is considered the best basketballer ever because of his performances for his club, not USA at the olympics - and the biggest prize is the "ring", which is a club achievement.
I wonder if he regrets not choosing Spain, he'd have a much more valid claim if he has a Euro and WC to his name.
Again its this 'anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable' attitude.
Its nothing of the sort, you've just chosen to ignore anyone who doesnt share your views. You're probably going to find yourself in the minority more and more as the years pass. You're having a go at people for giving him credit for his career, but you're slow to race in and say 'i agree' or 'exactly' to anyone who says anything even slightly negative about him.
I wouldnt say he was the greatest or whatever, but i wouldn't be as dismissive of the opinions of those who think he is.
I disagree with Amols WC post too, its the same alien environment for every player, football is NOT that complicated. You go, you play, and the TEAM who does enough to win, wins. End of story.
Wrong. I've just chosen to ignore those who are cleayrly not objective. The type who crown Messi the best ever before his time. The type who trumpet up club level above world cups and Euros. Forgetting that club level has always been a comfort zone for the best players. A reason why the likes of Ronaldo and Messi never look miles ahead of everyone else in international football like they do at club level.
At club level the platform is primed for the best to excel in optimum conditions. At international level the playing field is way more level.
He has never been Spanish. So he will never regret that.
You're like a broken record stuck in the 80's.
Rather I'm stuck in the real world. The world in which the football does not rise and set at European club level. The world in which Messi is still to prove he is the best ever. A thing I believe he has a good chance of achieving by the time his career winds down.
By boiling down being the greatest ever to winning a WC, you're rather living in a world in which football rises and sets at WC level. The funny part is how you go on about that weird delusion being "objectivity" and "seriousness".
Except that this isn't always true... Many great teams have been built around a core of players that played their club football together. See Spain 2010 for the most recent and obvious example.
Others include:
- the great Magical Magyars of the 50s of which 6 of the usual starting XI played for Budapest Honvéd (Grosics, Lóránt, Bozsik, Kocsis, Puskás, Czibor), all 6 started in the 1954 WC Final.
- "Garrincha's Brazil" that won in 1962, starting XI consisted out of 4 Santos players (Gilmar, Zito, Mauro, Pelé) and 4 Botafogo players (Nílton Santos, Didi, Zagallo, Garrincha) and after Pelé's injury in the 2nd game the balance went 3-5 for Botafogo with Amarildo coming in; these also started in the Final.
- the Total Football Dutch team of the 70s, based on Ajax players (Krol, Suurbier, Haan, Neeskens, Cruyff, Rep), all 6 started in the 1974 WC Final.
- the German team of the early 70s that won the EC and WC, based on Bayern Munich players (Maier, Schwarzenbeck, Beckenbauer, Breitner, Hoeneß, G. Müller), all 6 started in the 1974 WC Final.
- the iconic Italy team that won in 1982, based on 6 Juventus players (Zoff, Scirea, Gentile, Cabrini, Tardelli, P. Rossi), guess what, all 6 started in the Final.
- that great defensive Italy team that reached the final in 1994, based on 6 Milan players (Baresi, Maldini, Costacurta, Tassotti, Albertini, Donadoni); only 4 of them started in the Final (+ Massaro who also played for Milan but hadn't been a starter before the quarter-final).
- the exciting German team of 2010 (and now), based on 5 Bayern Munich players (Lahm, Badstuber, Schweinsteiger, T. Müller, Klose) and since then Mario Gómez has become more and more of a fixture gradually phasing out Klose and Boateng has joined Bayern.
6 seems to be a magical recurring number here by the way.
The stand-out exceptions here are Brazil 1958, 1970 and 1982, Argentina 1986 and 1990 (hardly all-time great teams, but there you go), France 1998 and Brazil 2002 (also not especially great).
It's not a coincidence that the standard of international football has collapsed over the past decade when most national teams consist of an amalgam of seperate club players. Even the Brazilians can't get away with it anymore.
Are all these teams' and players' achievements any less great because they had the advantage of being built around a core of same club players? I think not.
Yes but in football, the world cup is, unlike in basketball, the biggest prize. Jordan achieved his. Messi has to achieve his.
And, I never said one wasnt important. But that the greatest ever should be able to do both.
If by biggest you mean prestigious, then that's very arguable... it was more of a fact in Pele's time. But the WC is not the most competitive anymore, European club football is, and the best in any sport are judged on their performances and achievements in the most competitive environments. That is the rationale behind Jordan being known as one of the greatest sportsmen ever... he totally dominated consistently in the most competitive environment in a way that no one has before. Having to compare the NBA which is competed for all season every year by the best players in the game of basketball being paid big bucks to do it to the WC in order to back up your point shows you just how flimsy that point is. It is based on an irrationality you can't defend. WC is a great achievement and any player who performs and wins it with their country gets a plus to their name, but claiming it is a "must-win" in order to be the best player ever is complete silliness. How you perform every week all year long at the highest level says a million times more.
There's nothing objective about valuing the World Cup over all other competitions put together.
I'm not sure how competitive the club football environment is when Barcelona reach 90-100 points for four consecutive seasons and dominate possession to unprecedented levels in the history of the game.
Competitive means they're competing for trophies with the very best, resourceful and organized football teams out there with the best players on the planet. This Barca side obliterate all that competition because they're that good - possibly the best side in history to a very big extent because they have the best player ever in their ranks playing at unprecedented levels almost every week. That's the whole point of being the best at anything, not just football.
There's nothing irrational or flimsy about it at all. You seem to base your judgement only on reforming week in week out, even when most of those games are against the mallorca's of this world and even when his team is utterly ridiculously good, a team which is without him the heart and soul of the European and world champions.
Fact is, as insignificant as you consider it (giving players a measly plus for performing in it/winning it) it is football's biggest honor. By biggest I mean prestigious. And the fact that you usually get thrown into this situation for a short period with enormous pressure is extremely interesting and tests many facets of an individual that week in week out club football doesnt.
It's okay, everyone gives different things different weightage. There's nothing wrong with either stance.
I live in the world in which football rise and sets after impact on both club and international level have been counted and complied to select the best player to ever play the game.By boiling down being the greatest ever to winning a WC, you're rather living in a world in which football rises and sets at WC level. The funny part is how you go on about that weird delusion being "objectivity" and "seriousness".
So how that doesn't underline being serious and objective. Only a person like you knows.
What happens if a 'next greatest' player in the world is born in Trinidad or India or New Zealand?
Will he be scrutinised for not even qualifying for World Cup?
He should be to an extent. Take the case of George Best for example. He didn't qualify to a single WC or EC tournament, although Northern Ireland qualified for the 1958, 1982 and 1986 World Cups, just before and after his international career (1964-1977).
Of course no British person would ever scrutinise him for this, even though it makes perfect sense in that they managed it 3 times without him, and so he can hide under the excuse of playing for a small nation.
How many on here would agree with that assessment?
How many know enough to agree or disagree with that? It's a bit of a blanket statement... For all I know there's a drastic difference in player material available, or coaching.
A bit facile, it seems to me.
A bit facile, it seems to me.
Dude, everyone plays against the Mallorca's - not just Messi and Barca - and to actually win trophies you have to perform against the United's, Real's, Milan's. You think playing against the Mallorca's is easy just coz Messi smashes them routinely. Its not, no one has ever been good enough to do that and that's why he's considered the best ever by many of his peers and well-known coaches who've played the game.
Your logic about Messi playing with good players would apply more directly to Pele whose WC's were won with a team that won a WC without him, why not use that against him? Because it seems these arguments are tailored to exclude Messi lol.
What's more telling about that logic, though, is that you're attempting to dismiss Messi's achievements at club level because you think its his team that did it, but then in the same breath you're requiring him to win a WC in order to prove he's the best ever as if the team doesn't matter anymore. You need to understand that football isn't tennis, its a team sport. A single players' performance in any team (just as for Messi at barca) will not matter a single bit if their team as a whole doesn't outperform their opponents. That's why the argument that Messi HAS to win a WC with Argentina in order to prove he's the best player ever is a very very stupid one: because Messi's performances under the interesting conditions you speak of will not decide by itself whether Argentina wins or not.
Not to take anything away from Messi but if those comments are made before/after a game against him then they shouldn't be counted upon.
Usually they do say one of the greatest though. Strange how few in England have said he is.
The fact that people make that comment before he's 25 is absurd. Imagining saying that about Mike Tyson at young age? You don't know what will happen with the rest of his career.
No your argument is that a player HAS to win a single knock-out tournament held every four years, which means you live in a world in which football is a one v one game and rises and sets after impact at a single tournament. That's not seriousness. That's stupidity.
Yes.
However, hand on heart, can you say you've seen an individual performance from Messi at a major international tournament that matches the 5-0 drubbing of Real by Barcelona a few seasons back? I don't have a problem seperating individual performances from team accomplishments, but Messi regularly underperforms.
Messi was excellent in the Argentina Brazil game (I would have gone if it wasn't last notice). He needs to do more of that when it matters, and I think people will give him his fair dues then, irrespective of team accomplishments. Till then, why the rush in crowning him best ever, when all that does is spark irrelevant and tiring discussions like this?
That's the thing. If Messi was rubbish in the Argentina shirt, like Ronaldo is for Portugal, I'd be the first one doubting his status as best ever. But, be it friendly or competitive match for Argentina, he always performs at a level that no single player I've seen does; he still separates himself from the rest like he does at club level. He always shows he's inherently superior as a player to anyone I've ever seen, and I suspect its the same for all those coaches and players that have said he's the best ever. I posted his WC performances a few pages back, he was the best individual performer for me at the WC... just that his team got knocked out at the quarters and so he can't have as valid a claim as Forlan for the award as best player at the tournament - and rightly so.
And I never got around to watching those
So my memory isn't that sharp, so I checked best performers at South Africa in Google, and Messi's name doesn't even enter discussion in most lists. Here's one list for example
http://www.soccerjones.com/soccer-news/world-cup/top-10-player-performances-at-world-cup-2010
To be fair, most players in that list made the quarterfinals at least, which may count against Messi, seeing his team crashed out to Germany at that stage. So there's obviously a bias linking his performance to the team's progress, that's prevalent in these types of discussions, which I'm trying to avoid when judging him. How did he do in the last Copa America?
After the first couple of matches I'd have agreed with you. But if fizzled out for him after that and there were perhaps 10-20 players who had better tournaments.
I don't know about that. He was good, better than the two other major stars that were supposed to lighten up the tournament apart from the Spanish boys-namely Rooney and Ronaldo. But he wasn't excellent by his own standards.
Given the hype at the time, all three of them failed to live up to expectations. He certainly wasn't playing at the level he now shows for Argentina over the past year or so, whether that transforms into a major tournament remains to be seen.
The problem he faces at the next world cup is that he can have a brilliant game as he did against Ecuador, Brazil and the likes, however because of the pathetic defence behind their forwards he could score/set up 3 goals but that defence can (easily) concede 3+ goals against a good team where they end losing the game, what then? has he lived up to expectations?
That's the only issue I have with this whole "winning the world cup for Argentina" thing, whether they win anything will still depend on if they can get the basics of defending right (they sure as hell haven't), Messi isn't gonna attack and defend for that team.
He would still be scrutinized on what he does at international level. The world cup is not the only competition at international level. But to be considered amongst the best, you must at the very least excel at international level. Especially at a world cup on a personal level if your team is one that makes it world cups.
It's a shame really that this isn't a world cup year. Imagine an 82-goal-season Messi going into the world cup. It's hard to see him hitting such form in a season again.
TBH he probably will do it again. Next season his supporting cast will be even superior, with Sanchez settled, Pedro and Villa fit again. I will be shocked if he doesn't equal his current form or even better it as he gets older. Especially if he keeps his remarkable fitness record.
That is a complete lie. At the last world cup for example he did not look any where near the best player on the planet bar none.
Like a Argentina he did almost nothing. The side was never at the races.And I never got around to watching those
So my memory isn't that sharp, so I checked best performers at South Africa in Google, and Messi's name doesn't even enter discussion in most lists. Here's one list for example
http://www.soccerjones.com/soccer-news/world-cup/top-10-player-performances-at-world-cup-2010
To be fair, most players in that list made the quarterfinals at least, which may count against Messi, seeing his team crashed out to Germany at that stage. So there's obviously a bias linking his performance to the team's progress, that's prevalent in these types of discussions, which I'm trying to avoid when judging him. How did he do in the last Copa America?
- Status